The Shady Calderon Family In The Legislature

David Lazarus, the consumer columnist in the L.A. Times, had a fairly good column in Wednesday's Business section about how state Sen. Ron Calderon had taken $80,000 in drug industry contributions and then introduced sleazy legislation that would allow the drug companies to share private individuals' prescription records with mass mailers.

The bill is thankfully dead for now, failing to get support in the pertinent legislative committee. But hold your breath -- such bills have a bad habit of being resurrected in the waning hours of a legislative session when so much is going on in the rush to get out of Sacramento that no one is paying attention.

The Calderon bill would have given individuals a right to opt out of such disclosures of private information about their personal habits. But since most people don't follow what is going on very closely and won't take the time to opt out if they know what is happening, an "opt out" provision provides scant protection to the public. Lazarus does a good job of showing this.

But I nonetheless found the Lazarus column lacking in one important particular. It did not mention that Ron Calderon is the younger sibling of Charles M. Calderon and Thomas Calderon, who served in the Legislature earlier. In fact, there has been a Calderon in the Legislature from essentially the same East Side area around Montebello since 1982.

Name identification, and heavy lobbyist contributions, have been responsible for putting one Calderon after another into the Legislature, where each have served special interests, not the public interest.

To put a rude word on the record of all three brothers, they are dishonest. They are in politics for one reason, and that is to feather their own pockets with cash from the insurance and other industries. It is a sordid story that now goes back more than a quarter century. But the weak Sacramento press corps has scarcely ever examined the depredations of this lowlife family.

I once had a clash as a reporter with Steve Peace, a San Diego state senator at the time, over some lobbyist-serving legislation he was introducing. On a back stair of the capitol, I told Peace I thought he was a crook. "How can you say that?" he demanded. "I know one when I see one," I responded.

This did not quite match the time I suggested to then-State Sen. Alan Robbins that (this was before term limits) he could "afford to go straight," because he had made a lot of money in private real estate and, in any case, he would be in the Legislature for life.

"I'm considering it," Robbins replied. But he wasn't considering it enough, or soon enough, because a few months later Robbins was indicted and later convicted of taking bribes. He served a term in the federal prison in Lompoc.

I well remember the time Robbins told me with tears in his eyes that he faced a prison term. He could easily have implicated manyh others, but he did not.

The Calderons, so far, have been luckier. Federal prosecutors have not been so diligent with them. Yet one Calderon after another has been a tool in the hands of unsavory interests, and Charles Calderon, if memory serves me, walked out of Sacramento with thousands of dollars in campaign contributions in his pocket. He wisely would not meet with me for an interview about it.

I once drove the late Ernest Debs, a Los Angeles County supervisor, out of public office after a long career by showing the special interest money he was getting persistently, and by quoting the then-mayor of Beverly Hills, the late Jake Stuchen, as saying Debs solicited a bribe to keep a high rise building from being built in West Hollywood that would have cast a shadow on certain private homes in Beverly Hills.

The reports induced then-Los Angeles City Councilman Ed Edelman to jump into a contest against Debs, and when Debs saw Edelman coming, and my heavy coverage of the race, he decided to retire, citing his health. "I want to live," Debs declared, and then he did go on living, until he finally died at age 98. He too took a large amount of campaign contributions into private life.

It was possible to get rid of Debs, because county supervisor is a more visible position than state legislator, and once he had well known opposition, Debs was a sitting duck, (although, I might add, it is rare that any serious opponent arises to a sitting supervisor either).

But with the Calderons, they seem to go on and on, and nobody, certainly not in the press corps, pays sufficient attention.

A "Face-Lift" Of Prop.13 Will Not Be At All Easy

Both Bill Stall, a retired Pulitzer Prize winner for the L.A. Times, and Times state political columnist George Skelton have, most appropriately, been writing about California's ever more critical fiscal problems. Inspiration has come from editorial writer Bob Greene and editorial pages editor Jim Newton.

Looking far back in modern history, to the French Revolution, we can't forget that it began with a French fiscal crisis. The Estates-General was summoned to meet in the spring of 1789, because, over many years, the French government had been running out of money, its taxing system was inadequate, and the Revolution soon began. The deliberative body began talking May 5, 1789, and the Bastille fell just two months and nine days later, thrusting France into eventual chaos. When it was all over, after the reign of terror, Napoleon Bonaparte came to power.

Well, as Skelton and Stall have pointed out, and which really cannot be contradicted, California too is saddled with an antiquated, unworkable budget and tax process, and it would seem that reform or even upset, if not revolution, has to be around the corner. The state's needs exceed its tax revenues, and, more and more, a succession of fiscal tricks has not been able to resolve the discrepancy.

Skelton has concentrated on the obstacles in the Schwarzenegger Administration, and the Legislature, to passing a reasonable budget. The governor, after five long years of pledging no new taxes, now has come around to the concept. But he may not be able to command necessary legislative support.

Stall, in an Op Ed Page column yesterday, takes finally a more dire view than Skelton, who usually writes more about process than basic change. Stall, who also was a former gubernatorial press secretary under Jerry Brown, says the time has come for "a fair revision" of Proposition 13 under which property tax increases are supposedly limited to 2% a year, and assessments of real property value are not changed until a property is sold. Even then, they are capped at 1% of assessed property value. (Bond issues approved by the voters mean that in practice increases beyond these limits do occur, but not enough in most cases to allow the state to meet its needs).

Stall recognizes that reform will not be easy, and to get by the loathing of homeowners, particularly those straining to meet higher mortgage rates and living on fixed, or in inflationary terms, declining real incomes, he proposes that any change in Proposition 13 continue to protect their interests. But he would lift prohibitions on increases in commercial property taxes. Also, he would scrap the measure's requirement that tax increases secure a two thirds majority.

That's where he lost me in his column. He probably felt the column was long enough already, or maybe his editors did. But I don't think you can realistically consider any major change in Proposition 13 without considering the fact that both major parties in the Legislature, not to mention the governor's office, are owned by business interests. These entities are so corrupt that the notion they might voluntarily vote against the interests of their own major campaign contributors is close to impossible. Big special interests have the Legislature and the governor in their grip, and little of substance can occur until that grip is broken. We shouldn't hold our breath.

