Capitol Alert

The entire Assembly Republican caucus has authored and signed a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger urging him not to consider settling lawsuits with prisoner-rights activists that would result in the early release of inmates.

"It is not difficult to imagine that the crime wave associated with a mass release of felons, with little or no supervision, will be unprecedented," the caucus wrote. "The impacts in our communities will be potentially devastating. We cannot over emphasize our concern about any settlement."

See the full letter here.

Former GOP candidate for California governor Bill Simon signed up early as Rudy Giuliani's point man in the state. Today, a day after Giuliani threw his political weight behind Sen. John McCain, Simon followed suit.

The McCain campaign announced that Simon, who lost to then-Gov. Gray Davis in 2002, will be the campaign's national policy co-chair.

For Giuliani, Simon served as national policy director.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney announced today that he will begin airing a television ad in California, starting Friday.

The ad compares him to Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and makes no mention of Sen. John McCain, Romney's chief rival in the Republican race for the nomination.

"Hillary Clinton wants to run the largest enterprise in the world. She hasn't run a corner store. She hasn't run a state. She hasn't run a city," Romney says in the ad. "She has never run anything. And the idea that she could learn to be president as an internship just doesn't make any sense."

"I have spent my life running things," he counters.

Watch the ad below:

Curiouser and curiouser.

Of the 17 Democratic legislators who have contributed to Proposition 93, only Assembly Democrats Karen Bass and Ted Lieu gave $50,000.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, in October, asked members of his Democratic caucus to give slightly less than that, $45,000, to the term limits initiative.

Six legislators have chipped in exactly that -- $45,000.

Not a random figure, perhaps. Donors of $50,000 risk having to disclose their names in campaign advertisements.

If numerous folks hit that threshold, ads must list the top two, according to the state Fair Political Practices Commission.

So, you won't spot their names on TV ads, but the $45,000 donors are ...

(Envelope, please.)

Senate Democrat Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento, and Assembly Democrats Mike Eng of Monterey Park, Alberto Torrico of Newark, Dave Jones of Sacramento, Fiona Ma of San Francisco and Hector de la Torre of South Gate.

State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner said he has been threatened by legislative leaders for leading the fight against a ballot initiative to alter term limits.

"In my case, this is just a complicated, difficult path for me," said Poizner, who has contributed $2.5 million of his personal fortune to fight Proposition 93 on Tuesday's ballot.

"It definitely causes great concern with regard to the threats I've received from legislative leaders about what they might do to my Department of Insurance because of my active involvement with the No on 93 campaign."

The Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger must approve the annual budget for Poizner's department.

Poizner, regarded as a potential GOP gubernatorial candidate for 2010, declined to elaborate on the threats.

"I'll just say there have been direct and indirect threats that have been delivered to me, crystal clear, about be careful of what the Legislature can and will do to you if you continue to push so hard on Proposition 93," he said.

Pressed to name names, Poizner declined.

"I'll just leave it at that. The threats have been delivered in a crystal clear way."

Poizner is a Republican while the Legislature's top bosses are Democrats -- Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez of Los Angeles, and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata of Oakland.

Steve Maviglio, Nunez's spokesman, dismissed Poizner's accusation as ridiculous.

"It's hogwash, complete hogwash," he said. "Most of his department's money is in special funds, anyhow, so you can't really even touch it."

Maviglio said contacts between the Assembly speaker and Poizner have been infrequent but cordial.

"The only thing that Steve Poizner should be threatened by is the continuation of his reputation as a political lightweight who runs losing campaigns," Maviglio said in a written statement.

Alicia Trost, Perata's spokeswoman, said she knew of no threats but wanted to check with him before commenting.

Perata could not be reached immediately, Trost said.

California is the biggest prize on the delegate map during next Tuesday's primaries and caucuses, when voters in more than 20 states will head to the polls.

But the process by which Democrats and Republicans collect delegates here is anything but simple.

For starters, the Democrats and Republicans have different systems of picking delegates.

For Republicans, there are 170 delegates at stake next Tuesday.

Three delegates will be distributed to the candidate who gets the most votes in each of California’s 53 congressional districts. That adds up to 159 delegates.

The winner of the statewide vote gets another 11 delegates.

The state's final three delegates – state party Chairman Ron Nehring, national committeewoman Barbara Alby and national committeeman Tim Morgan – go to the GOP summer convention uncommitted, regardless of Tuesday's results.

The magic number for the GOP candidates to win the nomination is 1,191 delegates. Sweeping California coud bring a candidate more than 10 percent of the way there.

For Democrats, there are 370 delegates on the line Tuesday. The magic number to win the nomination: 2,025.

Of those, 241 are allotted by the state's 53 congressional districts. The candidates will divide those delegates (which range from three to six delegates per district) proportionally, according to the results in each district.

As long as a candidate receives at least 15 percent of a district’s vote, he or she is guaranteed one delegate.

Another 129 delegates will be divided proportionally, according to the statewide vote.

That divided system is likely to benefit Sen. Barack Obama, who polls have shown trailing Sen. Hillary Clinton by double digits in the state.

For instance, if Obama wins 40 percent of the vote everywhere in the state, he would still collect approximately 148 delegates (compared to 222 for Clinton).

While the Republicans give California only three uncommitted delegates, Democrats give the state 71 slots (occupied primarily by members of Congress, the U.S. Senate, party lines and the like).

• 'T' is for taxes
Senate leader Don Perata, D-Oakland, is upping his rhetoric in support of increased taxes in the state to close the budget hole. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Perata said the Legislature should consider a temporary tax to balance the books.

''We should try to figure out how to put a (temporary tax measure) on the November ballot,'' he said.

That will be a tough sell for Republican lawmakers, 46 of 47 of whom have signed no tax pledges.

• 'T' is for two cents
Tom Stienstra, the outdoors writer for the Chronicle, has a suggestion for those opposed to closing state parks to balance the budget.

Send in your two cents to the governor. Literally.

"The baseline math is that the budget the governor sent to the legislature cuts $9 million from state parks, closing close 48 park units. For 37.5 million state residents, that figures to 24 cents each per year. That figures to 2 cents a month for each resident," he writes.

There's no mention of the 41 cent postage.

• 'T' is for tons
Anthony Wright at Health Access, the health care consumer rights group, has a roundup of all the post-mortem reactions to the demise of AB X1 1 in the Senate Health Committee.

•'T' is for too few
As in votes. Perata took up his legislation to require lenders to notify mortgage borrowers by mail 120, 90 and 45 days before any significant hike in monthly payments.

But the bill, because of an urgency clause, required 27 votes (and thus GOP support) and couldn't muster sufficient support.

Every Democrat in the upper house backed the measure (Sen. Ron Calderon, D-Montebello, abstained at first but ultimately came around). So did moderate GOP Sen. Abel Maldonado.

Which left the measure one vote shy.

There were no more Republican votes to be had -- just like during last year's budget standoff -- and so Perata had to shelve the legislation, SB 926. Senate Democrats have said they will reintroduce the measure again.

Former Rep. Doug Ose will officially launch his bid to return to Congress this Friday, hoping to fill the House seat vacated by Rep. John Doolittle.

Ose, a Republican who served three terms in Congress in a neighboring district, will make his announcement on the steps of the Placer County Courthouse in Auburn on Friday, according to an e-mailed announcement obtained by Capitol Alert.

The move sets up a showdown with former state Sen. Rico Oller, a conservative Republican who announced his plans to seek Doolittle's seat earlier this month.

Ose's campaign declined to comment on or to confirm Friday's event.

Republicans of River City, a Sacramento-based GOP group, sent an invitation to its membership late Wednesday morning inviting them to attend Friday’s event.

Carl Burton, president of the moderate Republican club, which passed a resolution earlier this month urging an Ose candidacy, said he learned of Friday’s campaign kickoff from Ose’s campaign team.

“I want to make sure that when (our members) go into work tomorrow morning that they know they need to ask to take off work Friday morning and attend the event, if at all possible,” Burton said.

Ose, known as a more moderate GOP member, will face off against Oller, who earned a reputation during his stint in Sacramento as a strong conservative. A third candidate, Air Force reservist and security consultant Eric Egland, who was featured in Doolittle’s reelection ads in 2006, also has announced his candidacy.

Rep. John Doolittle is leaving the congressional seat after nine terms in office, following growing unease among Republicans, both in and out of the district, that an ongoing FBI investigation into Doolittle’s ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff weakened his chances of reelection.

Earlier this month, Doolittle announced his decision "to complete my term and ... retire."

Whoever wins the GOP nomination will face the presumptive Democratic nominee, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Charlie Brown, whom Doolittle narrowly beat in 2006 in the heavily Republican district.

Brown essentially started his 2008 campaign the day after the 2006 race ended. On Wednesday, he announced he raised $200,000 in the fourth quarter of 2007 and reported having $483,000 cash on hand at the end of the year.

Former California Secretary of State Bill Jones was canvassing the Capitol on Tuesday, seeking out new legislative supporters for his favored presidential candidate – GOP front-runner John McCain.

Jones, who backed McCain in 2000 much to the chagrin of the GOP establishment, is the Arizona senator’s California state chair in 2008.

Among the members Jones spoke with was Sen. Tom McClintock, the conservative Thousand Oaks Republican, who is well-liked by California Republican activists.

McClintock’s favored candidate, actor and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, dropped out of the race last week.

So did Jones’ visit persuade McClintock to switch political camps mid-primary?

“Absolutely not,” said McClintock. “I’m a Fred Thompson man,” though even Fred Thompson is no longer a Fred Thompson man.

McClintock said he had received his ballot and is “still staring at it and pondering that very question” of who to vote for. He's thought about Ron Paul. He's also considering a protest vote. No chance he'll be balloting for McCain.

Even with McClintock unconvinced, Jones, who is now in the ethanol business, got a boost on Tuesday. His company, Pacific Ethanol, received a $23 million grant from the federal government for a demonstration plant in Oregon.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is launching a new television ad in California's Democratic strongholds featuring the endorsement of Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy.

Featuring footage of President Kennedy and man on the moon, Caroline Kennedy, who endorsed Obama over the weekend in an op-ed in the New York Times, compares Obama to her father saying, "Once we had a President who made people feel hopeful about America and brought us together to do great things."

"Today Barack Obama gives us that same chance," she adds.

Of course, Obama rival Sen. Hillary Clinton has some Kennedys of her own. In an op-ed in Tuesday's Los Angeles Times, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Kerry Kennedy backed Clinton.

"By now you may have read or heard that our cousin, Caroline Kennedy, and our uncle, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, have come out in favor of Sen. Barack Obama. We, however, are supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton because we believe that she is the strongest candidate for our party and our country," they wrote.

As for the TV ad, it is airing in the Los Angeles and San Francisco media markets, as well as national cable television, according to the campaign.

Watch the ad below:

A new Los Angeles Times/CNN/Politico poll shows Proposition 93 with a narrow lead, 50 percent to 46 percent in next Tuesday's California presidential primary.

The poll interviewed 1,218 likely primary voters Wednesday through Sunday and has a 3 percent margin of error.

If the measure doesn't pass, both Democratic legislative leaders, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, would be termed out at the end of 2008. So would Senate GOP chief Dick Ackerman.

Find more on the poll here.

The Assembly, in an unusual turn of events, erased all traces that it voted today to kill a controversial cocaine bill.

The tally immediately was expunged, ensuring that it can't be used by challengers in this year's elections.

For the curious, however, the final vote was 37-33 -- four short of the number needed for passage.

The contested measure, Assembly Bill 337, would have reduced criminal penalties for possessing crack cocaine or purchasing it for the purpose of sale. It would have increased similar penalties for powder cocaine.

Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally, a Compton Democrat who proposed the bill, has argued for years that stiffer penalties for crack than powder cocaine disproportionately affects African Americans and low-income groups. His bill would have equalized the penalties.

No Republican voted for AB 337.

Most Democrats supported the bill. Those voting against it were Juan Arambula, Fresno; Mike Feuer, Los Angeles; Lloyd Levine, Van Nuys; Ted Lieu, Torrance; and Lois Wolk, Davis.

Five Democrats did not vote: Cathleen Galgiani, Stockton; Betty Karnette, Long Beach; Pedro Nava, Santa Barbara; Ira Ruskin, Redwood City; and Nell Soto, Pomona.

Minutes after AB 337 died, Majority Floor Leader Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, moved to expunge the vote.

Her motion passed, 46-28.

by Peter Hecht

Longshot Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who recently let Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have it over the governor's proposed cuts in education and health care, is now telling Schwarzenegger to sign onto his plan to help bail out California's ailing economy.

In a letter today to Schwarzenegger, Edwards calls on the Republican governor to embrace his call for federal assistance to financially beleaguered states, including California. Edwards' plan calls for $2.4 billion in federal aid to help the state out of its budget crisis.

Edwards' letter follows:

January 29, 2008
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

Sincerely,
John Edwards

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today announced his opposition to the community college initiative, saying it would worsen the state's budget problems.

