Sales Taxes Set to Rise in Many California Cities

For money-minded shoppers, it could be a great weekend to buy a car, stock up on gardening tools, maybe spring for a new washer/dryer or even a few pair of designer jeans.

That's because starting Monday, a blizzard ofsales tax hikes kicks in for more than 20 cities and counties statewide, including Sacramento city.

For recession-ravaged municipalities from Carmel to Culver City, the sales tax increases – which range mostly from a quarter- to a half-cent on every dollar of sales – are intended to boost revenues. In Sacramento, the bump – from 8 to 8.5 percent – is estimated to bring in an additional $28 million a year. The increases have businesses retooling, tax groups fuming and consumers paying up.

"We get customers grumbling about it when they buy a big-ticket item. But there's not much they can do about it," said Jay Joseph, general manager of Manuel Joseph Appliance Center on Northgate Boulevard.

On a $1,000 refrigerator, for instance, the new Sacramento city rate will mean an extra $5 in sales taxes.

"It won't have a huge impact, only because people are accustomed to the increases. In the whole scheme of things, it's not a lot of money," said Joseph.

For bigger-ticket items, there's more to pay, obviously. On a $25,000 Ford Escape, for instance, Sacramento buyers will pay an additional $125 in sales tax. (With vehicles, sales tax is based on the owner's registration address, not where the dealership is located.)

"I'm not worried about it," said Downtown Ford general sales manager Kit Kinne, who said an extra $125 would hardly be noticed. "Most people are financing their cars so the difference in payments over 60 to 72 months is negligible."

Nevertheless, it causes some head-scratching for businesses, especially those that have multiple locations in different cities.

It means that Macy's in Downtown Plaza will charge a different rate than Macy's in Sunrise Mall.

For the State Board of Equalization, which oversees the new rates, it's a simple calculation. "A retailer selling goods at a store must charge the sales tax rate for the jurisdiction in which that store is located, regardless of where the customer resides," said BOE spokesman Jaime Garza in an email.

At the Filco Appliance Superstore on Fulton Avenue, owner Tony Saca said the new sales tax jump probably won't be noticed by customers coming in to replace a worn-out washer, dryer or refrigerator. "We are a necessity item, so I doubt it will affect us. If their refrigerator is dead, they don't care. They have to bite the bullet and pay it."

But tax watchdog groups aren't happy about the prospect. "We think it's bad news in that we already have a very slow economic turnaround," said David Kline, spokesman for the California Taxpayers Association. "The forecast is for very slow growth in California's economy. More sales taxes will certainly not help."

Coupled with the Proposition 30 statewide sales tax that added a quarter-cent starting Jan. 1, plus the return of a 2 percent federal payroll tax, consumers are definitely paying more taxes than they did a year ago.

"You add it all up and it's more money out of your pocket," said Kline. "People may decide to postpone purchases or not make them at all. It calls for people to tighten up their budgets."

It also creates a confusing mix of tax rates across California. According to the BOE, 19 cities increased their sales tax, effective April 1. Three counties – Marin, San Mateo and Santa Clara – upped theirs.

In addition, a handful of cities extended the expiration date of existing sales tax increases. In Salinas and Williams (Colusa County), voters pushed them out indefinitely. In Trinidad, inHumboldt County, the current tax rate was extended to 2017. The longest extension was in Fresno County, which stretched its rate out to 2029.

But come Monday, if it's any consolation, be happy you're not living in Los Angeles County's La Mirada. Voters there approved a 10 percent sales tax, one of the highest anywhere in California.

via the Sacramento Bee

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/30/5303828/sales-taxes-set-to-rise-in-many.html#storylink=cpy

Healthcare Law Threatens California Jobs, Business Group Says

California could lose more than 26,000 jobs as a result of a tax provision in the federal healthcare law, a small-business advocacy group said.

A study by the National Federation of Independent Business Research Foundation found that employment in the Golden State may see a loss of from 14,322 to 26,296 jobs by 2022 because of the Health Insurance Tax provision.

The NFIB is one of the biggest opponents of the federal healthcare law and joined in the Supreme Court lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.

“Businesses in California are struggling under unprecedented costs from taxes and regulations. We need to do all that we can to increase jobs, not reduce them,” said John Kabateck, the NFIB's California director in a statement.

“This destructive tax simply must go, if we are ever to return to the thriving culture of growth and entrepreneurship that Californians once knew.”

The NFIB estimates the small business community will be hit with over $100 billion over a decade in new taxes beginning in 2014 because of the federal healthcare law.

A 2012 study by the Bay Area Council found that President Obama's Affordable Healthcare Act will create about 96,000 jobs in California.

The NFIB study is flawed, said Micah Weinberg, senior policy advisor for the Bay Area Council, adding that the council does not advocate for the Health Insurance Tax.

“We looked at the net effect of the law, taking into account both economic stimuli and drags on job growth,” Weinberg said. “Looking just at the impact of a tax in isolation is essentially meaningless.”

The increases the council forecast and the reductions by the NFIB are a small fraction of the state’s job base, Weinberg said.

via LA Times

Will Prop 8 End Not With a Bang but a Legal Whimper?

