by Robert in Monterey [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

by Julia Rosen [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

Or should I ask: Do state employees have to assume that newspapers will put their name, title and salary into a searchable database.  Or what about a more specific question: what is the added public benefit from having names attached to salary and title information?

Why am I asking all of these questions?  Well, the SacBee decided to create a searchable database of state employees' salaries on their website.  Needless to say state employees are upset.  Yesterday SEIU 1000 staged a protest in front of the newspaper's offices.  The leadership presented 3,000 signatures demanding that the database be taken down.  SacBee:

Union President Jim Hard told the protesters that he was "disgusted" by what he described as the paper's "crass commercialism" and "callous disregard" for his members' safety.

"Our union is completely in favor of public access to information regarding the use of their tax money, the pay scales, the classifications, the number of state employees and comparisons in any reasonable fashion to counties, cities and the public sector," Hard said. "But to post my name up there, I'd like The Bee to explain how that helps any public policy of public finance discussion or issue."

There is no significant reason why the need to attach people's names to spread sunshine on the state government.

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

An umbrella coalition representing a wide spectrum of interest groups,from education, labor, public safety, environment, health care andsocial services—nearly every state general fund service—has formed in order to press Governor Schwarzenegger to raise taxes, rather than slash 10% of spending across the board, reports the SacBee. The coalition as of yet remains unnamed, but they’re ready tocarry it all the way to a ballot initiative if they can’t persuade thelegislature in their favor.

Governor Schwarzenegger is calling on the state Supreme Court to reverse an appellate court’s recent decision to ban parents from home schooling their children if they lack a teaching credential, reports the LA Times. If the courtrefuses to act, the Governor is planning on pushing through legislationto safeguard the right to home school children.

by Brian Leubitz [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

A few links:

by Julia Rosen [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

You have got to be kidding me.  It appears there is an argument that no matter what happens with the vote on Prop 94-97, the Native American gambling compacts that the federal government's approval, which only happened on a technicality could be the determining factor if they are approved.  Arnold was right in the middle of this and is now claiming that he had no clue that it could result in this confusion.  Yeah, right.

Here is the timeline as laid out in the SacBee this morning.

Early September: Secretary of State Debra Bowen sends the four compacts, which had been passed by the legislature and signed by the governor to the Interior Department for approval.

The Interior Department had 45 day to act on the compacts.  They "mysteriously disappeared soon after arriving and did not resurface for 80 days.

December 3rd, they announce they will delay publishing the notice of approval to avoid confusion over their legal status.

December 6th Arnold makes a call to the Secretary of Interior Dirk Kempthorne, asking him to give "some attention" to the compacts and brings up the timing of the publication of approval.

December 19th, Department officials reverse their original decision to delay their announcement and approve them, since the 45 days for action had already taken place and they could not do anything else.

by Julia Rosen [courtesy of Working Californians blogs]

Here is a clear sign that the speculation about Arnold's intentions in proposing a grossly unacceptable budget has some merit. He told the SacBee that he does not expect that they actually close the 48 parks he had called to close in his budget.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Wednesday he proposed closing 48 state parks to "rattle the cage" at the Capitol, but fully expects lawmakers to come forward with alternatives -- including higher fees -- to keep parks open.

"The budget is always a proposal ... There's the reality, and the reality will rattle the cage," Schwarzenegger said during a meeting Wednesday on a wide range of issues with the Bee's editorial board.

Last week the governor released a $101 billion general fund spending plan that was balanced largely through government spending reductions. Closing 48 state parks would eliminate 136 positions and help the parks department save 8.9 percent of its budget -- or $13.3 million.

That is $13.3 million out of a $15 billion budget deficit. This was a very high profile proposal, with little fiscal gain, designed to fire up people. It worked.

Current analysis suggests that increasing fees will drive down attendance exacerbating the problem, not solving it.

by Julia Rosen [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

The independent and respected Legislative Analyst thumbed her nose at Arnold's budget today.  SacBee

In trying to cut his way out of fiscal distress, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed budget fails to prioritize which programs are most critical for California's future, according to an analysis of his spending plan released Monday.

In her report on the governor's proposed spending plan, Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill said the administration's across-the-board reductions would leave programs "operating in a less than optimal manner and provide lower quality services to the public."

Hill encouraged the Legislature to identify more revenues, whether it's eliminating tax credits or adding fees.

This should surprise no one.  The governor's budget is completely unacceptable for numerous reasons.  California does not have a spending problem.  We have a revenue problem.  There is no way to gimmick ourselves out of this crisis.  All of the tricks have already been tried in recent years.  There is not much left.  It is high time we examined the structural reasons why we are experiencing a budget crisis.  There are no third rails this year.