It was Bismarck who once made the sardonic crack that legislating, like sausage making, cannot be too carefully watched, because the process is too grim. The sausage making by the California Legislature is apt to be poisonous.

No, if Proposition 13 is going to be revised, this will take an initiative campaign, and, as we know, those are often fraught with almost insuperable difficulties. Those popular with the voters are often unacceptable to the courts, because they tend to be written in extravagant and constitutionally questionable terms. And the arguments made pro and con such initiatives sink into the irrationality of one-page campaign mailings and 30-second commercials.

Frankly, I have no idea how this will all turn out. It is true that progress in California is being stymied, the investments we need to make in our future are not forthcoming, the state is falling behind others with more reasonable tax systems. But the real-time political situation has led steadily toward paralysis, and it's going to take more than Skelton or Stall and all their progressive thoughts to bring about real change.

California Tax Increase Needed, But What Kind?

I have to hand it to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and to Los Angeles Times consumer columnist David Lazarus: Both want to rile up the people of California with foolish schemes and impossible proposals. On taxes, this morning, only Times state political columnist George Skelton is at least somewhat sensible.

Schwarzenegger, in undoubtedly what is a ruse, proposes spending cuts as an alternative to a tax increase. He would cut $3 billion from the schools, release up to 50,000 prisoners, slash the courts, close 48 state parks, including Will Rogers, San Clemente, Carlsbad, Bolsa Chica and San Onofre. But L.A. Times writers Evan Halper and Jordan Rau quote insiders as saying this is just a plan to so alarm Californians that they will realize a tax increase is mandatory.

Lazarus, meanwhile, writes it is time to get rid of Proposition 13's limits on property tax increases. This would, of course, force hundreds of thousands of elderly people on fixed incomes out of their homes. Lazarus more reasonably suggests it might only be done on commercial property, but this could depress the economy, close businesses by the thousands and increase unemployment. What Lazarus may like, for all I know, is the prospect of newly homeless thousands crowding the streets, so he can have an excuse not to drive in to work in the morning.

Skelton, meanwhile, is so at least partially responsible, he should be governor. He writes that an increase in the state income tax, for middle class as well as the wealthy, extension of the sales tax to services, and taxing commercial property closer to market value are the necessary adjustments. "The state of the state is unstable and sinking," Skelton concludes.

Well, unfortunately, there does need to be a tax increase, due to the ramifications of the subprime mortgage crisis, brought to us by the greed of the financial institutions and the stupidity of the regulators, such as Alan Greenspan. The economy is in a downturn, the markets are in a correction, and California state revenues have fallen far below projections. Schwarzenegger's experts now foresee a $14 billion budgetary shortfall.

So, what to do?

The answer is really fairly simple. Taxes have to be raised, and the fairest raise is an increase in state income taxes. This centers the burden on those who can most afford it. Extending the sales tax, already a whopping 8% plus in most areas, and raising taxes on business is less desirable. A sales tax, in particular, is retrogressive. And it doesn't get at the people like me, who don't spend the money they earn, except on fabulous cruises like the one I'm about to take around Africa.

Usually, when income tax hikes are proposed, the talk is that they should be confined to the top 10% of the income earners. Skelton, however, points out this morning that this top 10%, the people earning $119,000 a year or more, already pay 80% of the taxes. Since Schwarzenegger is not Lenin, he will never go for that, and neither will the legislators, so beholden to campaign contributions from the wealthy. So, it is inevitable that when the ax falls, it will have to fall on middle income people as well as perhaps a commensurate increase for the wealthy.

The governor, in his inimitable ineptitude, is also suggesting that there be a fee, or state surcharge, on property insurance. This in effect puts him in the Lazarus camp. He would put Proposition 13 in a meat grinder, and pare the 1978 ballot measure down a little, while perhaps avoiding the popular vote that presumably would be necessary to do away with Proposition 13.

Meanwhile, on the local level, in order to cuddle up to the federal government and get $648 million in federal transportation aid, the authorities are preparing to bow to federal wishes and institute tolls on some freeway car pool lanes which were built at public expense, thus taxing drivers twice and introducing new class distinctions in a state that needs more highways and rail lines rather than more tolls.

It's a mess, no question. We have a foolish governor who has allowed state expenditures to climb at a rate higher than the properly recalled Gov. Gray Davis did. We have a dysfunctional and corrupt Legislature, with the House Speaker gallivanting around the world spending his campaign contributions on luxuries while failing to stay in Sacramento to do his job. And we have an increasing number of elderly prisoners living high off the hog when they could be released and go back on the tax rolls, if they got jobs.

Something is going to have to give here.

--

The New York Times had a review yesterday by William Grimes of the poignant book by Zarah Ghahramani. "My Life As A Traitor," about her time in the dread Evin prison in Iran, listening to others being tortured while suffering herself in a six-by-five foot cell with no bed. Ghahramani's crime in this fundamentalist Muslim state was her proclivity for wearing brightly-colored clothes, lots of jewelry and pink shoes. For that, she was arrested and incarcerated.

This beautiful young woman is now in Australia, where, presumably, she will be a lot happier and can wear any clothes she likes, or, on the beaches, nothing. But, in the meantime, she is another Muslim hero, someone willing to stand up against the oppressive dictates of fanatic believers in an out-of-date religion. Salutations and best wishes to her.

The New York Times reports this morning that the evil Iranian regime of Mullahs has executed 23 people and amputated the left arms and right legs of five just since the New Year began.

--

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is not done yet. Today, we learn that Obama has picked up the endorsements of two senators, including Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic 2004 nominee for president, and the influential Culinary Workers union in Nevada.

The Kerry endorsement is a mixed blessing. It reminds me of Winston Churchill's observation when he heard that Italy had joined the Axis: "Well, it's only fair, they were on our side the last time." Obama should use Kerry carefully, not permitting him to open his mouth and make bad jokes about the troops in Iraq the way he did in the last congressional campaign. However, Kerry did say Obama can use his e-mail lists, which could be quite helpful.