"California's budget system is dysfunctional and in serious need of reform," Schwarzenegger said in a statement released by his political organization. "Year after year funding for education, health care, public safety and other important programs is threatened because of fluctuating tax revenue and auto-pilot spending. Proposition 92 will only worsen the problem."

Schwarzenegger said Proposition 92 would lock in nearly a billion dollars in mandated spending over the next three years without any way to pay for it.

Proposition 92 would make several changes to state law affecting state funding, student fees and governance. It would give community college organizations more voting power on the California Community Colleges board of governors and grant the board full power over administrative expenses, such as making appointments and setting salaries for executive officers.

The measure also proposes to lower student fees from $20 per unit to $15, meaning a full-time student would pay $450 per academic year instead of the current $600.

If newspaper editorial boards had their way at the polls next Tuesday, Propositions 92 and 93 would be handily defeated, while Propositions 94 through 97 would lose narrowly.

The so-called newspaper editorial primary for the Feb. 5 ballot has two clear winners: the No on 92 and No on 93 campaigns, which, respectively, collected three and four times as many daily paper editorials on their side as the proponents of the measures.

But do they actually matter?

Barbara O’Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and the Media at California State University Sacramento, said papers’ endorsements are still significant, though “not as much as they used to be,” as readership has declined and news sources have proliferated.

Campaigns, even those who haven’t collected the most endorsements, seem to think they have an impact.

The latest advertisement for Proposition 93, the term limits measure, features prominently the backing of the Los Angeles Times, the state’s largest paper. (See that ad here.) Overall the measure has the backing of only eight daily papers, compared to 39 that have editorialized against the initiative.

The opponents of Prop. 93 are also featuring newspaper endorsements in their ads, touting the backing of the San Jose Mercury News, San Diego Union-Tribune and Fresno Bee in this ad.

O’Connor said for many voters, particularly older ones, newspapers add credibility to political ads. “They have an impact, because they are still run on ads in television,” she said.

Count Theresa Wheeler, a spokeswoman for the No on 92 campaign, among those who think the endorsements matter. The measure would lower community college fees, among other things.

"In the case of Proposition 92, the diversity of papers coming out (against the measure) is of interest. A lot of papers that differ in their views have come together...it appeals to a lot of different readership," she said.

The No on 92 campaign has featured newspaper editorials in its radio ads.

The two sides of the Indian gambling expansion measures, Proposition 94 through 97, have split prominent newspaper endorsements, with 15 papers in favor (including the Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Daily News and San Diego Union-Tribune) and 23 against (including The Sacramento Bee, San Francisco Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News).

Below is the head count for six measures on the Feb. 5 ballot. The seventh, Proposition 91, was abandoned by its sponsors and has few supporters.

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton today picked up the endorsement of Maxine Waters, a veteran congresswoman and powerful voice in Los Angeles' African American community.

In a conference call with Clinton, Waters said she chose to endorse the former first lady because "she is a no-nonsense, experienced public policy maker who has demonstrated an ability to solve complex problems."

Clinton, who praised Waters as a fighter against urban poverty, said she hopes to renew America's commitment to create "empowerment zones" to promote economic opportunities in America's cities. The plan was first advanced by her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Sen. Clinton said she hopes to create "new market tax incentives ... that will help people start businesses and stay in them."

"We need a very vigorous approach because the Bush administration has been missing in action," she said.

-- Peter Hecht

• LGBT for 93? That's the argument Assemblyman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, has made in an e-mail letter urging support for Proposition 93, the term limits measure.

Laird, who is scheduled to term out of the Assembly at the end of this year, has been a big proponent of Proposition 93, including opening his own campaign account for the measure, Monterey Bay and South Bay Committee for Yes on Proposition 93.

The Bay Area Reporter has the story of Laird's unique pitch:

He used a new approach specifically geared to LGBT voters. In a letter circulated via e-mail, Laird couches support for the measure in terms of advancement of LGBT rights. He suggests that if the measure does not pass, it will lead to the demise of the LGBT caucus in the statehouse.

"By allowing legislators to serve up to 12 years in one house, we will have a much better shot of moving forward more quickly on LGBT issues – because we'll have the opportunity to build a more solid, stable base of support in the Legislature for the issues that matter most to us," wrote Laird.

• Josh Richman at the Oakland Tribune's politics blog rounds up Bay Area Democrats' responses to the President Bush's last State of the Union.

• Sen. John McCain, who is running ahead in California polls, announced his California leadership team today. (Many of the names have been previously announced.) They are:

State Chair
The Honorable Bill Jones - Former California Secretary of State

Honorary Vice Chairs
Mayor Alan Autry, Fresno
Sheriff Lee Baca, Los Angeles County
The Honorable James Brulte - Former California State Senate Republican Leader
The Honorable James Cunneen, Former State Assemblyman, District 24
Dr. Tirso del Junco, Former California Republican Party Chairman
Supervisor Deidre Kelsey, Merced County
The Honorable Steve Kuykendall, Former U.S. Representative (CA-36)
U.S. Representative Dan Lungren (CA-3)
The Honorable James Nielson, Former State Senator, District 2
The Honorable Doug Ose, Former U.S. Representative (CA-3)
District Attorney Rod Pacheco, Riverside
Sheriff Mark Pazin, Merced County

• Meanwhile, Variety looks at how McCain is faring among Hollywood's glitterati.

Think you voted by absentee ballot? Guess again.

Tuesday's election marks the first time that California won't be using absentee ballots.

Legislation last year, Assembly Bill 1243, replaced the phrase absentee with "vote by mail" in state law.

Recognizing that growing numbers of Californians cast ballots without ever entering a voting booth, no matter what term is used, the Assembly took related action today.

The Assembly voted 74-0 to approve legislation, Assembly Bill 984, that would require elections officials to notify voters if a ballot is so heavy that returning it via mail would take more than one first-class stamp.

Even if signed into law, however, AB 984 would not take effect until January.

This year, you're on your own.

Senate leader Don Perata sent a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the speaker announcing his opposition to AB X1 1.

Below is the full letter:

Call it a campaign mystery.

Why would the Yes on Proposition 93 campaign shelve a TV ad that features Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsing the measure for 30 seconds and replace it with one that shows the governor in a cameo role, on screen for only a couple seconds?

Nobody's talking.

Opponents of the term-limits measure said the sidetracked ad, depicting a Schwarzenegger press conference, ran only one day, last Thursday, in Fresno, Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco.

Richard Stapler, spokesman for Yes on 93, declined to discuss campaign strategy.

But Stapler said TV ads are meant to "tell voters as much as you can," and
that the new ad combines Schwarzenegger's endorsement with those of others -- including California Common Cause and the Los Angeles Times.

"The ad we have now really highlights all our strong endorsements, the governor being one of those," Stapler said.

Capitol Television News Service has posted both ads together here. The first half is the currently running ad. The second is the all-Schwarzenegger version.

The Senate Health Committee voted down Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed health overhaul today.

The Bee's Aurelio Rojas has the general story here.

Even before the vote, the fate of the bill was clear, as Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez gave more of a eulogy for the legislation in his opening remarks.

Kim Belshé, the governor's health and human services secretary, told the committee, "Certainly today's hearing has taken on a different tenor."

The bill failed with one yes vote, three abstentions and seven no votes.

Every member of the committee, save GOP Sen. Mark Wyland, gave a speech before casting their vote. A common thread in those speeches was fears about the legislation's financing, which took a hit last week with the release of a report by the nonpartisan legislative analyst projecting hundreds of millions of dollars in shortfalls.

Democratic Sen. Elaine Alquist of Santa Clara said she "wanted to be able to vote for this bill."

But there was "not a financial plan" to pay for it to her satisfaction. Alquist abstained.

Sen. Gloria Negrete-McLeod, D-Chino, said, "I get paid the big bucks to make the big decisions." She voted no.

Sen. Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks, had perhaps the harshest words for the legislation, saying it was "based upon fairy tale-type assumptions." He opposed the bill.

Sen. Leland Yee, a San Francisco Democrat, said the bill was "fundamentally flawed." Three times in his short speech, in which he referenced his family's own struggle to obtain health insurance, he said he couldn't vote for the measure "in good conscience."

"(It) pains me to turn my back on this particular bill," he said, before voting no.

Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said today's vote was not the final step, promising that the Legislature would be "working in the months ahead to advance this cause." He abstained.

Sen. Mark Ridley-Thomas, D-Los Angeles, was the committee's only yes vote.

"What do we do in the meantime?" he asked rhetorically, following Steinberg's comments. "We vote for this bill."

Sen. Gil Cedillo, another Los Angeles Democrat, echoed Steinberg. He said that health reform is an "ongoing process," though he was "not prepared to move forward." He abstained.

Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Penn Valley, said the finances of the bill didn't work out. "We don't have the money," he said, while pledging to work with Democrats in the future.

Sen. Abel Maldonado, the moderate Republican from Santa Maria, said, like Alquist that he "really wanted to vote for it."

"I just couldn't get it to pencil out," he said.

Sen. Sheila Kuehl, the chair of the committee, was the last to speak. She said the legislative analyst report gave her, her Senate colleagues and members of the Assembly "a good deal of pause."

"It doesn't matter how many good things are in the bill if there isn't money to pay for them," she said.

After the vote, the speaker did not ask for reconsideration of the measure, saying the "message is pretty clear."

From Peter Hecht...

It is considered the most closely watched California presidential primary in a generation. But that doesn't necessarily mean the Feb. 5 Democratic and Republican contests will be particularly close.

According to a new Los Angeles Times/CNN/Political poll, Republican John McCain and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton have hefty leads in the Golden State.

In two weeks time, McCain has moved from a close race with other GOP contenders to a 39 percent to 26 percent lead over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, according to the poll conducted by Opinion Research Corp.

On the Democratic side, Clinton held onto a 49 percent to 32 percent lead over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

But the poll was taken before Obama’s lopsided win in South Carolina and his endorsements by Sen. Edward Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, the brother and daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy.

Find the Times' poll story here.

Breaking out its biggest gun, perhaps, the Proposition 93 campaign has unveiled a 30-second television advertisement featuring Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Schwarzenegger appears for only a few seconds on the TV spot, but long enough to say, "We must vote yes on Proposition 93."

The measure, on the Feb. 5 ballot, would alter legislative term limits.

Lawmakers currently can serve up to eight years in the Senate and six in the Assembly. Proposition 93 would reduce the total from 14 to 12, but allow all to be served in one house. It also would provide extra years for incumbents.

The new television ad also touts a recent endorsement by California Common Cause.

View it here.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez pleads with the Democratic members of the Senate Health Committee in an opinion piece published today on the California Progress Report, a liberal Web site.

"The health care reform bill the Assembly approved in December is within hours of either making history or being killed in the State Senate. Killing AB 1x would be a victory for tobacco companies, the insurance industry and the shameful status quo. That makes this a good time for a gut check," the speaker writes.

He goes on to say, "I honestly don’t know what the Senate is going to."

Read the full piece here. (Also see Capitol Alert's breakdown on what each committee member has said in advance of today's vote.)

The Senate Health Committee will take a decisive vote this afternoon on a dramatic overhaul of health care in California. But the chances of passage for the $14.9 billion annual plan appear slim, as two Democrats on the committee have voiced their opposition.

Here's a look at who’s on the 11-member panel and what they've said about how they plan to vote at today’s 2 p.m. hearing.

There are already five committed ‘no’ votes on the health measure, including three Republicans and two Democrats.

Each of the other six committee members, including GOP Sen. Abel Maldonado, would have to vote ‘yes’ for the bill to move forward.

That’s a tall order, especially if Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata keeps his word to not change the makeup of the committee. (Some observers, including The Bee’s Dan Weintraub, have said that no matter what happens in the committee, it will reflect on the priorities of Perata and the full upper house. “If the Senate leader and a majority of the Democrats in that house want this bill to pass, it will,” he wrote in Sunday’s column.)

The bill, AB 1X1, was the result of year-long negotiations with health industry stakeholders and a final agreement between Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in late 2007. The legislation passed out of the Assembly in December with every Democratic member of the lower house voting “aye.”

It now sits in the Senate Health Committee.

The measure would cover 70 percent of uninsured Californians through a mandate to buy insurance combined with subsides for the poor. The plan would be funded through fees on employers, a hospital tax and tobacco tax of $1.75 per pack of cigarettes.

If passed by the Senate, voters would still have to approve the measure in November.

Here is a who's who of the health committee and what they’ve said about their vote:

The yes votes
Sen. Mark Ridley-Thomas, Democrat
Of the seven Democrats on the health committee, only Ridley-Thomas has announced in advance of today’s vote that he will support AB 1X1.
In a statement released last Wednesday, Ridley-Thomas said, “I recognize that this bill contains trade-offs. However, I am convinced any solution that seeks to address a problem as big and as complicated as health care reform is going to necessitate trade-offs. That is how representative democracy works, and we cannot let “perfect be the enemy of good.”
He concluded, “I do not believe there will be a better, improved bill next year, or the year after that. If we don’t take this opportunity to expand heath care, we will be stuck with the status quo for the foreseeable future, and that’s just not good enough.”

