Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

Our latest headlines

• Lois Wolk Receives “Golden Trout Award” for Her Conservation Leadership
• The McCain Global Warming Plan: Like Bush, More of the Same--Putting Interests of Polluters over the People
• Remember the Year of Health Care? Schwarzenegger’s Budget Cuts in Medi-Cal Would Increase Uninsured and Lose More in Federal Aid than it “Saves”
• Republican ‘Men in Black’ Seek To Purge Voter Rolls of “Aliens”
• Vallejo's Bankruptcy Highlights Need for Transparency in Government
• We Cannot Afford to Let Other States Lure Away Our Best Teachers Because of Budget Shortsightedness
• California Proposition 98 Will Abolish Rent Control and Have Major Impact on Accessible and Affordable Housing for People with Disabilities, Seniors & Low Income Workers

Want more? Dive into the archives.

About Us

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Sponsors

Books

Lois Wolk Receives “Golden Trout Award” for Her Conservation Leadership

Willingness to tackle tough environmental issues including the Prospect Island fish kill, California Delta fish decline, and Central Valley chinook salmon collapse appreciated

By Dan Bacher

California Trout, a statewide fishing and conservation group, honored Assemblywoman Lois Wolk (D-Davis) for her leadership as the chairwoman of the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee on some of California's most pressing water issues, including the state's fisheries declines, flood protection, and water policy reform.

Brian Stranko, the organizations chief executive officer, gave Wolk the Golden Trout plaque at a ceremony in Sacramento after the annual Fisheries Legislative Forum before a group of legislators, commercial fishermen, recreational anglers and conservationists.

California Trout (CalTrout), an organization that advocates the protection and restoration of wild trout and steelhead waters throughout California, gives the award semi-annually to the individual who makes "the most distinguished contribution to the protection of wild trout, steelhead, and their habitat"- someone whose "actions and deeds exemplify the meaning of public service." Previous recipients include two former California Governors, Congressman Mike Thompson and former Senator Alan Cranston.

"Lois Wolk is a champion for the protection of our state's declining fish populations and the failing Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which provides critical habitat for our state's fisheries," said Brian Stranko, CalTrout's chief executive officer. "She has successfully taken on some of the most challenging and complicated issues facing the state, taking a leadership role on water policy and in efforts to strengthen flood protection and land use planning in California's Central Valley and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region. Californians are lucky to have such a strong advocate looking out for their water, recreation, and wildlife resources."

Last year, Wolk led efforts to protect threatened and endangered native trout, aquatic, and amphibian species on California rivers and streams from the effects of motorized suction dredge gold mining. Her bill, AB 1032, passed through the State and Assembly, but was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in October. California Trout and the Karuk Indian Tribe sponsored the bill.

The bill didn’t become law, but it got all of the way to the Governor’s desk under a lot of contention, said Stranko. It required a lot of patience and leadership by Wolk to get through the legislature.

This year, she is carrying a package of bills to help protect and restore Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta fisheries.

The McCain Global Warming Plan: Like Bush, More of the Same--Putting Interests of Polluters over the People

Laudable Goals but Fails to Reach Them

By Carl Pope
Executive Director
Sierra Club

While Senator McCain deserves credit for his work on early global warming legislation in the Senate and for bringing attention to the need for urgent action, his plan is driven by yesterday's solutions and they won't solve tomorrow's problems. The science on global warming has changed dramatically over the last five years and Senator McCain's proposals are outdated and fail to provide the big changes Americans are demanding.

Like President Bush, McCain's policies on global warming offer more of the same, by putting the interests of polluters over the people and failing to invest in building a clean energy economy that will create new jobs and opportunities at a time when an economic boost is sorely needed. Americans want real change--investment in clean, renewable energy instead of Big Oil, Nuclear power and other polluting industries. We need more windmills not windfalls. Unfortunately Senator McCain's plan is designed to fail.

Any credible global warming plan, including Senator McCain's should adhere these basic principles:

First, the targets and timetables must be sufficient to do what the science demands in both the near and long terms to reduce the negative impacts of climate change to the maximum extent possible. This will require reductions in total emissions on the order of 80 percent by 2050 and 20 percent by 2020.

Next, permits to emit carbon must be used for public benefit, not private windfalls. Pollution allowances are a public trust. All allowances should be auctioned or otherwise used to benefit the public, not to generate windfall profits for polluting industries. Free allocations, if any, must be limited in size and restricted to a short transition period.

Revenue raised by the bill should be used to promote a clean energy future by investing in the highest-value solutions for emissions reductions first. These funds should not be used to perpetuate dirty, expensive, outdated technologies like coal and nuclear energy. Allowances and auction revenues should be used to accelerate deployment of the clean energy technologies we have today and to develop the ones we need for tomorrow. Funds should be invested only in the cleanest, cheapest, safest, and fastest means of reducing emissions.

Remember the Year of Health Care? Schwarzenegger’s Budget Cuts in Medi-Cal Would Increase Uninsured and Lose More in Federal Aid than it “Saves”

California already spends less in Medicaid than all states except Louisiana and Georgia

By Frank D. Russo

This is not something that makes one’s breast swell with pride about the state of California in the 21st Century. Governor Schwarzenegger has rolled out the “Year of Education” and proposes to cut needed spending, so our educational system will only worsen and the future for our kids will be dimmer. You’ve read about this here and in all newspapers in the state--the resulting pink slips to cherished teachers, stories about other states recruiting those who will not have jobs with these cuts, and the outpouring of parents, kids, teachers, and busineses who need a trained workforce who have been appearing in their local communities where the cuts are felt.