Also, Gail Collins in the New York Times this morning has a useful column pointing out that normally Sen. Hillary Clinton is dull, dull, dull.

Partisan Bickering Blocks Legislative Action

Written from Palm Springs, Calif.--

The Founding Fathers did not envision the growth of political parties in the American system of government, but we have been stuck with them since the Federalist consensus was broken in the first decade after the Constitution went into effect.

Now, in the runup to the 2008 elections, polling indicates the American people have had their fill of both parties and that the electorate is looking for both a President and a Congress that will not be paralyzed by partisan disputes. At the moment, much constructive action in both state and federal government is being stymied by incessant bickering.

The bickering -- preventing absolutely required decisions in government -- was the subject of two articles in yesterday's Los Angeles Times -- one by George Skelton, the newspaper's state political columnist, on the California Legislature's inability to come to grips with either the state's water needs or an honest reapportionment of its own seats, the other by Noam Levey of the paper's Washington Bureau on the inability of Congress and President Bush to agree on a course that would suspend the rapid spread of the Alternative Minimum Tax to millions of middle-class taxpayers.

In both cases, the strife between the political parties is doing more than just impeding action, it is blocking it. It is becoming apparent that only if a single party holds the presidency and filibuster-proof majorities in Congress, and the governorship and better-than-two-thirds in the Legislature, very little can be accomplished. Since it is not often, such commanding positions are assembled in the American democratic system, government, on major issues like water, reapportionment or taxes often becomes bogged down. (The paralysis often is compounded by the fact that the political parties are themselves divided both ideologically and sectionally, preventing assembling working majorities even when one party is in total command).

Again, this is another example of the British system of democracy being superior to our own. In Britain, the parliamentary majority is the government, and party discipline is much greater. If the Prime Minister wants something, almost always he can achieve it, and if the Prime Minister loses the confidence of his own majority in Parliament, he is either quickly replaced, or new elections are called. In 1940, when the government of Neville Chamberlain proved incapable of fighting World War II, Chamberlain was forced to resign, and Winston Churchill was named Prime Minister, coming to the rescue. Similarly, in World War I, when the Asquith government faltered, Lloyd George came to power and was much more effective.

One can only conclude that if the British system had been in force in this country, the Democratic majority in Congress assembled in the 2006 election would have been able to replace President George W. Bush in short order and institute new policies. Instead, there has been a deadlock which threatens war funding, and nothing much will happen until after the forthcoming election. Some might argue that at least half of Bush's second term has been wasted, and that in our system, we have in effect had a lame duck in the White House since 2006.

In yesterday's column, Skelton noted that the paralysis in the California Legislature has more and more led to a proliferation of ballot initiatives. Various interest groups, noting the incapacity of the Legislature to act, have opted to circulate petitions to bring issues, such as water and reapportionment in the present context, to the ballot, where they can be resolved by popular vote.

The trouble with this is, first, that it is a violation of the principles of representative government. Supposedly, under our system, we elect legislators who develop the expertise to decide complicated issues more ably than the public could. But in modern California, not only have the legislators abdicatd this responsibility, but they cannot assume it, in part, because under term limits they are not serving long enough to develop this expertise.

Then, second, when a partisan minority can block action, it simply compounds the mess. And the reason the minorities are so numerous, why popular attitude shifts are not followed quickly by the assembling of new majorities, is that the legislators have quietly agreed between themselves to gerrymander districts in such ways that incumbents almost always win. In California, we have the extremely skillful gerrymanderer, Michael Berman, to thank for this embroglio. He has fashioned each redistricting in the interests of incumbent legislators and congressmen, taking away the right of the people to engineer partisan changes through attitude swings reflected in election results.

Another further complication is that, increasingly, the ballot propositions have been invalidated, or interpreted, by the courts. Thus, quite frequently, the popular votes do not decide issues either.

It is indeed a mess, and something is going to have to give, eventually. But when, and exactly what is going to happen?

On the Alternative Minimum Tax, one cannot escape the impression that this constitutes an intentional tax increase done in a furtive manner so that the Congressmen and women who voted for it can hope to escape responsibility in the minds of the electorate, most of whom do not readily understand these things.

On the water issue in state government, it seems clear that the future prosperity of our arid state is being compromised by the inability of the Legislature to act, and that it is by no means certain that a popular majority can be assembled either. We are all threatened because our system just doesn't work.

More Investigation Needed Of Nunez Conduct

The questionable conduct of State Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez does not yet reach the level of the scandal that caused State Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush to resign in the year 2000.

Quackenbush, it was definitely established, accepted contributions to a special "charitable" fund from insurers who were guilty of failing to pay just claims from the Northridge earthquake, and some of the funds went to a team his children were playing on. Quackenbush had also given $100,000 of the contributions to a campaign by his wife for public office, and it was clearly established there was a quid pro quo, meaning that specific insurers escaped liability for bad claims handling by contributing to the Quackenbush fund.

One day before a whistleblower from his own department was scheduled to testify before a legislative committee, Quackenbush resigned.

He and his family ended up living in Hawaii, and a man once thought by some to be a future candidate for governor is now in political oblivion.

Nunez, so far, has been shown to have lived high off the hog in Europe and South America, and made other questionable expenditures out of campaign funds. Some of the contributors also gave money to charities favored by the Speaker. But it has not yet been clearly demonstrated that there was a quid pro quo, that Nunez took specific legislative positions in exchange for the contributions.

Nevertheless, there should be more investigation, by the state attorney general, if the Legislature won't investigate itself.

This stinks to high heaven, and we need to know more about it. Certainly, the exculpatory column in the Los Angeles Times by former Grey Davis political guru Gerry South, a man noted for the bad political advice he gave Davis, is not convincing. South would have us believe these trips, during which thousands of dollars are spent on hotels and gala meals, were in pursuit of state trade rather than primarily personal pleasure.

Not at the level Nunez was spending money, however.

--

Normally, it is unseemly for a newspaper to editorialize in favor of state expenditures in its own city, at the expense of others. But an editorial in the Los Angeles Times Wednesday, November 7 complaining that the State Transportation Commission has not been treating the Los Angeles area fairly with respect to the disposition of the first several billions of dollars of funds voted by the electorate for highway bonds is quite appropriate.