The no votes
Sen. Sheila Kuehl (chair), Democrat
The chair of the committee, Kuehl has long said she would vote against the health plan. In each of the last two legislative sessions, Kuehl has authored a single-payer health proposal – which would end the use of insurance companies and create a government-run program – only to see the plan pass in 2006, but be vetoed by Schwarzenegger.

Kuehl told Capitol Alert last week, “I’ve been very clear with all the advocates and everybody that I do not favor the bill.”

Sen. Leland Yee, Democrat
Yee’s announcement last Tuesday that he would vote against AB 1X1, throwing the fate of the bill into doubt. He made the decision hours before the legislative analyst’s report was released and the day before last week’s 11-hour hearing. Yee has said he has doubts about the financing and came to his decision after consulting labor leaders in his San Francisco district.

Perata took a not-so-veiled shot at Yee in last week’s hearing, saying, "I am a little dismayed that some committee members have seen fit, or maybe one committee member, is seeing fit to pre-judge the LAO’s report without reading it. Be that as it may, I guess we all approach our work in a different manner.”

Sen. Sam Aanestad (vice chair), Sen. Dave Cox and Sen. Mark Wyland, Republicans
These three Republican senators have made clear that they intend to vote against the plan. Their opposition was expected.

The maybes
Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria
Maldonado is known as the most moderate member of the conservative Senate Republican caucus. But would he buck the GOP line and provide the crucial vote to pass the landmark health plan?

"I want to read the analyst's report completely and make a good, sound decision," he told the Associated Press over the weekend. "My heart wants to have something in place that gives the uninsured insurance, but my mind asks, 'Does this thing pencil out?'"

Sen. Gloria Negrete-McLeod, Democrat
The most moderate Democrat, by most counts, on the committee, Negrete-McLeod has sounded deeply skeptical of the health plan. During last Wednesday’s hearing, she expressed particularly fearful about the “individual mandate” – the provision requiring everyone to buy health insurance – saying her district included many poor people who could be priced out of private insurance. She hasn’t publicly said how she will vote.

Sen. Darrell Steinberg, Democrat
A top contender to succeed Don Perata as Senate leader should Proposition 93 fail next week, Steinberg wanted to know at last week’s hearing if the program’s costs would surpass its revenues. The legislative analyst’s report last week said the measure could be as much as $4 billion in the red by its fifth year. (It could also pencil out, the report said.)

At last Wednesday’s hearing, Steinberg said that fiscal question “is the heart of the issue for me.”

Sen. Elaine Alquist, Democrat
Another of the committee’s Democrats, Alquist has sounded like someone who wants to vote for the bill, but still has reservations. In an interview with the San Jose Mercury News last week, Alquist gave a statement eerily similar to Maldonado.

"It would be a huge thing to be able to insure millions of people who for one reason or another don't have insurance," Alquist said. "But my larger concerns are financial. Will it pencil out financially?"

Sen. Gil Cedillo, Democrat
One of the Legislature’s more liberal members, Cedillo was a co-author of Kuehl’s single-payer plan, SB 840, when it was introduced in 2007. He hasn’t announced his stance on AB 1X1.

George and Sharon Runner, the only husband and wife serving together in the Legislature, have another family reason to celebrate today -- they're grandparents.

Again.

The Runners' third grandchild, James Cooper Runner, was born Jan. 18 at Kaiser Hospital in south Sacramento to the lawmakers' son, Micah, 30, and his wife, Sandy, of Folsom.

The baby, whose middle name of Cooper is the maiden name of George's mother, was 20 inches long and weighed 7 pounds, 14 ounces.

The infant is doing fine, thank you, as are Sen. George and Assemblywoman Sharon, both of Lancaster.

The kid hasn't chosen a political party yet.

But bet Republican.

• Political donations are often made with some kind of self interest in mind. Hank Shaw of the Stockton Record looks at the $5,000 donation to the No on 93 campaign by Bill Berryhill, an Assembly candidate and brother of Assemblyman Tom Berryhill.

He would replace Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian, who is termed out.

That is, unless Proposition 93 passes. Which might be why Bill Berryhill gave $5,000 to defeat the measure.

• The California Republican Party is still in debt.

• Sen. Barack Obama is getting some help on the airwaves from a 527-group in the Bay Area.

• LAT's Dan Morain asks Sen. Tom McClintock about who he's going to endorse now that Fred Thompson has dropped out of the GOP presidential hunt.

He's leaning toward Ron Paul, but he's not certain yet. On his own blog, McClintock wonders what might have been with Thompson, "Freddy, we barley knew ye," the Thousand Oaks conservative laments.

• Meg Whitman for governor? The billionaire head of eBay is stepping down from her job and is talking to GOP operatives about plotting a bid to be California's top executive.

Let the Democratic spin begin! Steve Maviglio writes, "Great. Just what we need. The possibility of another Republican gubernatorial candidate with zero policy experience but with a fat wallet."

Since Jeff Denham was elected to the Senate in 2002, he has voluntarily cut his pay four times and usually told his constituents about it.

What he hasn’t told them about is the three raises he subsequently accepted.

For instance, last fall, Denham, who is facing a recall attempt, was one of the 21 lawmakers who turned down a $3,110-per-year raise that went into effect in December. But less than a month after declining the pay hike, the Atwater Republican sent a second letter to the state controller accepting a similar-sized raise granted 18 months earlier.

It’s not the first time Denham has declined one raise while accepting another.

“He gets the best of both worlds,” said Robert Stern, president of the government-watchdog Center for Governmental Studies. “He’s getting the good press and most of the pay.”

Denham has collected less than his full salary every year since he was elected in 2002, but in each of the last two years he has, within a month, turned down one raise, while accepting another.

“The first story after the pay hike indicates that he has turned down the hike. That’s great press for him. But he also doesn’t say at the same time that he has accepted a previous pay hike,” Stern said.

Denham said he looks at “each of the different raises as different raises” and that his salary is now “the raise that I was elected to” in 2006.

As for why he turned down one pay hike while accepting another, Denham said, “I just declined to take this last pay raise because I think the timing is horrible, a huge deficit…right now I don’t feel like it’s the right thing to do.”

His salary is now $113,098 per year – below the $116,208 many of his colleagues earn.

The news comes as Denham faces a recall funded by the state Democratic Party and a campaign committee tied to Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata. Combined those committees have spent nearly $270,000 to qualify a recall of Denham ($227,000 from the party and $41,000 from the Perata-linked Voter Education and Registration Fund).

Democrats launched the recall last summer, during a 52-day budget standoff when Denham refused to vote for what he called an unbalanced budget. Denham never did vote for the budget.

In the months since, the state’s budget deficit has ballooned to $14.5 billion and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has called a special session to address the fiscal shortfall.

Roger Salazar, a spokesman for the Democratic Party, called Denham’s pay hike refusals and then acceptances “another example of Denham’s propensity for telling the voters he is going to do one thing and then doing another.”

“He did it with the budget,” Salazar said, explaining that Denham said he would support education but then voted against the budget. “Now he is playing a little hide and seek with his salary.”

Democrats must gather 31,084 valid signatures from district residents by Feb. 13 to qualify the recall. Salazar said the signature collecting is “progressing” and that the party plans to continue gathering signatures up to the deadline.

Here’s a timeline for Denham’s rejections, and subsequent acceptances, of pay hikes:

2002
Denham is elected to the state Senate and accepts a voluntary 5 percent pay cut. “At the time, that’s what my Republican caucus was saying, we needed to cut five percent across the board,” Denham said in an interview about why he slashed his own salary to $94,286.

2005
The independent citizens panel that sets salaries for lawmakers voted to approve a 12 percent raise, the first pay increase for legislators in seven years. Denham declines the raise. He tells the Bee in September 2005, "State employees and other Californians are facing tough times right now. We've seen state budget deficits over the last several years. The timing for a legislative pay increase isn't right."

As for fellow lawmakers who accepted the raise, he said, “That's something they'll have to live with. That's a decision they'll have to make. I don't want to be critical of my colleagues."

2006
The independent panel raises lawmakers’ salaries for the second year in a row, this time by 2 percent. Denham declines the most recent raise.

In a July newsletter to his constituents, Denham’s office reports, “Jeff is the lowest paid member of the Legislature. When he first took office in December 2002, he actually took a voluntary legislative pay cut of 5%. At that time, the state was facing a deficit of over $30 billion. He also rejected a 12% pay raise last year.”

In November, Denham wins reelection to the Senate with almost 60 percent of the vote. In December, he accepts the previous year’s 12 percent raise and rescinds his voluntary 5 percent reduction effective Jan. 1, 2007. His salary rises from $94,286 to $110,880, according to the state controller's office.

2007
On Nov. 29, Denham writes the state controller’s office to decline the latest 2.75 percent raise approved by the independent salary commission. Less than a month later, on Dec. 27, he again writes the controller’s office, accepting the 2 percent pay raise approved in 2006. His salary is currently $113,098. That is below the full $116,208 many of his colleagues earn.

Photo credit: Randall Benton, The Sacramento Bee, July 2007. Sen. Jeff Denham speaks to reporters during the summer's budget standoff

The Senate Rules Committee has postponed a confirmation hearing for Lottery Director Joan Borucki in order for staff to examine lottery funds spent on an employee recognition party.

Borucki was scheduled to appear before senators Wednesday.

Also, Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, will hold an informational hearing Feb. 12 to review the lottery's use of administrative funds for training and recognition.

Republican Assemblyman Ted Gaines of Roseville had considered running for U.S. Rep. John Doolittle's seat but bowed out last week. Today he endorsed former state Sen. Rico Oller.

“Rico Oller, like me, is a small business owner who knows how to create jobs,” Gaines said in a statement. “He will not only use that business experience to cut wasteful spending, but Rico Oller will lead the charge to clean up the mess in Washington, D.C.”

Gaines called Oller “a strong conservative that will protect traditional family values, fight to secure our borders, improve our local infrastructure and always vote against tax hikes.”

Legislation to devise an alternative for students who are proficient but can't pass the high school exit examination was one of many bills sidetracked today in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

The Legislature is racing to meet a deadline of next Thursday, Jan. 31, to act on bills introduced last year.

Besides the high school proficiency bill, Assembly Bill 1015, other measures rejected by the Appropriations Committee included:

• AB 21, to close a loophole allowing buyers of yachts, planes and recreational vehicles to avoid California sales and use taxes by buying and keeping the property out-of-state for more than 90 days.

• AB 56, to create a cabinet-level position of secretary to end poverty.

• AB 866, to give priority service at Department of Motor Vehicle offices to members of the California National Guard and the armed forces and its reserves.

• AB 93, to study the health benefits of eliminating saturated and trans-fat from restaurants, vending machines and cafeterias.

• AB 130, to require that state supervisors and managers receive salary increases and benefit packages that are equal to, or better than, those of employees they supervise.

• AB 571, to require that all 3- and 4-year-olds from low-income families have access to state preschool programs by 2011-12.

In all, the Assembly Appropriations Committee considered 72 bills that would have totaled $6.2 billion in new spending. It approved 27 measures that seek $1.6 million in funding.

Bills approved by the committee now go to the Assembly floor.

The prison expert for the Legislative Analyst's Office told the Senate Budget Committee today that lower-than-expected inmate population projections will save the state $55 million in the current fiscal year.

Prison analyst Brian Brown's figures represent a savings that is three times more than Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed 2007-08 budget cut for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Schwarzenegger's prison budget cuts would total $1.1 billion through the 2009-10 fiscal year and force the early releases of 22,159 lower-risk inmates in the next fiscal year as well as eliminate 6,000 jobs in the corrections agency.

Brown said the LAO is recommending against Schwarzenegger's budget cut for the current year because the lower-than-expected prison population will result in the added savings.

As of Jan. 16, the prison population stood at 170,811, or more than 2,300 fewer than the state housed on Nov. 21.

Corrections spokesman Oscar Hidalgo attributed the decline mostly to the creation of new community drug programs for parolees who otherwise would have been returned to prison on parole violations.

Department of Finance officials disputed Brown's numbers. Spokesman H.D. Palmer said the LAO based its projected $55 million savings figure for the current year on data showing that the corrections department is now housing 2,700 fewer inmates than it had expected when the state was writing its budget.

Palmer said the 2,700 figure only represented a "snapshot" in time. Over the course of the current budget year, the reduction will only reduce the average daily state prison population by 873 inmates, Palmer said.

The secretary of state placed a second eminent domain measure on the June ballot late Wednesday, after it showed a sufficient number of projected valid signatures.

Certification of the measure, which is being sponsored by the League of California Cities and others, sets up a June showdown where the two eminent domain initiatives will be the only propositions on the ballot.

The first measure, which qualified last week, is broader in scope, limiting the taking of private property for private uses in almost all cases. The measure would also phase out rent control in the state.