But still within memory of last year’s blockbuster “Year of Health Care” directed and produced by our Governor, his budget would increase the numbers of uninsured in our state--including children--cut hospitals and access to medical care for millions of Californians, and end up costing us more in the loss of Federal dollars than it “saves us.” You’ll be reading more about this as the budget moves forward.

A new report out from the California Budget Project, Governor’s Proposed Health Cuts Would Increase Ranks of Uninsured, Reduce Access, provides this jarring information as we enter the week of the May Revise of the Governor’s proposed state budget with even more cuts predicted on top of this.

This is what they have to say:

“The Governor's Proposed 2008-09 Budget includes sharp reductions to state-funded health coverage programs that provide access to needed health services to more than 7 million Californians. The proposals are designed to decrease the number of Californians covered by Medi-Cal and Healthy Families, reduce access to services for those who keep their coverage, and increase the amounts families must pay. Altogether, the proposals would increase the number of uninsured Californians by more than half a million when fully implemented. The proposals would result in state savings of $1.1 billion, but also would cause California to forgo $1.2 billion in federal matching dollars that could help the state weather the current economic downturn.”

So, if the governor gets his way, we will be shifting Healthy family costs to families, resulting in an estimated 50,000 or more children losing coverage. But it gets worse—for those who still hae coverage, there are increased copayments for such frivolities as prescription drugs, eye exams, and doctor visits to treat illnesses—which will deter these families from getting this care for their kids. But that’s not all—the Governor proposes to reduce payments to managed care plans—by another 5% which will make it harder to find medical care providers who accept Healthy Families coverage and in some counties will leave families without any providers at all. Pretty nifty trick in the year after the year of health care in California—make doctors endangered species and further out of reach for the neediest.

Republican ‘Men in Black’ Seek To Purge Voter Rolls of “Aliens”

By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ill-advisedly ruled that requiring identification at the polls as a requisite for casting a ballot is Constitutional, the G.O.P. is taking the next step: requiring “proof of citizenship” at the polls.

The initial effort is being made in Missouri where voters will likely pass such a measure in August – in time to disenfranchise enough poor people to swing the state to the Republicans. Swinging state election results to Republicans by disenfranchising poor Democrats is, you see, the order of the day.

Oh, the G.O.P. will say it’s to stop fraudulent voting by “illegal aliens”. Even though every reliable study shows that’s as rare as voting by Martians.

How would one “prove” citizenship to our Republican ‘men in black’? There are only two ways: a valid birth certificate combined with other identification (social security card, driver’s license or other photo identification) or a U.S. Passport. The package costs over $40 and takes several months – and soon will take longer as Counties are beset with requests for birth certificates. A more honest Supreme Court ruled such restrictions on voting to be an unconstitutional “poll tax”.

But, of course, you won’t have to “prove” anything if you are white, will you?

Birth records in the rural South tend to be a bit scanty for Black residents born in the 30’s, 40’s or 50’s. In California and other Southwestern States, babies born to undocumented parents – although legally citizens themselves – often have birth records that are fouled up because of their parents unwillingness to provide their own true names.

But visiting the ‘sins of the father’ on the innocent citizen children matters little to Republican operatives seeking any means to continue eight years of Republican rule that began with their own vote fraud in Florida – later ratified by their G.O.P. court.

It’s a simple continuation of the attitude that led to the resignation of Richard M. Nixon: anything’s fair if it leads to victory. Is it any wonder the Bush Administration is failing to bring democracy to Iraq? They wouldn’t know democracy if it bit them!

Vallejo's Bankruptcy Highlights Need for Transparency in Government

By Peter Scheer
Executive Director
California First Amendment Coalition

The city of Vallejo has taken the extraordinary step of filing for federal bankruptcy protection. While the financial distress of this San Francisco suburb (population 117,000) is especially acute, its fiscal problems are fundamentally the same as those facing many California cities and counties--and, indeed, the state itself.

To the familiar litany of causes--falling sales tax revenue, the home mortgage crisis leading to collapsing home prices and lower real estate taxes--there needs to be added one more: Too much government secrecy.

Vallejo is broke, and other cities and counties may be close behind, because their personnel costs--salary and benefits for current employees and retirees--are higher than they can afford. While decisions at the state level are partly to blame, ultimate responsibility for the mismatch of revenue and expenses rests with local elected officials who, meeting in secret, have managed to avoid public discussion of the true cost and fiscal impact of the pay deals that they have approved.

If no one is watching, it's easy for public officials to give generous pay and benefit increases without having a clue how to pay for them. That's not so easy to do in a public session, where voters demand to know how much taxes will have to be raised, and how much other expenses cut, in order to make good on the promised increases in compensation. Such resistance is called political accountability, and it obviously depends on public access to the meetings in which elected representatives make their decisions.

Although in theory legislative bodies in California must operate in the "sunshine," the Brown Act, the state's open-meetings law, carves out a huge exception for negotiations with public employee unions. The combined effect of this exception, and separate provisions of the labor code, is to close the door, pull down the shades and turn off the lights on virtually all decisions relating to employee compensation and other terms of union contracts ("collective bargaining agreements").

Negotiating positions are determined in secret, negotiations themselves are conducted in secret, and negotiated contracts are ratified in secret. By the time the public gets to see the compensation provisions of a new union contract, it is already a done deal--indeed, any effort to change the terms likely would be a breach of the contract.