The editorial points out that of the first $4 billion distributed, only 12% was distributed to projects in Los Angeles County, despite it having nearly one third of the population and the most traffic congestion. Now, new allocations are being readied for trade corridors, and the word is it will be done on the same unfair basis.

The Times concludes, "If L.A. gets stiffed again on transportation bond money, it will destroy voter confidence -- indeed, it would justify Angelenos never again supporting statewide infrastructure bonds." Amen!

--

Near completion of the reading of back issues of the Times from my recent trip, I should commend two articles in particular from the issue of Monday, Oct. 29. First, moving the sub-prime mortgage crisis to Page 1, where it should be with great regularity, Business reporter E. Scott Reckard had an outstanding story on all the scandalously misleading mortgage pitches that are now coming to borrowers, along with a very useful graph pointing up the questions that should be asked about these offers.

Second, a story by Stuart Pfeifer, the lead in the California section, reports on the commendable efforts by Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca to stem gang killings in Compton by inserting 28 new deputies specially devoted to controlling weapons and gangs in addition to regular sheriff's forces in the city. The result is that the number of killings has been reduced to 29 so far this year, the lowest level in two decades. Especially given the criticisms I've expressed in the past of Baca, this effort deserves commendation. In saving lives, the sheriff is doing just what he was elected to do. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

"Truth Syrum" Unmasks Lawmaker Fabian Nunez

An exotic truth serum that I obtained from a source in the Bay Area and sprayed in the offices of Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez in Sacramento has allowed me to obtain a frank account of his spending habits, and thereby add to the revealing articles by Nancy Vogel and Steve Lopez in the L.A. Times about his use of campaign contributions.

Here's the interview:

Q--How do you explain your huge expenditures on luxuries?
A--I love to live high off the hog and when I achieved my present legislative position I decided that now was an opportunity to do it at others' expense.

Q--But is this a proper use of campaign contributions?
A--In my office, we don't call them contributions. We use the word "bribes." And those can be used for anything.

Q--But what about your fiduciary duties to the people of California?
A--Fiduciary? I've never heard of that word. But, often, if you mean, defending the public interest, I've done that. It's true, for instance, that I spent $2,562 at Louis Vuitton in Paris for gifts for people who hosted me on my high-speed rail trip to Europe. But they had succeeded in convincing me the TGV trains were too good for California, and by coming out against building such lines when I returned, I saved my constituents billions of dollars of construction costs.

Q-- What purpose, then, was served by your spending $8,745 at the Hotel Arts in Barcelona?
A--Actually, a lot of that went for party girls. I don't like to be without female companionship and since a woman ditched me for someone else, I've felt very lonely on these foreign trips. I'm frequently jet-lagged. I need a little pick-me-up.

Q--I see you spent $5,149 on a "meeting" at Cave L'Avant Garde, a wine seller in Bordeaux. What was that all about?
A--I only bought cheap wines for my companions on that excursion. It was the 150-year-old bottles I bought for myself that ran up the bill.

Q--And how about the $1,480 tab you accumulated at a "meeting" at the Llao Llao Hotel & Restaurant in Bariloche, Argentina?
A--I can't remember too much about that, because I blacked out. All I recall is that the Argentine women are beautiful. Most of them are of Italian descent, you know.

Q--And the $848 "meeting" at the French Laundry restaurant in Napa Valley?
A--We got off cheap, because we only had hors' d'oeuvres. That's when the woman broke up with me. She said any decent man would have paid for a full meal. But my contributions had fallen short for once, and I follow one rule religiously: I never spend my own money when I can possibly help it.

Q--What about the $250 you spent at Mike's Bikes in Sacramento?
A--I don't remember the little expenditures.

Q--I see that Vogel is quoting you as saying you may have "put my foot in my mouth a little bit" when you compared your life style to "how most middle class people live."
A--Yes, I was warned by a relative that that statement could get me shot in the Los Angeles barrio. So I thought it was prudent to retreat a bit.

Q--You paid $1,000 for office cookies?
A--Yes, nothing is too good for the contributors who visit me at my office. My mother used to make almond cookies, but these are ever so much better. And these chumps give me so much.

Q--If you can remember, what was the $317 for at a Sacramento shoe store?
A--I do remember that. Imelda Marcos was coming to town and I wanted to show her I could wear nice shoes too.

Q--What is your reaction to the decision by the State Fair Political Practices Commission to audit your campaign accounts?
A--If these do-gooders get in my face, we'll legislate them out of business by withdrawing all money for their budget.

Q--Who do you think has spent the most, you or Gov. Schwarzenegger?
A--I hope I have, but I can't be certain. He's got corrupt people on his staff I would never dream of hiring, and he pays them extra out of campaign funds. Just today, I hear the governor vetoed our bill to require that infection and death rates at California hospitals be made public. I would never cater to the hospital lobby in that way. Now, that is real corruption.

Q-- I see you've said you may not accept invitations to visit Mexico and Asia.
A--Yes, once you've been to Paris and Barcelona, Mexico and Asia seem like small potatoes.

Q--What on Earth will you do when you are term-limited out?
A--Well I see my friend Richard Alatorre is now lobbying the Los Angeles City Council. You can't keep a good dog down.

Q--Thank you.
A--Thank you. That truth serum certainly smells good. Where do you think I can get some more to sniff occasionally?

Schwarzenegger Again Proves He Is A Phony

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger only pretends to be a progressive middle-of-the-roader. Actually, he is all too often a patsy for reactionaries, a creature of the lobbyists and an employer of corrupt aides, like Susan Kennedy and Dan Dunmoyer.

We see that again on the environmental issue, where for the second time in just 10 weeks, Schwarzenegger has moved to rid his Administration of someone who showed a modicum of devotion to the public interest and a spark of independence.

The latest victim, as outlined in a story in Friday's Los Angeles Times byEvan Halper and Nancy Vogel, is R. Judd Hanna, a member of the state Fish and Game Commission who was forced to resign for having the temerity to suggest that allowing lead bullets in the state was having the indirect effect of killing off California's remaining 129 wild condors. The condors eat the remains of small animals shot by hunters, thereby ingesting the lead in the bullets and poisoning themselves.