That initiative is backed by more traditional conservatives and has garnered the support of the California Farm Bureau.

The newly qualified initiative has been put forth as a more mild alternative by the League as well as some environmental interests.

Both June measures, which one would expect to be numbered Propositions 98 and 99, come in response to a controversial U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2005, which opened the door for local governments to seize private property more easily.

In California, an anti-eminent domain measure failed in November 2006.

Here's the description of the newly qualified measure:

Eminent Domain. Acquisition of Owner-Occupied Residence. Constitutional Amendment. Bars state and local governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence, as defined, for conveyance to a private person or business entity. Creates exceptions for public work or improvement, public health and safety protection, and crime prevention. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would likely not have a significant fiscal impact on state or local governments. (Initiative 07-0018.)

The California Taxpayers' Association has named Teresa Casazza as president of the 82-year-old organization.

Casazza served as interim president of the group, which advocates for lower taxes, for most of 2007 as the late Larry McCarthy battled cancer. He died late last year.

Casazza becomes the 10th president of the group.

"I am honored to lead Cal-Tax and to continue the association's proud history of protecting taxpayers' rights and keeping a watchful eye on government spending," Casazza said in a statement.

Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, a former aide to Sen. John Burton, issued a statement today defending her former boss, who faces a sexual harassment lawsuit, and calling him "a man of outstanding character."

Here's the full statement from Ma, a San Francisco Democrat who got her start in politics working for Burton:

“For as long as I’ve known John Burton, he has been a man of outstanding character and the highest level of personal integrity. In the seven and a half years I worked for him, I have never witnessed any difference in the way he treats male and female employees.

Finally, I am concerned that the plaintiff would seek a civil remedy that takes $10 million in desperately needed funds away from a foundation serving our most vulnerable children.”

Former state Senate leader John Burton was sued today for sexual harassment by the executive director of the San Francisco charity that bears his name. The lawsuit alleges more than 100 acts of inappropriate behavior.

Kathleen Driscoll's suit accuses Burton, a San Francisco Democrat and former member of Congress, of mimicking masturbation in her presence and saying of Viagra, "This stuff really works."

He repeatedly commented on her nipples, buttocks and the thongs she wore, saying once that Driscoll was "probably wild sexually like all Catholic girls,” the suit alleges.

Driscoll has served as executive director of the John Burton Foundation since mid-2006. Burton termed out of the state Senate in 2004.

Burton declined to comment on the lawsuit, quipping in a brief telephone conversation with The Bee that his attorney Susan Rubenstein, "knowing me, thinks I might say something untoward."

Rubenstein called the allegations groundless.

"We're shocked about the nature of these allegations," Rubenstein said. "John Burton has dedicated nearly a half century of his life to public service and never has he been accused of any kind of sexual impropriety. We believe this is a shakedown, and this woman and her attorney have made this a media event by holding a news conference."

Watch the video of Driscoll and attorney Kelly Armstrong announcing the suit here.

Click here to read the lawsuit for yourself.

• The No on 92 campaign, which opposes the community college measure on the Feb. 5 ballot, has begun airing radio ads in the state's major media markets. The ads will stay on the air from now until election day, the campaign announced.

The ads are variations on the same theme, with different newspaper and organizational endorsements touted in the different markets. There are ads for Sacramento, San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego.

"I want to help community colleges, but this will do more harm than good," says a woman's voice, repeating what's been the mantra of the measure's opponents.

Listen to the ads here.

• Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign, meanwhile, has announced airing its second ad in the state. See it below:

• The No on 93 campaign has a new television spot featuring two prisoners talking about Proposition 93 -- and a surprise ending. See it below:

• And the four tribes pushing Propositions 94 through 97 have a new ad ripping their opponents' ad. See it below:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he hasn't sold out and doesn't give favors to donors. How do you know? You just have to trust him based on what you see of him on television, he suggested Wednesday.

Schwarzenegger has drawn repeated criticism for raising money at a record pace for a California governor, especially after he famously complained in one of his 2003 recall ads that "money comes in, favors go out, the people lose."

Speaking Wednesday at a California Newspaper Publishers Association luncheon, Schwarzenegger said he still believes that such "madness" occurs. But he said "that doesn't mean you shouldn't go and do fundraisers."

"I think the politicians can raise as much money as they want," he said. "But don't sell out. You take your money and say (to donors), 'You are buying in because of my philosophy. You are supporting my philosophy. I am not supporting your philosophy. We may by coincidence have the same philosophy. But you can't sell out. That is the important thing."

When asked how voters can tell whether he or other politicians have sold out, Schwarzenegger said they can't ever know for certain. But he said people can do a good job of judging for themselves just by watching someone on television, as in the ongoing presidential debates.

"So I think that now, with television and with the cameras, those cameras go very close, and you can tell a lot of times if someone is fibbing or if someone is trying to pull wool over your eyes," Schwarzenegger said. "As much as it is on a screen in the movies, when they take a close-up of your eyes, (voters) can see if someone really is believable of what he is saying or if it is just dialogue that comes out of the mouth and it doesn't come from your gut and it doesn't come from your heart."

Fortunately, the Governor's Office plans to post video of his CNPA appearance on Schwarzenegger's web site, so California voters can determine for themselves whether he has sold out.

Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner has opened his wallet again to oppose Proposition 93, donating $1 million earlier today to defeat the term limits measure.

He previously gave $1.5 million.

The Senate Health Committee will postpone a vote on a measure to overhaul health care in California, Sen. Sheila Kuehl announced this afternoon, as the marathon hearing heads into its sixth hour.

Kuehl, the Santa Monica Democrat who chairs the health committee, said that she would delay a vote on the measure until Monday, at the request of Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata.

The fate of the measure, AB X1 1, which was negotiated by Assembly Democrats and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, has hung in the balance after Sen. Leland Yee, a San Francisco Democrat, announced Tuesday he would oppose the measure.

Yee's opposition, combined with that of Kuehl, leaves the bill at least one vote shy of passage in the 11-member committee. With six votes needed, only five Democrats have not announced their opposition. None of the four GOP members have openly supported the measure.

In his comments before the committee, Perata took a not-so-veiled shot at Yee's opposition, which was announced before the release of a legislative analyst's report studying the finances of the plan.

"I am a little dismayed that some committee members have seen fit, or maybe one committee member, is seeing fit to pre-judge the LAO’s report without reading it," Perata said. "Be that as it may, I guess we all approach our work in a different manner.

In an interview with the San Jose Mercury News, Perata said Wednesday he would not stack the health committee to get the bill out, as has been rumored around the building.

"No. I wouldn't do that," he said.

Perata himself sounded a pessimistic tone about the fate of the measure, which would provide health insurance for 70 percent of uninsured Californians.

"When people are losing their homes, losing their jobs, losing their net worth, we need not appear insensitive and out of touch with those realities," Perata told the Merc's Mike Zapler. "You don't instill public confidence by doing things that people don't understand and they don't think is a high priority. And I don't think anybody right now believes anything (is more important) right now but the economy, economy, the economy."

• The California Democratic Party is hiring a couple of bloggers to work on online outreach. The liberal blogosphere gives itself virtual high fives over at Calitics.

• Sen. Jim Battin is more than a little sick of newspaper stories about what kind of car he drives. Even worse are questions of his "carbon footprint."

So the GOP senator from the Inland Empire is fighting back, buying up carbon credits so he's carbon neutral - mainly to laugh in the face of critics.

He bought carbon credits to offset his 2005 Lincoln Aviator for a full year.

"And it only cost me $45......what a deal," he writes on the FlashReport.

Now, I have absolutely no idea who LiveNeutral is, or what they are going to do with my $45 to make me carbon neutral, but I found them on the internet and they gave me an official looking certificate with the CO2 offset lot number of CFI 99982-100907-14 - so they must be legit.

In fact, I'm so sure that this carbon credit offset organization is so completely above board I challenge the Contra Costa Times and every other media outlet in the country to look into them and the rest of the carbon off-setters to guarantee they aren't ripping me and my fellow enviros off. In fact, I double dare them! I even triple dare them to prove me wrong.

Battin concludes, "Now that I'm carbon neutral, I'm eagerly waiting for the editorial praising me and my environmental activism - I can hardly wait."

• Carla Marinucci of the Chronicle reports on the interesting choice of time and location for the next state GOP convention.

It's in San Francisco. And in a hotel smack dab in the middle of the city's giant Chinese New Year's parade.

She writes:

But let's just say that with the estimated 600,000 firecrackers that are set off during the Saturday night festivities -- and that's just the count for the legal ones -- it's not exactly a time conducive to serious matters like presidential politics, political discussions. Or those keynote speeches which are scheduled right around dinner at the same time.

Gung Hey Fat Choy, folks.

Aurelio Rojas has the story today about the new legislative analyst's report here.

In it, he writes, "California's $14 billion health care expansion plan will either generate enough revenue to pay for itself or be $4 billion in the red by the fifth year, depending on two scenarios in a report released Tuesday by the state's Legislative Analyst's Office."

Find the full report here.

U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), supporting GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney:

"Our country is facing great challenges. Among the most ominous is illegal immigration, which has been permitted to spin out of control for the last decade and a half. The safety of our country and the prosperity of our people are at great risk because of the magnitude of this problem. Mitt Romney is the candidate I trust most to take the steps necessary to secure our borders and protect the American people."

On the eve of a hearing for landmark health legislation, a spokesman for Sen. Leland Yee said the San Francisco Democrat will oppose the health care measure. The move throws into limbo whether the legislation has the necessary votes to move forward.

“The costs are a big concern for him,” said Adam Keigwin, a spokesman for Yee, regarding the $14 billion health care price tag that coincides with a projected $14.5 billion budget hole.

The 11-member Senate Health Committee is scheduled to consider AB 1X1, legislation negotiated by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, in a hearing on Wednesday.

Sen. Sheila Kuehl, a Democrat and the chair of the Senate Health Committee, has openly opposed to the measure.

With "only" seven Democrats on the 11-member committee, and both Kuehl and Yee as committed "no" votes, the measure is one vote shy of passage.

No Republican has said they will support the measure, which will require six votes to pass.

Yee has been openly on the fence about the measure. He told the AP over the weekend that the bill was "not a slam dunk."

"It's rather difficult for me to vote for a health care plan that's going to cost $14 billion at the same time I'm looking at cutting $14 billion," he said. "It's almost like telling someone who is in need of help, 'I'm going to give you food, but I'm going to take away your clothes.' At the end of the day, the person is still poor."

Keigwin said Yee conferred with labor leaders in his district over the weekend who were “almost unanimous” in urging Yee “to vote no.”

What happens next is unclear, though options certainly remain for passage.

For instance, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata could ask Kuehl to grant the measure a courtesy vote, allowing it to proceed to the Senate floor despite her personal opposition.

In an interview Tuesday morning, Kuehl reiterated her position, saying, “I’ve been very clear with all the advocates and everybody that I do not favor the bill.”

She said she had not been contacted by Perata or his staff to support the bill. Asked if she would consider granting a courtesy vote if she was, she replied that she “can’t answer that.”

“In the Senate, we generally are equal as members,” Kuehl added.

Another option could be to seek out a GOP vote. Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria, sits on the committee and is the most moderate member of the Senate Republican caucus.

Maldonado, who did not immediately return a call for comment, has not had kind words for universal health care in the past. "I think universal health care is too big a jump for California. We don't have the resources," he said late last year, according to the San Jose Mercury News.

Another possibility for Perata is to restructure the committee itself, replacing Yee with a member more amenable to the health plan or adding members. That would break the Senate tradition of moving members off committees for particular votes, though Perata did restructure the Appropriations Committee last May, removing moderate Sens. Lou Correa and Ron Calderon.

All of those options, of course, depend on Perata pushing hard for passage of the plan.

After the bill passed the Assembly in December, Perata urged caution, saying it would be "imprudent and impolitic" to consider the measure before considering its impact on the state's $14 billion budget hole.

He requested a study by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, which should be released later today, for Wednesday's hearing.

But Perata’s reluctant tone has changed somewhat. Dan Weintraub reported on Jan. 10 that Perata said the bill would be "acted on."

"He said the best thing about the proposal is that it allows the voters to make the final decision at the polls," Weintraub wrote. "Sounds like he is assuming that they will get the chance."

As Kuehl said Tuesday, “I don’t quite know what the outcome is going to be.”

In late November, as the subprime mortgage collapse became more widespread, Assembly Democrats gathered to call on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to convene a special session to address the issue.

"If you look at where the foreclosures are happening, this is clearly neither a Democratic issue nor a Republican issue," Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez said in a statement. "Given the hole this could blow in the state budget, we simply don’t have the luxury of partisanship."

The Democrats rolled out a package of proposals to ease rising interest rates that are causing foreclosures across the state.

Turns out, there is a personal history to the speaker's interest in the mortgage crisis.

In a profile today by the San Francisco Chronicle's Matthew Yi, Núñez revealed that he had his bout with unaffordable rising interest rates pre-speakership days.

The following passage is about Núñez and his wife Maria Robles.

Many of their troubles had to do with the couple's finances. Robles found steady income as a registered nurse, but Núñez spent the bulk of his time working as a volunteer for an immigrant advocacy group in Pomona and later in a paid position with the same organization.

"We were so young and green ... . We had no clue," Robles said of the house purchase and the eventual bankruptcy. "It was one of the darkest times of our lives."

They (obviously) eventually recovered as Núñez has risen to become, in the view of some around Sacramento, the second most powerful politician in the state, behind only Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

And if you are wondering, the speaker now lives in a "$1.2 million home in a woodsy East Sacramento neighborhood."

Rep. Duncan Hunter, a San Diego-area Republican and the only Californian in the presidential contest, did the inevitable after Saturday's Nevada Caucus and dropped out of the race.

"The failure of our campaign to gain traction is mine and mine alone," he said, after receiving 2 percent of the vote in Nevada, where he had campaigned hard.

You can read Hunter's final speech to campaign supporters here.

California Common Cause today endorsed Proposition 93, the ballot initiative to alter legislative term limits.

"Common Cause has long believed that term limits arbitrarily limit the right of voters to elect their representatives from among the most qualified candidates, while at the same time giving more power and influence to special interest lobbyists," Roy Ulrich, the group's vice chairman, said in a written statement.

Kathay Feng, director of California Common Cause, said there is dissatisfaction among some members about Proposition 93's benefits for incumbents, its heavy funding by special-interest groups, and by the failure of legislative leaders to place a companion measure on the ballot to alter the way political districts are drawn, a process called redistricting.

"But there were a lot of people who felt a long-term policy decision like this should not be based on short-term politics," Feng said.

Proposition 93, by slowing turnover, could allow lawmakers to gain greater expertise and focus on issues long term, Feng said.

California Common Cause is teaming with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to qualify a separate ballot initiative to alter the redistricting process. The governor's endorsement of Proposition 93 did not influence the group's decision to do likewise, Feng said.

The California Correctional Peace Officers Association contributed another $1 million today to the campaign to defeat the ballot measure that would alter term limits.

The CCPOA's self-described "Truth in Government" committee has now given $2 million to the No on 93 campaign.

The union, which represents some 31,000 prison officers, had initially given $100,000 to the Yes on 93 campaign. The measure seeks to change the state's term limits law by allowing legislators to stay on the job in their respective houses for 12 years.

CCPOA's leaders switched sides after the Legislature failed last summer to approve a pay raise for the union's members.

Proponents of the community college measure on next month's ballot are airing their first television ads of the campaign in what they describe as a "statewide" media buy.

There are three ads, each of which following a similar format and play off the same theme: lowering fees and making community college available to everyone.

The first features a paramedic.

The second features a police officer.

The third features a firefighter.

There has been no public polling on Proposition 92 and the measure has drawn far less media attention than Proposition 93, the term limits measure, or Propositions 94 through 97, the Indian gambling compacts.

The measures are being pushed by community college groups and the California Federation of Teachers.

The California Teachers Association is bankrolling the opposition campaign.

When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Wednesday that he wants lawmakers to come up with alternatives to closing 48 state parks, Assembly GOP leader Mike Villines was listening.

The Clovis Republican has come up with a short list of ideas in lieu of what he called the "unnecessary approach" of closing parks, which saves the budget $13.3 million.

(Democrats are wondering if the governor is even serious, Judy Lin reports in today's Bee.

Villines' ideas total $7.6 million in hard savings. Among them (directly from Villines' office):

• Encouraging volunteers to take over park operations and maintenance on an interim basis.
• Reducing augmentations to the California Science Center in Los Angeles, a potential savings of up to $1.1 million.
• Encouraging more public-private partnerships, to facilitate investment from non-profits and charitable foundations to help maintain park operations.
•Utilizing the $4 million surplus in the Environmental License Plate fund to support nature conservancies and then redirecting funds initially set aside for conservancies to support park operations.
• Eliminating General Fund support for the State Water Board, which primarily receives its funding from bonds and special funds, to save $2.5 million.
• Delaying selling additional resources bonds that don’t generate economic activity or provide public safety.

As for that last one, Morgan Crinklaw, Villines' spokesman, said, "It doesn’t make sense to acquire more land through the sale of bonds at a time when we are being told we can’t afford our current parks."

Anthony York at Capitol Weekly reports that the Yes on 93 campaign is pulling the plug on more than a half-million dollars worth of reserved television time this week.

According to figures obtained by Capitol Weekly, the reserved time included about $315,000 in the Los Angeles media market and $169,000 in the Bay Area. The remainder comes from the Fresno, Sacramento and San Diego markets, where the Yes on 93 campaign has a much smaller media presence.

Jon Fleischman of the FlashReport pipes in with the specific stations where ads were pulled.

What does it mean? Capitol Weekly writes:

It is impossible to tell just what that figure means. It could mean anything from a shifting of resources to a tweak of campaign strategy. This week, the Yes on 93 campaign picked up a coveted endorsement from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and another from Republican state Sen. Jim Battin, R-La Quinta. Could this shift mean that the Yes side is hoping to reach out to Republican voters with their new, Republican spokesmen?

But the No on 93 campaign says the numbers show the Yes side is in trouble.

The proponents of Proposition 93, the term limits measure on the Feb. 5 ballot, had raised roughly $10 million and spent $5.5 million in 2007, including qualifying the measure for the ballot. A second campaign committee in favor of Proposition 93 has raised just under $1.5 million.

Following up on his meeting with education advocates in San Diego, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger held a videoconference today with members of the Education Coalition to discuss his proposal to suspend Proposition 98 as part of his budget plan.

At least one advocate was left feeling a little bit frustrated.

"We in the education coalition have grown tired of 'Let's fix the budget and then fix education,' " said Brian Lewis, executive director of the California Association of School Business Officials. "You need to bring those two conversations together."

Schwarzenegger, who proposes to suspend the state's minimum education funding guarantee, stressed the need for the state to create a rainy day fund. He also encouraged the coalition to pitch ideas for solving the problem.

Lewis said he appreciated the governor's willingness to communicate with the education community, but he noted that it's not their job to find revenues.

"As a parent and a taxpayer, it's not up to me to tell legislators where the revenues should come from," Lewis said. "I just know you're not giving us enough resources to meet the level of achievement you are demanding us to deliver. That's why you have the jobs you ran for."

Following in the footsteps of Sen. Barack Obama earlier this week, Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign has hit the airwaves in California.

As with most initial TV spots, the ad is a positive look at what a Clinton presidency would promise like "healthcare that covers everyone ... protection from losing your home ... and giv(ing) your kids the future they deserve."

A call to the Clinton campaign about where the ad would be airing -- and how much was being spent -- was not immediately returned.

Watch the ad below:

This from Steve Wiegand, playing it straight...

Embarrassed by the “misplacing” of four California Indian casino compacts that resulted in the deals being approved without being reviewed, federal Interior Department officials said today they are taking steps to see “we don’t ever have a repeat of this.”

The compacts, which are the targets of referendums (Props. 94-97) on the Feb. 5 ballot, were sent to the department’s Bureau of Indian Affairs in early September. But they then disappeared for 80 days, well after a federally mandated 45-day review period had lapsed. That meant the bureau had no choice but to automatically approve them, without review.

The incident has the potential to become far more important than just a run-of-the-mill bureaucratic bungle if California voters reject any of the compacts. That’s because the tribes involved might claim the federal government’s approval trumps voter wishes.

Department spokeswoman Tina Kreisher said Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne has asked the department’s inspector general’s office to review the BIA’s conclusion that “these documents were inadvertently and not deliberately misplaced, and that sufficient corrective measures are being taken.”

In addition, BIA head Carl Artman has directed staff to draft a new regulation laying out specific procedures for submitting compacts for approval, and is preparing a letter to the governors of all states with Indian casinos as well as all casino tribes giving them a heads up to that effect.

“In the meantime,” the draft says, “please note: Any compact or compact amendment must be submitted to the Office of Indian Gaming at the following address…”.

Kreisher said the 45-day process would be triggered when the compact arrives at the address.

“We hope that we don’t ever have a repeat of this,” she said.

Long-time San Francisco Chronicle reporter Greg Lucas, who left the paper amid severe cutbacks last summer, has resurfaced online.

A creature of the Capitol for two decades, he returns with a new blog, called California's Capitol.

"I don't think I'm too old to learn the new trick of blog, although I'm troubled since it's a four-letter word like work and golf," he wrote in his goodbye e-mail last summer to colleagues and friends.

In one of his first entries, Lucas asks, "What’s the big deal about a teensy $14.5 billion shortfall?"

He even has a suggestion:

Rather than horse around with subcommittees and special sessions, appeal directly to the people.

Actually, it seems like quite the bargain if it eliminates six months of posturing and speechifying.

That should give you a flavor of the site, which you can find here.

We've added it to our handy list of blogs covering California politics.

Also, if you want to track those blogs with a single click, check out the California Clips section of our site, which scans most of those blogs automatically.

State leaders are weighing in on a proposed toll road in Southern California that environmentalists are trying to kill.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has written a letter to the California Coastal Commission urging the approval of the last segment of Route 241 in Orange and San Diego counties. Despite his brother-in-law's opposition to the road, the governor says the project is a good example of public-private partnerships.

"Rebuilding our critical infrastructure is one of the single most important steps we can take to keep California strong and prosperous," Schwarzenegger wrote.

See the governor's letter here.

Not to be left out, state Treasurer Bill Lockyer fired his own letter off to the coastal commission expressing "strong opposition" to the toll road.

See the treasurer's letter here.

The much-debated project needs clearance from various state and federal regulatory agencies, including the California Coastal Commission, which is made up of members appointed by the governor and Legislature.

The commission has scheduled a hearing next month to decide whether the project conforms to the California Coastal Act, which seeks to protect public shoreline access and recreational opportunities. A staff report has found it doesn't.

Environmentalists were dealt a setback Tuesday when Assemblyman Jared Huffman's bill to ban toll roads through state parks died in the Parks and Recreation Committee. AB 1457 failed 6-6.

When voters head to the ballot on Feb. 5, they will vote on seven ballot measures.

The first is Proposition 91, which has been abandoned by its own supporters.

The measure was a negotiating tactic used by the transportation lobby in 2006 as they pressed the governor and Legislature to cut a deal on what ultimately became Proposition 1A, which voters approved (with 77 percent of the vote) in November of that year.

After lawmakers struck the deal, proponents of what's now Proposition 91 were supposed to stop submitting signatures. But they were victims of their own success, having already turned in enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

So in the official voting pamphlet, the authors of 91 are urging a "no" vote.

But Sen. Tom McClintock disagrees. The Thousand Oaks Republican issued his recommendations for the Feb. 5 ballot and says of Prop. 91:

"When a watered-down version of Prop. 91 was adopted by the legislature, its sponsors dropped this measure after it qualified. Nevertheless, if you want to genuinely protect our transportation taxes from being raided, Prop 91 is the Real McCoy," he wrote.

Oh, there is also an official Yes on 91 Web site.

"The authors of this measure will tell you it is no longer necessary because of the passage of Proposition 1A in 2006," the site says. "DON'T BELIEVE THEM!"

This morning's Senate Budget Committee meeting is still happening. But the pre-hearing press conference with Senate leader Don Perata and Senate budget chair Denise Ducheny has been canceled. The press event was in this morning's AM Alert.

The first - and more far-reaching - of two competing ballot measures restricting seizures of private property by local governments qualified for the June ballot today and the other is on the verge of making it.

The secretary of state's office cleared the "California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act" after counties checked a sample of intitiative petition signatures. It would prohibit nearly all use of eminent domain to take property for private purposes, such as a shopping center, and is sponsored by a conservative coalition, including the California Farm Bureau. Another sponsor is former Sacramento area U.S. Rep. Doug Ose, who's on the verge of mounting a new bid for Congress this year.

The rival measure would bar seizure of owner-occupied residences for private purposes and is sponsored by city officials who say eminent domain is needed to complete vital economic development projects. Its spokeswoman, Kathy Fairbanks, said secretary of state approval is expected later today or Thursday.

Both measures are followups to an anti-eminent domain measure that failed at the polls two years ago, itself a reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court's approval of taking private property for private uses in a Connecticut case.

Republican Assembly leader Mike Villines says lawmakers and the governor may take the budget show on the road.

"Maybe we need to start making sure people understand we're still moving California forward. We're still building in California," Villines said Tuesday after he and other legislative leaders met with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to discuss the state's budget crisis.

"We want to do some public events to make sure people see we're working together and that we're building things," said the Clovis Republican.

Tuesday's first Big 5 budget meeting of the season began with calls for bipartisan cooperation to find government savings. Democratic leaders Don Perata and Fabian Núñez stayed behind in the governor's office to discuss the health care proposal.