The Legislature has adopted a bill outlawing the use of lead in the bullets, and it rests now on the governor's desk. But now that he has bowed to Republican legislators and the National Rifle Assn. in getting rid of Hanna, it seems clear the governor will veto the bill.

It is commendable that Hanna has not gone quietly. He is quoted in the Times story as warning those who sought his ouster that "poisoning the California condor is neither honorable nor ethical."

And it is neither honorable nor ethical, I might add, for the governor to force the resignation of a Fish and Game commissioner who shows himself to be devoted to protecting the state's fish and game. This is a cheap, sleazy thing to do, and the governor should be just as ashamed of himself as he should have been in July when he ousted the Air Resources Board chairman, Robert F. Sawyer, after Sawyer failed to give big Schwarzenegger campaign contributors a break in enforcing the state's air pollution laws.

No, Schwarzenegger is a hypocrite. He claims to be an environmentalist on an issue like global warming, he claims to be independent, he occasionally slights the GOP members of the Legislature on budgetary matters. But when it comes down to specific issues, he is just as obsequious to the far right as the GOP legislators he pretends to question.

--

It is most revealing that the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court, Ronald M. George, turns up in a Times article this morning by Garrett Therolf and Maura Dolan as one of those who have been lobbying behind the scenes against the appointment of the distinguished law professor, Erwin Chemerinsky, as dean of the new U.C. Irvine Law School, because Chemerinsky is considered too out-spokenly liberal.

One would expect Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who is just as much a petty fascist as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to oppose Chemerinsky's appointment, but George usually, like Schwarzenegger, pretends to be respectable. I see him every summer at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland. But I had not realized that the chief justice must have been rooting for MacBeth, not deploring his conduct.

The story on Chemerinsky also quotes a prominent Orange County attorney, Tom Malcolm, this morning as urging that Chemerinsky be reconsidered for appointment as the dean as long as Chemerinsky agrees to tone down his frequent advocacy in newspaper and other articles of liberal issues positions.

How generous of this lawyerly snake, Malcolm. Yes, he is willing to take Chemerinsky as long as he agrees to emasculate himself.

I presume Chemerinsky will have enough integrity to tell Malcolm and others of his ilk to go screw themselves. Why shouldn't he? If Chemerinsky holds fast and continues teaching at the Duke University Law School, and the Democrats win the 2008 election, he just may find himself appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Turn about is fair play and he could then reverse California Chief Justice George's frequent irrational decisions.

Schwarzenegger, A Hypocrite, Helps Polluters

The L.A. Times hasn't been playing the story as prominently as deserved, but allegations that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his aides, while pretending to be crusaders against global warming, have, in fact, been protecting industrial interests by reining in the Air Resources Board, are of the highest importance.

They show what should have been evident with Schwarzenegger a long time ago: He is an unscrupulous and hypocritical man who says one thing and does another. And this is by no means an occasional fault on his part.

What has happened here is that Schwarzenegger and his even more corrupt aides, Executive Secretary Susan Kennedy and Cabinet Secretary Dan Dunmoyer, couldn't get the Air Resources Board chairman, Robert F. Sawyer, to give the governor's campaign contributors breaks against stringent enforcement. So, Sawyer was finally fired.

But, unfortunately for the governor and his senior staff members, and fortunately for the electorate, Sawyer was no shrinking violet. When the governor insisted that he had gotten rid of Sawyer because he was not doing a good enough job, Sawyer quickly made it known he was canned for doing too sincere a job at enforcing the air pollution laws.

Now, the Democrats in the Legislature, looking for a way to take down the governor a peg, after all this talk he's been doing about what a wonderful environmentalist he is, have summoned everyone to testify, and the stink from the dirty laundry might be considerable.

Of course, Kennedy and Dunmoyer don't want to testify. They sent a flunky to make excuses on their behalf. But the legislators aren't buying it. Our legislators might be creatures of the lobbyists themselves, but they are not too stupid to refuse to take partisan advantage.

I've talked in this blog about Kennedy and Dunmoyer before. When Kennedy was on the Public Utilities Commission she assiduously worked, not for the people of California, but for the public utilities she was supposed to regulate. She is a big time server of special interests. As for Dunmoyer, he was the leading lobbyist for the insurance industry in Sacramento, before he went to work for the governor, and has, in his present job, continued to serve all kinds of special interests.

Neither Kennedy nor Dunmoyer would have been hired by Schwarzenegger had he not known they would do anything he asked to shiv the public interest.

Such naive publications as Time magazine have recently given the governor all kinds of publicity for being a good guy on pollution, global warming and general independence. Quite simply, they have been taken in. Time, in particular, these days is often taken in.

Now, scrambling to avoid a scandal, Schwarzenegger has named Mary Nichols, a perceived environmentalist who has held positions in both the Jerry Brown and Grey Davis administrations, to head the Air Quality Board.

But Nichols has over the years proved herself not to be all that strong a public official. She can easily be rolled over, as she has been in the past, and will be again.

In the meantime, we're told in Evan Halper's story in the Times this morning (below the fold on the first page of the California section) that Catherine Witherspoon, a 22-year-staff member of the Air Quality Board, is also testifying, that the advice of the governor's office was consistently, "Slow down. Do less Go easier on industry.' Nothing was off-limits. We'd even get calls during our regulatory hearings with specific instructions on what to do." She has quit her post as executive director of the board.

This is not the first time Schwarzenegger has tried to soften the regulatory approach of a board vital to the state's health and safety. He and his aides went so far as to threaten to abolish the Seismic Safety Commission when it showed itself dedicated to seismic safety.

So, let's not hear any more of this talk about how independent and public spirited Schwarzenegger is. He's no more public spirited now than he has ever been. Which is to say, not much.

--

A story in the L.A. Times Business section yesterday raises questions whether Sam Zell's deal for ownership of the Tribune Co. will actually be consummated. The writer, Jim Puzzanghera, suggests that souring economic conditions, the fall in Tribune stock prices, or an unwillingness on the part of the Bush Administration to grant a new waiver of regulations against owning newspapers and tv outlets in the same media market, could yet abort the deal.