"Everybody's got their positions but there are some actions you need to take right now if you want to have any benefit this year or next year," said Senate Republican leader Dick Ackerman.

Ackerman said he hasn't made any decisions on the governor's proposed constitutional overhaul of the budget process, including the possibility of ending a two-thirds vote requirement to make mid-year spending changes.

Villines was quick to protect his minority party's authority: "I don't like getting rid of the two-thirds vote," he said. "Dick is being open-minded, but we don't like it."

The battle over Proposition 93 to alter the state's term limits law is about to become more visible on television.

Opponents of the measure filed paperwork
this week for a $2.8 million media buy.

Supporters have been on the air consistently for more than a week.

Read Capitol Alert's previous take on the ad wars here.

California political history buffs may want to check out "The New Political Geography of California," a new compilation of analyses from the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley.

Among the offerings: "Is California really a blue state?" by academic experts Morris P. Fiorina and Samuel J. Abrams. It explores the conventional wisdom that the Democratic Party's recent rise to power in the state can be traced to former Gov. Pete Wilson's decision in 1994 to back Proposition 187, the initiative that sought to cut services to illegal immigrants.

"Ultimately, we conclude that Pete Wilson was framed," the authors say. Order the book here.

The fight to kill Proposition 93 may not be going to the dogs - but to the horses? Perhaps.

Opponents of the term limits initiative Tuesday parked a wooden, 10-foot-tall "Trojan horse" outside the office of Gale Kaufman, who chairs the Yes on 93 campaign, to dramatize their claim that the measure is deceptive.

"Proposition 93 is, quite simply, a sham," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

"Deception is the essence of Proposition 93," added Lew Uhler, president of the National Tax Limitation Committee.

Richard Stapler, spokesman for the Yes on 93 campaign, blasted the event as a publicity stunt and "cheap trickery."

"It's not an honest conversation with voters to park a wooden horse on a street corner and say that somehow this is a real conversation about the complex issues that face the state of California," he said.

Supporters hail Proposition 93, which would alter legislative terms, as a way to make the Legislature more efficient and effective. Opponents blast it as a power grab by incumbents.

Proposition 93, on the Feb. 5 ballot, would lower the maximum number of years that someone could serve in the Legislature from 14 to 12, but allow all to be served in the Assembly, Senate or a combination of both.

State law currently limits terms to six years in the Assembly and eight in the Assembly.

The most controversial part of Proposition 93 would allow incumbents at least one extra term.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata would receive an extra six years and four years, respectively, under the measure.

State Sen. Sam Aanestad said Tuesday that he will not seek the House seat held by Rep. John Doolittle, who is retiring at the end of the year after nine terms in Congress.

Aanestad is making the same decision that state Assemblyman Ted Gaines, R-Roseville, made Monday. It clears the way for what is shaping up as five-way battle for the Republican nomination in which former state Sen. Rico Oller and former U.S. Rep. Doug Ose are likely to be the leading candidates.

Others who have declared for the race include Auburn city councilman Mike Holmes, retired Air Force office and national security consultant Eric Egland and Theodore Terbolizard, a little-known candidate promoting the presidential campaign of Ron Paul, R-Tex.

Aanestad said that he decided the time commitment to campaign for the office were more than he wanted commit to and so decided he will finish out the remaining three years of his state senate term. Aanestad said he will cast his support to Oller, R-San Andreas.

Ose, R-Sacramento, has not declared his intention to run but is expected to do so soon. He served in the House representing the 3rd Congressional District from 1999 to 2005.

-- David Whitney, Bee Washington Bureau

Reform Term Limits
from The Los Angeles Times
January 14, 2008
By Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

I have long advocated reform in Sacramento, and I am proud of what has been accomplished since I took office in 2003. Now we need to take other important steps to make state government even more responsive to the people we serve.

We need redistricting reform to make the political system more competitive and more representative of the citizens of California. We need campaign finance reform to limit the influence of money in politics, and it is time to reform legislative term limits.

Term limits have been on the books since 1990, and I strongly support the idea of restricting the number of years politicians can spend in office. Elected officials who serve for decades lose a sense of urgency to make things better, and they often fall out of touch with the public. But we went too far and need to make some important refinements, as we do all the time with legislation that needs to be corrected, because the people are not well served by the current system.

In fact, the current system of term limits -- which allows members of the Senate to serve two terms (eight years) and members of the Assembly three terms (six years), with a total maximum of 14 years -- is contributing to Sacramento's problems rather than fixing them. I am endorsing Proposition 93, which would lower the total number of years a member could serve to 12, but also allows him or her to divide them between the houses as they choose. I am convinced that this would result in the people of California getting a more experienced, more independent Legislature.

It takes time to learn how to govern effectively. Under the current system, our elected officials are not given the time they need to reach their full potential as public servants. Just as they get seasoned in one house, they know their time is beginning to run out, and they must start positioning themselves to run for a new office.

Imagine what would happen if we told a big-city police chief or a sheriff that he could stay in the job just long enough to start mastering it and then had to move on. Or if we told teachers they had to switch careers just as they started to accumulate enough experience and wisdom to really connect with their students.

Just look at the issues we are working on in Sacramento right now. We are debating the best way to make sure we never run out of water. How to reform one of the world's largest prison systems. How to fix a broken healthcare system in California that consumes more than $200 billion a year. How to fix our schools. Our budget system. How to rebuild California's aging infrastructure.

These are extraordinarily complex issues that have overwhelmed this state for decades. The people of California are not well served by so much turnover and the lack of expertise in the Legislature.

Our legislators should be given an opportunity to become outstanding at their jobs. To become policy experts who can make the kind of informed and forward-thinking decisions this state desperately needs.

The current term-limits law has created another unintended consequence that also must be fixed. It has ceded too much power to the special interests in Sacramento, because the unions, corporations and lobbyists take advantage of the relentless campaign cycle faced by legislators forced to seek a new position. Your representatives become more concerned with campaign cash, endorsements and independent expenditures than public policy. So they operate in fear of alienating the special interests they must constantly rely on for campaign money. Former Republican leader Jim Brulte had the right idea when he said he was endorsing Proposition 93 because it will give legislators the confidence to say "no" to special interests.

The constant jockeying for new positions also makes legislators more dependent on their political party and its most extreme elements. Allowing members to serve more time in the Assembly or Senate will help bring more civility and less partisanship to Sacramento.

When Proposition 93 was first introduced, I said I would not support it without a companion redistricting measure. Though some progress was made last year on that issue, we have not been able to agree on a redistricting measure in the Legislature; I'm supporting a proposal that was drafted by reform allies including AARP, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters. But Proposition 93 is good public policy irrespective of redistricting, and on its own, it will go a long way toward improving the quality of state government in California.

The reform of term limits -- along with campaign financing and redistricting -- will create fundamental and positive change in Sacramento. The Legislature will be more representative of the people and less beholden to special interests. Its members will have more time to do their jobs well and, most important of all, problem-solving will be a higher priority than partisanship and ambition.

Proponents of Proposition 93, the term limits measure on the Feb. 5 ballot, are already airing a second ad in their television campaign. And this one comes a lot closer to criticizing state lawmakers, who are among the measure's biggest backers.

"Round and round our legislators go," the ad begins, with images of suited men and women riding a carousel, "running from office to office to office with little time to build experience."

Then Thad Kousser, a professor of political science at UC San Diego, touts the benefits of the measure.

Watch the ad below:

Opponents of the four Indian compacts on next month's ballot are also airing two new ads opposing Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97.

The first attacks the campaign of the measures' proponents, asking "Have you seen these ads yet?"

The ad goes on to say "Imagine all the slot machines at a dozen Vegas casinos" amid images of the famous Vegas strip.

Watch it below:

The second ad features images of what appears to be a series of Native Americans decrying that the "gambling deals on the ballot benefit the richest tribes."

Again, watch it below:

CNN/LOS ANGELES TIMES/POLITICO POLL BY OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION

Interviews with 1,205 adults in California, including 384 likely Democratic primary voters and 255 likely Republican primary voters, conducted by telephone on January 11-13.

LIKELY DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS

Best Chance of Beating
Republican Nominee

Clinton 48%
Obama 33%
Edwards 10%

Sampling error: +/-5% pts

QUESTION: Regardless of your choice for president, which Democratic candidate do you think has the best chance of beating the Republican candidate in November -- Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, or Barack Obama?

Most Likely to Bring
Needed Change to Country

Obama 43%
Clinton 37%
Edwards 10%

Sampling error: +/-5% pts

QUESTION: Regardless of your choice for president, which Democratic candidate do you think is most likely to bring needed change to the country -- Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, or Barack Obama?

Right Experience to be President

Clinton 56%
Obama 16%
Edwards 13%

Sampling error: +/-5% pts

QUESTION: Regardless of your choice for president, who do you think has the right experience to be president -- Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, or Barack Obama?

More Important to Your Vote

Change 47%
Experience 31%
Both 21%

Sampling error: +/-5% pts

QUESTION: Which of the following is most important to you in choosing a candidate for president -- the value of experience, or the need for change to the country?

LIKELY REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTERS

Best Chance of Beating
Democratic Nominee

McCain 31%
Giuliani 25%
Romney 15%
Huckabee 12%
Thompson 1%

Sampling error: +/-6% pts

QUESTION: Regardless of your choice for president, who do you think has the best chance of beating the Democratic candidate in November -- Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney, or Fred Thompson?

Most Honesty and Integrity

McCain 31%
Huckabee 18%
Giuliani 13%
Romney 11%
Thompson 8%

Sampling error: +/-6% pts

QUESTION: Regardless of your choice for president, who do you think has more honesty and integrity -- Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney, or Fred Thompson?

Best Represents Your Values

Huckabee 20%
McCain 20%
Romney 13%
Thompson 12%
Giuliani 10%

Sampling error: +/-6% pts

QUESTION: Regardless of your choice for president, who do you think best represents your values -- Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney, or Fred Thompson?

By Aurelio Rojas

A long-awaited hearing scheduled for Wednesday by a Senate committee on the health care plan negotiated by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez has been delayed.

Alicia Trost, a spokeswoman for Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, said the hearing was delayed because a report that Perata requested by the Legislative Analyst’s Office on the $14 billion proposal on the state’s budget deficit has not been completed.

Trost said the Senate Committee, chaired by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, is scheduled to take up the issue Jan. 23 and the LAO report is expected to be completed by then. The Senate must approve the Schwarzenegger-Núñez plan before a ballot measure for the financing is put before voters. The governor and speaker want to put the measure on the November ballot, but are running out of time.

Former President Bill Clinton is scheduled to watch the Nevada debate at a downtown Sacramento location Tuesday night, California Democratic Party adviser Bob Mulholland confirmed today.

The Nevada debate, including Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, is scheduled to tip off at 5 p.m.

Capitol Alert will provide updates on the location and viewing information as they become available.

A new poll shows Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican John McCain leading among California likely voters in the state's Feb. 5 primary.

Conducted Jan. 11-13 via telephone by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN, the Los Angeles Times and Politico, the poll showed New York Sen. Clinton led Illinois Sen. Barack Obama 47 percent to 31 percent. Former Sen. John Edwards had 10 percent.

In the GOP race, Arizona Sen. McCain had 20 percent to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's 16 percent, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's 14 percent and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's 13 percent. Texas Rep. Ron Paul had 8 percent and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson had 6 percent.

The Democratic survey carries a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points, while the GOP error margin is 6 points.

More than three-fifths of Democrats said their vote was locked in, while 38 percent said they could still change their mind. Among Republicans, the dynamic was flipped: only 31 percent said their vote was certain and 69 percent could vote for someone else.

The Assembly just gaveled in its third special session, this one to address the state's budget deficit, which has grown to $14.5 billion.

The special session for a fiscal emergency is governed, in part, by Proposition 58, the 2004 ballot measured approved by voters.

That measure reads: "If the Legislature fails to pass and send to the Governor a bill or bills to address the fiscal emergency by the 45th day following the issuance of the proclamation, the Legislature may not act on any other bill, nor may the Legislature adjourn for a joint recess, until that bill or those bills have been passed and sent to the Governor."

But what happens after 45 days (which ends on Feb. 24, according to the Assembly) is unclear.

That seemed to bother Orange County Republican Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, who asked, "Is that just a fiction?"

The presiding officer, Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, didn't have an answer as to what happens post-Day 45.

"That's currently under consideration by Legislative Counsel," she said.

Meanwhile, the Legislative Analyst's Office has released its preliminary analysis of the governor's budget, which takes the Schwarzenegger administration to task for its proposed across the board cuts.

"While the administration’s approach of across–the–board reductions has the appeal of fairness, it reflects little effort to prioritize and determine which state programs provide essential services or are most critical for California’s future. The risk with the administration’s approach is that—by attempting to preserve most funding for most programs—many programs end up operating in a less than optimal manner and provide lower quality services to the public," the reports reads.

Find the full report here.