If the purchase by Sam Zell does not go through, I wonder, what would happen then? Could the L.A. Times still be sold to Ron Burkle or David Geffen?

The fall in Tribune stock price back to the $29 level certainly reflects a view on the part of stockholders that the deal may be in jeopardy. Already the inept Tribune CEO, Dennis FitzSimons, has put so much into stock buybacks that the company's debt has soared, putting more pressure on it at a time when revenues have been sliding. FitzSimons and his coterie of unskillful subordinates, including David Hiller and James O'Shea at the L.A. Times, should have been removed long ago. Now, their screwups are intensifying and Zell, apparently, is not yet in charge.

Legislature Moves To Gut Local Campaign Limits

One thing I learned a long time ago as a political writer for the L.A. Times was that there was very little, if any, substantive difference between the integrity of Democrats and Republicans in the Legislature in Sacramento. The preponderant majority of both parties in the State Assembly and State Senate is frequently inclined to be corrupt, beholden to lobbyists, sellouts to campaign contributors, devoted to subterfuge when it should be serving the public.

I knew honest legislators in Sacramento, such as Tony Beilenson, Alan Sieroty and Gordon Winton. But they were in what was for the most part a powerless minority. Some legislators, like Assembly Speaker Jesse Unruh, knew how to maneuver through the corruption for good ends. But the Legislature is customarily dominated by such lobbies as insurance and trial lawyers, and their contributions usually call the shots. At one time, the insurers, for example, were giving to all but four of the 120 legislators. Some times, the lobbies don't get their way, especially when they conflict with other lobbies. But at least they are able to block anything from happening that is truly detrimental to their interests.

That all comes back to mind today when I read the blog by Bill Boyarsky on LA Observed. Boyarsky, a long time Associated Press reporter and political writer for Associated Press in Sacramento, before he became a political writer and editor for the Times. Now retired, he is a member of Los Angeles city ethics commission.

Boyarsky writes today how, as quietly as possible, the Legislature is working to gut local campaign laws in the state, such as in Los Angeles, where there are severe limits on how much can be given to City Council and other campaigns.

A bill by Martin Garrick, a Republican Assemblyman, that would do away with most of these limits and allow a flood of unrestricted money into local campaigns has already cleared the Assembly on a 77-0 vote and is now pending in the State Senate. If it goes to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, as seems likely, it will probably be signed by the governor, who has become beholden too to the big contributors, despite promising not to in the Recall campaign.

77-0! That's about right. Of the Assembly's 80 members, 77 were willing to vote against the public interest in this case, and the three others were probably just absent. This is the Legislature I got to know, and it hasn't changed since the days of Artie Samish. Boyarsky in his blog accurately calls the Garrick bill "a real stinker." Actually, it would not only end restrictions on giving to candidates, but it would keep the contributions from being disclosed before the election, so the voters would have no way of knowing where a candidate's support came from before voting.

It is an open secret in state government that both parties have made reapportionment deals which guarantee that Republicans as well as Democrats will almost always be in safe districts. Only rarely is there an upset at the polls. This situation helped lead to term limits, but term limits simply bring new, inexperienced legislators to Sacramento, either willing to be fleeced, or too naive not to be.

At least, years ago, the Sacramento press corps was devotedly at the heels of the worst scoundrels and could be counted on to give massive publicity to such schemes as the gutting of local campaign laws, which sometimes was tantamount to killing them at the last moment. The crooks in the Legislature can't stand the light of day, and often will slink back into the darkness when what they are doing is exposed.

But the Sacramento press corps today is somewhat tamer than it was. There are still good correspondents in Sacramento, but often their newspapers are not behind them. The Sacramento Bee, for example, used to be absolutely devoted to the public interest under Eleanor and C.K. McClatchy. It is not the same paper any more.

To be fair, the L.A. Times did editorialize against the Garrick bill today, pointing everything out in a more restrained way than Boyarsky and I have.

What does all this mean? It means that, more than ever, big money interests are taking over the state, and now will have even more sway in local government. It means that even local zoning and development decisions are going to be cooked.

When I was covering insurance and the law for the Times I became familiar with many of the sleazy tricks used by the special interests, and by the legislators who were some of the biggest crooks.

When Alan Robbins was chairman of the Senate Insurance Committee, in the days before term limits, I once told him that in light of the fact that it seemed the San Fernando Valley would elect him to the Senate for life, and also given that he had made millions of dollars in real estate, I felt he could afford to "go straight."

"I'm considering it," Robbins replied. But he was not considering it seriously enough, because six months later, he was the subject of a federal indictment for taking bribes. He was convicted, went to prison, and is now out of public life.

In Robbins' case, I followed his career closely and was often able to catch up with his chicanery. Others, I found smarter and wilier

Often, I like politicians. But they need tireless watching, as Boyarsky is trying to do in this case.

--

I'm sorry to see Mark Arax leave the Times, one of many able reporters recently to do so. Arax reacted bitterly, and I think mistakenly, when an article he wrote about the Armenian genocide was killed. But over the years, Mark gave much to the paper. His early stories about the Chinese community in the San Gabriel Valley were just one example of his distinguished reporting.

I wasn't always in agreement with Arax. There was sometimes a hard class edge to his reporting, and one time, he wrote a story suggesting that Frank Damrell, a roommate of Jerry Brown's, both in Seminary and at Berkeley, not be confirmed by the U.S. Senate as a federal district court judge in Sacramento, because he was married to a daughter of the Gallo family. I thought this was ridiculous and told him so. But I assured Damrell that the story would only smooth his way to confirmation for the judgeship, which it did.

By and large though, Arax is a great reporter, if somewhat hotheaded on occasion. I'm sure he will do well in the future.

State Water, Transportation Bond Funds Diverted

An article in Monday's L.A. Times by Evan Halper and a column by George Skelton, both written out of Sacramento, tell the shocking story of how billions of dollars worth of bonds approved by the electorate to build state water and transportation projects are being diverted into other uses, or the general fund in order to keep the budget balanced.