Here is the Obama ad that began running in the Bay Area over the weekend:

Actor Jon Voight, of "Coming Home" fame, backing Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani:

“America is approaching one of its most important elections in history and we must elect a leader with the strength and resolve of Rudy Giuliani,” said Voight. “His commitment to keeping our military strong and his track record of transforming New York makes him the right man at the right time for our country.”

With the governor calling for a 10 percent across-the-board cuts – including in the Legislature – the Assembly and Senate are bracing for potential cutbacks that could include a hiring freeze, a salary freeze, severe limits on out-of-town travel and more.

The Assembly will begin immediately to pare down its budget by 10 percent for the remaining months of the current fiscal year, said Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez.

Top staff members in the Assembly are set to meet early next week to determine how to implement the cuts. “Out-of-town travel, hiring freezes and salary freezes” are all on the table, said Maviglio. If that’s not enough, the Legislature’s lower house would stop buying new equipment and consider further action, he said.

Reducing existing employees’ salaries “would be the very, very, very, very last thing we would look at,” Maviglio said.

Every staff member in the Assembly – of which there are nearly 1,200 – received a 6 percent pay hike less than three months ago when the Assembly Rules Committee voted in October for an across-the-board raise. It was the first such raise since 2000.

After the governor unveiled his budget, Assembly GOP leader Mike Villines welcomed the cuts. “Across-the-board cuts, including the Legislature’s budget, are a good way to start the discussion about how to cut spending because they avoid picking winners and losers,” he said in a statement.

The Assembly’s budget for the full 2007-08 fiscal year is about $146 million and the Senate’s about $107.5 million, for a total of $253.5 million.

Whatever is cut from the budget for the remainder of the current fiscal year would be the new baseline for a 10 percent cut in the 2008-09 budget, said Maviglio.

But here’s where it gets complicated.

The Legislature’s budget automatically rises a set amount each year, said H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the Department of Finance. The Schwarzenegger administration asked for a 10 percent cut after that increase in 2008-09, which would mean a budget of $238.9 million, not factoring in any midyear cuts this year. That's not nearly as bad as the $227.7 million budget the Legislature could be facing without the automatic growth.

On the Senate side, the leadership has not yet determined an immediate course of action or a plan to cut costs.

But Alicia Trost, a spokeswoman for Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, said, “We wouldn’t impose cuts on other programs we wouldn’t first impose on ourselves.”

The Senate, which has about 900 employees, approved its own 6 percent across-the-board raise for Senate staff last February.

See the Legislature's budget in the governor's plan here.

Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, backing Hillary Clinton:

“After seven disastrous years under the Bush Administration, our country faces unprecedented challenges and there is only one presidential candidate who possesses the experience to right those wrongs and deliver the change we desperately need: Hillary Clinton. I’ve had the privilege of working with her and witnessing up close her lifelong fight against special interests and the failed status quo. She is the president the working people of California need and I am proud to support her historic campaign.”

Former Assemblyman Dario Frommer, who served as Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez's right-hand man as majority leader, has been appointed by the speaker to the influential California Transportation Commission.

The transportation panel has the important job of setting the order in which state transportation projects receive funding.

This is the first time a legislative leader was given an appointment to the commission, as a result of AB 1672, a bill the speaker carried last year, which grants both the Assembly speaker and the Senate president pro tem one appointment each.

In 2006, there was a tussle between the Schwarzenegger administration and the speaker's office over similar legislation, which the governor vetoed.

The new gig for 44-year-old Frommer pays $100 per diem. His term on the board lasts until 2012.

An initiative to toughen penalties on California drivers who don't maintain car insurance was cleared to begin gathering signatures today.

Steve Poizner, the state's insurance commissioner, is the proponent of the measure, which would require police to remove the license plates of vehicles without insurance. Any car owner that doesn't obtain insurance within seven days would be subject to having their vehicle impounded.

Poizner, the only statewide Republican officeholder not named Schwarzenegger, first filed the initiative back in November.

Here's the title and summary, as given by the California Attorney General.

UNINSURED MOTORISTS. ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES. STATUTE. Requires police officers issuing citations for failure to provide proof of insurance to also remove the vehicle’s license plates unless doing so would be dangerous or contrary to the interests of justice. Requires owners of vehicles with removed plates to obtain insurance within seven days or be subject to impoundment. Requires Highway Patrol Commissioner to adopt regulations and legislature to appropriate sufficient money to implement Act. Eliminates an exemption from the obligation to provide proof of insurance that would have applied to residents of Los Angeles and San Francisco in 2011. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Potential state and local law enforcement costs of several million dollars annually on a statewide basis. Ongoing state administrative costs of potentially several million dollars annually, partly offset by fee revenues. Potential, unknown increase in state tax revenue from vehicle insurance purchased by motorists. (Initiative 07-0086.)

Assembly Democrats and the left-leaning California Budget Project have each produced two quick analyses of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed budget.

Find the Democratic analysis here. And find the California Budget Project's take here.

Apparently the navy blue Chevrolet Impala wasn't tough enough for the Don.

After a week of tooling around in the Senate pool car, Democratic leader Don Perata has settled into a used 2007 Ford Crown Victoria. Taxpayers shelled out $18,646.14 for the silver sedan with 17,449 miles on it, according to his staff.

Perata had expressed interest in "a car like the cops drive" after being carjacked in North Oakland over the holiday break.

The Impala was a temporary ride until he found the same model used by the California Highway Patrol.

Riding the coattails of Barack Obama, a new 60-second radio ad by the California Nurses Association borrows from a speech by the Democratic presidential hopeful to serve its own purpose of ripping a proposed $14.5 billion health care overhaul in California.

The radio spot began running Thursday in the Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Francisco areas. The nurses group is not commenting on the cost of the ad, its frequency, or how long the campaign will run.

Obama, an Illinois senator, criticizes the notion that residents should be required to purchase health insurance -- and be punished by government if they don't.

"The reason people don't have health insurance is because they can't afford it," said Obama, who was not commenting specifically about the proposal under consideration here, ABX1-1.

Under California's legislation, pushed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, health insurance would be mandatory for most residents.

The measure is touted as a way to provide medical coverage to about 70 percent of California's permanently uninsured. The Senate Health Committee will consider the bill Wednesday.

Rose Ann DeMoro, director of the nurses association, said a government mandate would not be necessary if policies truly offered adequate coverage at affordable prices.

"But what's happening here is using the powers of government, it's an overreach of the powers of government, to force people to subsidize profits in the insurance industry," she said. "That's outrageous."

Listen to the new radio spot here.

A referendum campaign to stop enactment of an anti-discrimination law protecting gay and lesbian students fell short Thursday of the needed number of signatures.

The campaign, headed by the political arm of the conservative Capitol Resource Institute, announced it had gathered 350,000 signatures, well short of the needed 430,000 valid signatures.

But supporters of the referendum, which was undertaken without a large financial backer, vowed to fight on, noting they only had 70 days to collect signatures.

"It is unheard of for a volunteer-only effort to find this kind of support, especially in a state as large as California," Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Family Impact and director of the campaign, said in a statement.

England immediately filed a new initiative to overturn the law.

"This initiative will give us double the amount of time to gather signatures, while accomplishing the same goal of eliminating the extreme policies of SB 777," England said.

Referendums are the hardest measures to place before voters in California, with opponents of a new law having only 90 days to collect 433,971 valid signatures .

A regular ballot measure has a six-month window to collect signatures.

The law in question, SB 777, was authored by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, a Santa Monica Democrat. It prohibits discrimination in schools based upon sexual orientation.

England and her conservative allies have said the measure promotes a secret homosexual agenda.

Kuehl and other Democrats have dismissed that claim. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the bill in October.

Ward Connerly, who has worked to ban racial preferences in California and elsewhere, announced Thursday that he is endorsing former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani for president.

Connerly said that Giuliani is more committed than other Republican candidates to eliminating racial preferences. For instance, Connerly said, as New York's mayor, Giuliani ended a program that allowed women and minorities to win city contracts with bids as much as 10 percent higher than the lowest submitted.

Giuliani refused to take part in the city's "identity politics," Connerly said.

"He refused to kiss the ring of Rev. (Al) Sharpton or anyone else," Connerly said.

While conservatives may be put off by Giuliani's relatively moderate record on social issues, Connerly said, he sees it as an asset that will broaden his appeal.

"The conservative vote is not going to elect the next president," Connerly said.

Giuliani won't raise taxes and has the toughness to deal with terrorist threats, he said.

Connerly, a former University of California regent, led successful efforts in California, Washington and Michigan to prohibit preferences. He is targeting other states this year.

That’s what Assemblyman Roger Niello predicted following the unveiling of a state budget that make deep cuts across near every department. And judging from reactions on both sides of the aisle, the Fair Oaks Republican’s quick analysis sounds spot on.

The Democrats and Republicans presented two, stridently different world views of the state’s fiscal mess today.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger fired the first shot in his budget speech. “You cannot tax your way out of this problem,” he said firmly, pointing to charts for the cameras. His budget borrows an additional $3.3 billion of already approved bonds, while making across the board cuts to balance what started as a $14.5 billion deficit.

But Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, with a hoarse and raspy voice, countered that “any budget that only includes the failed approach of cutting and borrowing doesn’t get the job done.”

The cuts were in so many places and so deep that few of the questions asked, of either the governor or the legislative leaders, delved into specifics.

It was all about philosophy.

“Increased taxes don’t work,” said Niello, vice chair of the Assembly budget committee.

“Cuts alone simply will not work,” said the speaker.

And there you have it, along with a $14 billion deficit, a recipe for an “ugly year.”

Dan Smith has all the details of the governor's latest budget proposal, which calls for across the board cuts.

But if you want to know just what parks are set for closure and which beaches would have reduced lifeguard coverage, check out the map, courtesy of the Department of Finance, below.

Rico Oller: Sent press release titled "Rico Oller for Congress!"
“I believe in the conservative values and principles that helped shape this great nation, and that’s the leadership I will take with me to Washington D.C. Voters in this district deserve a candidate who will fight vigorously against illegal immigration, who will resist calls for higher taxes and a candidate who will defend our freedom.”

Mike Holmes: “John Doolittle has done the right thing.” Called it a “tectonic change” in the primary politics. “Oller would be a bad choice for people of the 4th Congressional District. He is not well liked by a lot of people. Whenever his name comes up, people hold their noses or comment about his lack of effectiveness.” His own plans? Wait and see who gets into it. Of Ose? “”It changes the dynamic.”

Eric Egland: “This is a great day for Republicans. Now we can move beyond the scandals and return to discussing the issues.” Doesn’t alter his plans. Of Ose and Oller and maybe Gaines: “Voters are fed up with politics as usual. They are not going to stand for a political shuffle.”

Charlie Brown: “I believe John did the right thing today for his family, for the district and for America. Now is the time to unite as Americans, heal our wounds and solve the many difficult challenges here in Congressional District 4 and across the country we love.”

Todd Stenhouse, Brown spokesman, on impact of the decision on Brown's race: "Our message has never been about John Doolittle. It’s about the best way to move the district and the country forward. Charlie has built an incredible grass roots movement behind him.” He cited a donor base of over 10,000 names.

Doug Ose: Ose wouldn’t reveal his plans, saying only that he plans to take a fews days to talk to his family about a return to politics. “I don’t want to dance on John’s grave today. This is John’s day. Why don’t we just pay him some respect today and take some time to think about this?”

California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring: "The Fourth Congressional District of California is one of the most Republican in the state and has consistently sent Republican representation to Washington. The California Republican Party, together with our county Republican committees, will work diligently to ensure the people of this district continue to benefit from Republican leadership in Congress."

LAST UPDATE: 6:00 p.m.

Lt. Gov. John Garamendi:
"The budget proposed today fails a very simple test: It does not meet the needs of California. Thirty years ago, I began my career in public service hopeful that our state could do more to improve the lot of California’s families. Sadly, the budget debate today is about how our people can get by with less – less education, less healthcare, and fewer opportunities for the future.

"California is at a crossroads. We know we can no longer paper over the fiscal challenges that confront state and local governments, but neither can we abandon our moral responsibility to protect the most vulnerable, or compromise the historic promise of our Golden State. Over the next six months, we face a critical decision -- whether to continue to invest in our future or abandon the historical commitment that made the Golden State. With a powerful and diverse economy, a capable and motivated workforce, and extraordinary entrepreneurs, educators, and research facilities, we stand on a strong foundation. I know that working together we can once again meet these challenges and emerge stronger in the years ahead."

State Treasurer Bill Lockyer:
"The governor’s plan contains some positive features, but doesn’t offer a road map to the long-term fiscal stability we need to build the future we want for California. To permanently fix our financial house, to ensure we can pay for vital services and the infrastructure we need for our growing state, we have to change not only the way we spend money, but the way we raise money. The governor’s plan is missing that important ingredient. By not yet seriously addressing the revenue side – including the shortfall of federal money due California – the proposal fails to evenly apportion sacrifice to help us get through these tough times.

"I also applaud the proposal to continue making the investments we need to repair and strengthen our infrastructure. But I believe those investments should include bonds to make state buildings more energy efficient, which can save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars."