Not only is this a faithless act directed against the wishes of the electorate, but it is mighty expensive too, since bonds carry heavy interest charges that increase the cost of everything, and up tax bills. For every $1 million spent on bonds projects, nearly $1 million in interest will be paid in the next 20 years. With this kind of arithmetic, it is easy to see that bond financing ought to be kept to a minimum and as many projects as possible built on a pay-as-you-go basis. (The biggest projects, of course, cannot be paid out of the general fund).

Still, this is proof again, if any were needed, that California's government, its governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and its Legislatur,e are not functioning properly.

Yes, as Halper points out, fine print in the bond issues allowed the Legislature to divert some of a $5.3 billion water bond issue to other uses, at the will of the Legislature. But how many voters even read this fine print, or realized what it meant? And how many voters would have voted no rather than yes, had they realized that they were, in fact, voting for a pig in a poke.

How many voters would have voted no, for instance, had they realized that part of the bonds directed ostensibly at making much needed improvements in the state's aqueduct system was going to be used instead for an aquarium in Fresno, a museum in Los Angeles or "water-accessible" accommodations iat Lake Tahoe?

What this is, in a word, is pork barreling.And the legislators responsible for it are no better than the inept Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, which frequently directs its attentions away from vital issues, to peripheral or even frivolous ones.

The Skelton column reports that Schwarzenegger, whose lack of regard for scrupulous and honest government can clearly be seen in his appointment of the special interest-loving Susan Kennedy as his executive secretary, is to raid $1.3 billion in bonds directed at building rapid transit to other uses.

Not only is California in desperate need of such transit, but the state has already decided to string out expenditure of the $19 billion authorized in the bond issue. This is against the public interest, since inflation eats into the value of the money as the years go by. If everything is built at once, it will be cheaper than building five or 10 years down the pike.

Of the $19 billion, the first authorized expenditures on highways, for instance, are only $4.5 billion, and even this is being strung out over a few years. Plus it is really disappointing to see that with all this money, the state isn't really building any new freeways or rail lines, but instead is devoting the money to car pool lanes and, in some instances, freeway widening. This, despite the fact, that the state's original freeway master plan was nowhere near followed, and many freeways were never built.

Now, already, after the generosity of the electorate, the talk in Sacramento is all about it being inadequate and how we have to build a network of toll roads to supplement the freeways.

These are small minded politicians, make no mistake, and the governor is among the worst of them.

Skelton notes that the $1.3 billion he wants to divert would go into the general fund for parks, prisons, schools and health care.

For shame! We recalled Gray Davis for less.

--

Tina Susman, one of the L.A. Times' brave Iraq correspondents, was the author of a deeply shocking story Monday about the case of 17-year-old Diaa Khalil Aswad, the Yazidi girl who was stoned to death because she fell in love with a Sunni Arab boy. The gruesome killing, one of only 40 such recent acts, was videotaped and put on the Net. Among the murderers were the girl's uncle and cousins.

Then, in reprisal, Sunnis seized 20 Yazidis off a bus and executed them. Yazidis are part of a small non-Muslim religious sect in northern Iraq.

Is this the country that the U.S. has been trying to turn into a democracy and spending hundreds of billions of dollars on? Not to mention 3,500 lives of our soldiers.

It points out, at the very least, that we should be in Iraq for our interests alone, and act accordingly. The country needs foreign rule, so that such acts can be prevented. Over 4,000 years, from the days of Nebuchnezzar, it has proved unable to govern itself.

Susman's article was important, but she is too restrained in her use of language, saying the episode points up the "ethnic and religious discord that colors virtually every issue here."

In fact, savagery and barbarism would be more appropriate words to describe what happens in the cases of these "honor killings," as they are outrageously called in the Middle East.

California Doesn't Need 22,000 More Slot Machines

I can't understand why the Los Angeles Times editorialized in support of installing 22,000 more slot machines on Indian reservations in California. The 10,000 there already are more than enough, assuming that gambling of that sort should be left to Nevada in its entirety.

Yes, it may be true that this time the Indians would agree to pay a substantial percentage of their slot machine revenues to the state, and this might amount to half a billion dollars a year.

But this is a huge state and with a huge budget, half a billion more or less is not going to make a lot of difference to the state fiscally, and the drawbacks of gambling from a moral point of view are substantial.

Gambling for quite a few people is an addiction, and every study indicates that people of lesser income are most inclined to gamble. Many can't afford to do so.

And gambling has been spreading to new states all the time. Anyone who wants to gamble can easily find ways to do so. If they don't want to drive to Nevada, then they can always go to the horse races, or one of the existing Indian casinos, or a poker club, or even (perhaps illegally) gamble on line.

This is one of the recent stands of the Schwarzenegger Administration that make me wonder about (1) its good sense, or (2) whether special interests aren't paying it off.

Another one of these peculiar decisions was the governor's turn down of money to finance high-speed rail in the state and to put a $10 billion bond issue on the ballot.. The state needs rail, and the highway lobby has prevailed against it too long.
As one reader wrote the L.A. Times, if Taiwan can put aside the money for a high speed rail system, build it and put it into operation, the way it just did, why not California?

--

There was a nice L.A. Times turnout Friday morning for the funeral of a former Metro editor, David Rosenzweig, who died last week at 67. L.A. County prosecutor, Lael Rubin, who Rosenzweig married 17 years ago, gave a talk at the funeral, and there were many great pictures of Rosenzweig at his house in Santa Monica after the services, including some of him as a y0ung correspondent in Vietnam.

Of course, I had many dealings with Rosenzweig over the years, and always found him fair minded, even when we disagreed, as we sometimes did. He was a hard worker and a wonderful colleague. So many of us will miss him.

Schwarzenegger Ought To Fire Susan Kennedy

If Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger were as honest a political figure as he claims to be, he would have fired his corrupt executive secretary, Susan Kennedy, a long time ago.

Kennedy appeared in two separate stories on Page 1 of the L.A. Times California section yesterday as engaged in crooked deals. Together, the reports constituted a double whammy against a lady who has long dishonored high staff positions.

The lead story, by Jenifer Warren, quotes two former chiefs of the California prison system as testifying in federal court that moves orchestrated by Kennedy, cow towing to the notorious prison guards union, had stymied their efforts to reform the state's crisis-ridden prison situation.

It was Kennedy's vow to take a hand in negotiating the prison guards' contract in the middle of last year's Schwarzenegger reelection campaign that tipped off the prison chiefs that the guards would hold a veto power over badly needed changes. Both stepped down from their jobs.

(The day after this was posted, the L.A. Times reported in a Page 1 story that under a contract signed in the Gray Davis governorship, 6,000 guards are receiving compensation of more than $100,000 due to overtime pay. Kennedy was corrupting other fields in the Davis administration, but unfortunately the Schwarzenegger Administration has toadied to the guards as well. They are treated far better than the state's teachers, to the disgrace of both the Davis and Schwarzenegger administrations).

In a second story on the same page as the original prison story, Jordan Rau reports that Kennedy, who ran roughshod on consumer interests on behalf of the big utilities, when she was a Davis-appointee on the Public Utilities Commission, now is seeking the appointment of another utilities' stooge, Rachelle Chong, to that same commission.

Kennedy has now worked for three leading California officials, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and Governors Davis and Schwarzenegger, and made all of them less than they were. She is a black mark on all three, although, in justice to Feinstein, the full corruption of Kennedy was not evident when she worked for her.

Kennedy's specialty is catering to special interests, as a means of inducing campaign contributions, and she seldom sees one she doesn't like.

Some people in government rove from one commission to another, from one malfeasance to another, and Kennedy has certainly proved herself to be one of them.

Outgoing PUC Commissioner Geoffrey Brown describes that commission as "routinely deferential" to the industry it is supposed to be regulating, while consumers continue to pay outrageous rates.

In the prison inquiry, U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson has limited the scope of the investigation, declining pleas that he call Kennedy and former Schwarzenegger Cabinet Secretary Fred Agular to testify, despite the findings of a special master that they had conspired to let the prison guards union block reform efforts in an apparent move to insure their campaign contributions to Schwarzenegger.

Phoniness Abounds In California Governor's Race

Both Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his challenger, State Treasurer Phil Angelides, are proving themselves to be terrible phonies in the California governor's race, and it is hard to know which of them is the poorest choice.

Schwarzenegger, who has catered to many unsavory lobbies and picked a sleazy executive secretary in Susan Kennedy, now has a mailing out to the voters headlined, "Governor Schwarzenegger Says NO to Higher Taxes." In fact, Schwarzenegger is supporting $37 billion in bond issues that, with interest, would add $80 billion to the state debt, an amount the taxpayers would owe. In short, he wants taxes to go way up.

It may be that at least the transportation bonds in this package are worth it, that's up to the voters to decide. What I object to is the governor's absolutely phony claim that he is opposed to higher taxes when, in fact, these bond issues would ultimately result in the highest tax increase in state history.

As for Angelides, now, he says that if he is elected, he will bring California National Guardsmen currently fighting in Iraq home.

Guardsmen ordered to Iraq have been federalized and are beyond the authority of the Governor's office, while they are serving with the regular armed forces. Angelides absolutely, on his own, cannot bring them back home, no matter how much he chooses to enlist in the "cut and run" crowd that wants to surrender in the war.

Altogether, Angelides has waged a horrible campaign, and is almost certainly going to lose to Schwarzenegger, who in some respects has moved adeptly toward the political center. But, still, the governor does not command much respect.

There are good candidates for state office, including John Garamendi for lieutenant governor and Jerry Brown for attorney general, both Democrats. And U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein certainly should be reelected.

But no vote for governor can be truly satisfying to those who make it. I wonder if there are any decent third party candidates on the ballot.

LAT State Insurance Regulatory Story Deeply Flawed

The New York Times on Sunday had an advertising section for its archives, now on sale to the public online back to 1851. The section began with a page from the paper of Sept. 24, 1851, long before Adolph Ochs bought the paper, and it had some of the great headlines of past years inside, such as the Titanic disaster and VJ Day.

Meanwhile, the L.A. Times was proving that its institutional memory, its ability to bring back the past, has faded badly under repeated waves of employee buyouts.

The clear illustration pertained to insurance and its malevolent influence over state government. Here, on Page 1, was a long article by Sacramento reporter Peter Nicholas on the industry's strong grip on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his administration. In the Schwarzenegger Administration, the foxes are truly in the chichen coup, and all Californians suffer from it.

Fine, but both Nicholas and his editors seem to have forgotten that every Republican administration going back almost to King Canute has been under control of the insurance lobby.

The article never mentioned this record. It never recognized in short that there is really nothing new in a Republican governor knuckling under to the industry.

Also, Nicholas' article lacked other context. It never mentioned that, on the other side, the Trial Lawyers lobby has a strong grip over most Democrats. Democratic legislation, mostly vetoed by Schwarzenegger, is mentioned in the article, but the Trial Lawyers, who are probably just as malevolent as the insurance lobby, aren't brought into the equation. They are major contributors to Democrats, just as the insurance companies are to Republicans. Of course, they occasionally give across the partisan aisle, because they like to have their evil thongs into nearly everyone, but what is most important on this set of issues is the partisan divide.

Nicholas was probably a baby when all this became evident, and his editors, well when it comes to complex subjects like insurance and energy, they never escape babyhood.

But in the war of insurance initiatives, back in 1988, which I covered for the Times, it became evident that the public, and for that matter the knowledgeable press corps, recognized clearly that neither lobby had the public interest at heart.

That year, there was a healthy 'plague on both your houses,' view in the public and the press, and it was manifest on election day, when both the insurance industry and the lawyers' initiatives went down to solid defeats, and the only ballot measure adopted was the Rosenfield initiative. Harvey Rosenfield was somewhat under the thumb of the lawyers, but he was careful to say he opposed both sides, and he prevailed with a campaign that spent only a pittance of the money that the others spent. That was Proposition 103.

These are the facts, and the long Nicholas article today fails to discuss them. Both Nicholas and his editors need to go to school on California political history .