State Controller John Chiang:
"The horrific fiscal hit this budget proposes on our schools and our most vulnerable residents, including low-income families, foster children, seniors and the disabled, is a prime, but painful, example of why we need long-term budget reform. California’s budget relies heavily on the personal income taxes paid by our wealthiest residents, specifically the capital gains and dividends earned by the top five percent of tax payers. Those revenues rise and fall with the stock market, resulting in California’s boom-and-bust budgeting. While the governor’s budget stability proposal is on the right track, I believe we should target the core cause of the volatility and tap and store only excess capital gains revenue during good years for use in the next economic downturn. Programs may not get as big a bump during the flush years as they would like, but they would less likely face the huge cuts the governor is now proposing.

“We also should look at both sides of the ledger. Five years ago, the Department of Finance reported California provided $24 billion in tax breaks. This year, tax breaks total $50 billion. While some of these breaks may be fiscally sound, we must be able to empirically measure the impact of all future tax credits and exemptions. I propose we require periodic review of all new tax breaks to determine whether they are producing the intended benefits and should be cut, continued or expanded. Making government accountable to the public it serves will go a long way in inspiring taxpayers' confidence and their support during these tough fiscal times."

Dale E. Bonner, secretary, Business, Transportation and Housing:
"As Governor Schwarzenegger acknowledged in his announcement, fiscal year 2008-09 is going to be financially challenging for California. Fortunately, the governor understands that even during a difficult budget situation, we still need to maintain California’s infrastructure investment to continue the state’s economic growth, create jobs, and improve quality of life for all Californians.

"The governor will continue his ongoing commitment to prepare California for the future by addressing critical gaps in the state's infrastructure. Californians demonstrated their support for infrastructure investment in November 2006 when voters overwhelmingly passed the bond measures. It is vital that we continue our infrastructure rebuilding progress and deliver positive results to the people of California."

Assembly Democrats

Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles:
"The budget proposed today is what a cuts only budget looks like and the proponents of a cuts only approach need to own it. This budget isn't going for an up or down vote today. Clearly if passed as written, it would cause a lot of permanent harm. It's time for creative thinking and courageous action. This budget isn't particularly creative or courageous. But if we have the will, and we stand up for California values then the ultimate budget solutions we come up with can be."

Assemblywoman Patty Berg, D-Eureka:
"The governor says the system is broken, but then he says we have to live with whatever the system spits out -- even if that means closing parks, socking it to the students and ignoring the elderly, poor and disabled. We have real problems, but this is an overly pessimistic solution. This budget is asking us to abandon our values."

Assemblywoman Wilmer Amina Carter, D- Rialto:
"This budget crisis is not just a spending problem; it is also a revenue problem, and we must find solutions that will keep in mind that all options have to be on the table to get ourselves out of this situation. We must not unduly impact our children, the elderly, the working class as well as the middle class. Making tough decisions to cut spending is necessary. I am personally doing my part by voluntarily reducing my base operating budget by 10 percent; however, cutting spending alone won't solve the problem."

Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa:
"Professor Schwarzenegger needs a refresher course on California values. His budget reflects the values of the extreme right wing, not the majority of Californians. If implemented, the governor’s proposals would unravel the pillars of our good life in California. In the name of fiscal discipline, the governor wants to gut public education, safety nets for the poor, public safety, and environmental protection. But he's also proposing billions in additional bonds. The repayment of existing bonds has contributed greatly to our current budget crisis. So, rather than leading us out of a financial hole, the governor is grabbing a shovel to dig us in deeper. The governor should focus on solutions that appeal to Californians, not his Republican colleagues in the Legislature who want us to cut our way out of this budget crisis."

Assemblymember Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys:
“Governor Schwarzenegger’s proposed across the board cuts and a spending cap as a solution to our budget problem sounds all too familiar. While cuts will be necessary, across the board cuts are the same type of irresponsible, slogan politics that helped create the problem in the first place. Is the governor suggesting that our state firefighters who were stretched to the limit in the recent wildfires take a 10% cut? What about our schools? Is he proposing to cut K-12 education by 10%? Law enforcement? Will anyone feel safe in their communities if we reduce law enforcement by 10%?

"It's time for the governor to take a stand – the easy fixes are over. There is no more wiggle room or ability to simply paper over budget deficits with surpluses squirreled away for a rainy day. It’s time to lay all our options on the table and give the people more than just gimmicks, sound bites and recycled ideas."

Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco:
"As a certified public accountant, I know that the revenues and expenditures must add up. The California State Assembly is leading by example by reducing our expenditures by 10 percent, but the governor’s call for across the board 10 percent cuts defies common sense. The governor’s approach ignores the fact that some programs are more wasteful or less important than others. It turns a blind eye to loopholes that could be closed, misses efficiencies that could be achieved, and lacks new commitments that would grow the economy and provide jobs in California, such as reforming our outdated corporate tax apportionment system. It is also crucial to remember that for every tax dollar California sends to Washington, D.C., this Republican White House returns just 79 cents. No long term budget solution can avoid this federal funding disparity."

Assembly Republicans

Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines, Clovis:
"The budget unveiled today by Governor Schwarzenegger is only the first of many steps that must be taken to get the deficit under control. Assembly Republicans share the governor’s commitment to budget reform and no tax increases, and will introduce proposals to help fix the system.

"Republicans believe lawmakers must approach our $14 billion deficit with great urgency, and stand ready to work together with the Governor and Democrats to make the tough but necessary choices to balance the budget and reduce the deficit, without raising taxes."

Assembly Republican Caucus Chair Bob Huff, Diamond Bar:
"It is clear that difficult decisions must be made with a $14 billion dollar budget deficit and that real cuts must be made. I will not support tax increases to solve this long standing overspending problem during difficult economic times being felt by many in our state."

Assembly Budget Committee Vice-Chair Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks
"We’re facing an ‘ugly’ fiscal year that we aren’t going to be able to cram into the same glass-slipper of fragile, see-through gimmickry. The time for accounting maneuvers is over. The right fit this time around must involve creative solutions that acknowledge the size and scope of our budget deficit."

Assemblyman Anthony Adams, R-Hesperia:
"Governor Schwarzenegger’s budget proposal is only a starting point that sheds some much needed light on the severity of California’s fiscal crisis. It is now up to the legislature to begin the serious work of crafting a real budget that will meet the needs of all Californians. There is hope for California and bright future ahead of us. But we will only get there if we commit to embracing real change in the way we craft our budget."

Assemblyman John J. Benoit, R-Palm Desert
Our government needs to get back to the basics and stop wasting taxpayers’ hard-earned savings on pet projects and new bureaucracies. I firmly believe that any conversation must include talk of a real spending cap — a Gann-type inspired cap — that ties spending growth to inflation and population growth, and forces the state to live within its means. Across-the-board cuts, now necessary, would not have been had that cap been in place. What we must not do is forget what the government’s primary role has always been — protecting the public’s safety. The state of California cannot let 50,000 prisoners go free without jeopardizing the safety of California’s families. As a 31-year law-enforcement veteran, I feel it is my duty to adamantly oppose the early release of criminals into our communities."

Assemblyman Tom Berryhill, R-Modesto:
It is clear that the time has come to address this fiscal mess once and for all. What the governor has proposed represents the starting point for what we must accomplish. The days of ‘balancing’ the budget with smoke and mirrors and more borrowing are long passed. Tax increases are not the answer. This has been proven over and over again. We must cut and we must cut precisely and with great care to ensure that public safety is left strong and able to provide the protections we all expect of them. We must also enact real structural reforms to the budget and the budget process so that we can have a strong and healthy budget from here on out. Only when this is done can we focus on the issues we are here to address: public safety, education reforms, health care, and rebuilding our infrastructure."

Assemblyman Mike Duvall, R-Yorba Linda:
“An across-the-board cut is a good first step towards solving California’s structural deficit, and I applaud the governor for having the courage to propose it. Nobody likes picking teams. In grade school we all feared not getting picked — but now the opposite is true — nobody wants to be the one group that is picked to shoulder the budgetary burden for others. A scorched earth policy is the best one possible right now — though unfortunately (and unfairly) it is the Legislature’s excess and malfeasance that’s getting everyone burned.”

Assemblyman Ted Gaines, R-Roseville:
"California is facing a huge budget crisis, and our $14 billion deficit calls for strong and swift action. We must recognize that across the board budget cuts are a necessity in these dire times. The Legislature has overspent for far too long, and we should not punish hardworking California families with higher taxes to feed Sacramento’s spending addiction.

"We must also look for outside-the-box solutions to address the problem, and we should start by auditing every state agency to find and eliminate waste and fraud. As a small business owner, I understand that taxes and regulations are already burdensome, and look forward to working with the governor to continue to find ways we can eliminate wasteful government spending and solve our state’s severe budget crisis.”

Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, R-Cathedral City:
“If we keep spending on autopilot…Welcome to the State of Denial.”

Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa, R-Oroville:
“There is no doubt that we are going to have to make some very difficult decisions this year. California will face an uphill battle in order to find solutions to our $14 billion dollar deficit caused by this current budget mess. We must reduce spending to meet this challenge while protecting our most important mission, public safety. Hard-working Californians should not face higher taxes and fees because the big spenders in Sacramento refuse to reform. The California Legislature must finally learn to live within its means. I am committed to working with the Governor and my Republican colleagues to reduce spending, and I will continue my stance to oppose any budget that includes tax increases.”

Assemblyman Jim Silva, R-Huntington Beach:
“The time for gimmicks, papering over the gaps and borrowing must come to an end. Getting spending under control and reforming the budget process are the keys to restoring fiscal sanity in California.”

Assemblyman Cameron Smyth, R-Santa Clarita:
“I look forward to working with the governor to continue to find ways to cut wasteful government spending without raiding local government. I have faith that my colleagues and I can sit down, put partisan politics aside, and make responsible decisions regarding the budget without raising taxes. It is not how we react in the good times, but how we respond to the challenges in the tough times that show our true character and resolve as a state.”

Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, R-Orange:
“Just a few months ago, I stood with the governor opposing a three-judge panel’s attempt to release prisoners early from prison. It was the rallying cry to pass AB 900. Now, just four months later, the governor is reversing himself and is proposing the release of 22,000 lawfully sentenced prisoners prior to the end of their sentences. In the same exact speech, he said that, ‘…all of these people think exactly the way we think, and they know exactly what we know, that releasing criminals back into our streets will be a public safety disaster, and it is absolutely unacceptable.’ I just can't reconcile the two positions. Releasing 22,000 is a non-starter for Republicans and we will not jeopardize the public’s safety.”

Senate Democrats

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland:
"I believe it goes back to the fundamental question: What kind of state do we want? The governor’s budget really has to be a vision. It’s got to be a vision that decides: Do we want to be in the 40s (in national rankings) when it comes to education? Do businesses want to keep California in the 40s when it comes to education?

"We've got a lot of bond money where if we can get it out the door and put people to work, it’s public works money. The governor has been quoting FDR. This is what FDR basically did. We did that (passed the infrastructure bonds) a couple years ago. There’s no reason why we can’t be putting people to work in droves, but we’ve got to get the stuff out the door."

Sen. Ron Calderon, D-Montebello:
"I deeply appreciate the challenge faced by Governor Schwarzenegger in trying to erase a $14.5 billion deficit. But the budget he proposed today sacrifices the promise of California’s future to maintain a status quo that fails to meet the needs of those who depend upon government most.

"The fiscal crisis we face can only be met through daring leadership that is willing to challenge the status quo, while protecting those of us who are most vulnerable. Unfortunately, the governor’s budget fails to meet this standard."

Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter:
If the governor is looking at rural Arkansas as a model for addressing California’s budget issues, perhaps California is just too big of a state for him to handle. Making across-the-board budget cuts is simple-minded. The governor is simply afraid to tell us what his priorities are – how can you not have priorities? It’s a simple-minded way for a politician not to take responsibility and it smells of desperation. I think the governor has finally run out of rope. Now’s the time for real leadership, but it looks like he’s simply throwing in the towel. I'm ready to work with the governor to come up with a smart budget solution, but we’re not going to get there when the governor gives every function of state government the same weight. For example, cutting corrections by 10 percent could mean early release for prisoners – and I’m certainly not for that."

Sen. Jenny Oropeza, D-Long Beach:
“As a former budget chair, I believe the governor’s call for 10-percent, across-the-board cuts is the least responsible way to balance a budget. This is like using a blunt hatchet instead of a sharp scalpel. Just as school scores are beginning to show improvement, the governor calls for suspension of Proposition 98 and additional cuts that give no consideration to the work and investment already made. His proposed cuts to transportation funding are especially hard on local governments that have already made plans for regional improvements. This is contrary to what residents have repeatedly made clear: Gas taxes and related projects should be for transportation improvements — not balancing the budget. I do not believe most public servants in policy-making positions today could sleep soundly knowing the damages that would result from these cuts. Californians deserve better.”