Justice Anthony Kennedy — widely viewed as the pivotal swing vote — got pulses racing early in today’s same-sex-marriage argument at the Supreme Court. There is “immediate legal injury” being done to 40,000 California children being raised by same-sex parents who are not allowed to marry, he insisted. These children “want their parents to have full recognition and full status,” he said — and “the voice of those children is important in this case.”

Court watchers immediately flooded Twitter and live blogs with the news: after that “vivid” comment, it was suddenly looking like there might be five votes — Justice Kennedy and the court’s four liberals — for a sweeping pro-gay-marriage ruling. But before long, Justice Kennedy seemed to reverse direction, openly questioning whether the court had made a mistake in accepting the case at all.

Today’s oral arguments — in a challenge to California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage — took place under a glaring national spotlight. Television cameras and throngs of reporters descended on the Supreme Court. Crowds of ordinary citizens gathered out front to express their views and to try to influence the Justices, in some cases with wacky signs in tow. (Sample: “Gays have every right to be as miserable as I make my husband.”) For months now, there has been a growing expectation that the Supreme Court would use this case to issue a landmark constitutional ruling, resolving for the history books whether same-sex couples have a right to marry.

But the Justices’ questions at oral argument suggested another possibility: that the Proposition 8 case may end not with a bang but with a hypertechnical legal whimper. It is always perilous trying to predict what the Supreme Court will do based on the Justices’ comments at oral argument, but it now may be that the likeliest outcome is a punt on the hard constitutional questions: the Justices may simply dismiss the case. That would most likely mean that a lower-court ruling invalidating Prop 8 would remain in effect — which would keep same-sex marriage legal in California but not affect other states.

That is one way to count the votes at today’s oral argument: put Justice Kennedy with the court’s four conservatives, and there are not enough votes for a bold pro-gay-marriage ruling. It is not, however, the only way. At another point in the argument, Justice Kennedy said the case could take the court into “uncharted waters” or a “wonderful destination” — though he also worried that it could be a “cliff.” In that brief and highly contradictory comment — which is already being closely parsed — Justice Kennedy seemed to be deeply ambivalent: worried about the risks of a broad pro-same-sex-marriage ruling, while nevertheless excited about the possibilities.

The court will have another chance to wrestle with the question tomorrow, in a second case that challenges the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and decrees that states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. That case, however, could well be resolved as a question of states’ rights or other legal doctrines that do not directly engage the key question of whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

Even some supporters of same-sex marriage think that a modest Supreme Court ruling — like one that allows same-sex marriages to continue in California but does not extend them further — could be a good thing. Political support for gay marriage continues to grow by the day — Senator Mark Warner of Virginia just got on board yesterday — and the momentum shows no sign of slowing. Advocates for a political solution argue that there will be less polarization and backlash if same-sex marriage gets adopted through the political process.

Appealing though that argument may be in some ways, it has serious flaws. If the Supreme Court fails to act, gay people in some parts of the country may have to wait many years before their home states recognize their right to marry — or they may have to move in order to marry. And rights that legislatures give they can also take away. Only the Supreme Court can declare that gay people have a fundamental constitutional right to marry — no matter what the politicians say.

It is for these reasons that how Justice Kennedy comes down matters so much. Same-sex marriage is no longer the “uncharted waters” that he fears. We now have evidence from across the country that gay marriage has enormous upsides — including for the children Justice Kennedy rightly worried about — and no discernible downsides. Nondiscrimination is, in all its forms, a “wonderful destination,” as Justice Kennedy so aptly put it. By the time the Supreme Court’s term ends in late June, we will know if he proved courageous and forward-looking enough to lead the nation there.

via Time Magazine

Supreme Court Could Avoid Ruling on California Gay Marriage Ban

The Supreme Court suggested Tuesday it could find a way out of the case over California's ban on same-sex marriage without issuing a major national ruling on whether gays have a right to marry, an issue one justice described as newer than cellphones and the Internet.

Several justices, including some liberals who seemed open to gay marriage, raised doubts during a riveting 80-minute argument that the case was properly before them. And Justice Anthony Kennedy, the potentially decisive vote on a closely divided court, suggested that the court could dismiss the case with no ruling at all.

Such an outcome would almost certainly allow gay marriages to resume in California but would have no impact elsewhere.

Kennedy said he feared the court would go into "uncharted waters" if it embraced arguments advanced by gay marriage supporters. But lawyer Theodore Olson, representing two same-sex couples, said that the court similarly ventured into the unknown in 1967 when it struck down bans on interracial marriage in 16 states.

Kennedy challenged the accuracy of that comment by noting that other countries had had interracial marriages for hundreds of years.

There was no majority apparent for any particular outcome and many doubts expressed about the arguments advanced by lawyers for the opponents of gay marriage in California, by the supporters and by the Obama administration, which is in favor of same-sex marriage rights.

Kennedy made clear he did not like the rationale of the federal appeals court that struck down Proposition 8, the California ban, even though it cited earlier opinions in favor of gay rights that Kennedy wrote.

That appeals court ruling applied only to California, where same-sex couples briefly had the right to marry before voters adopted a constitutional amendment in November 2008 that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Several members of the court also were troubled by the Obama administration's main point that when states offer same-sex couples all the rights of marriage, as California and eight other states do, they also must allow marriage.

Justice Samuel Alito described gay marriage as newer than such rapidly changing technological advances as cellphones and the Internet, and appeared to advocate a more cautious approach to the issue.

"You want us to assess the effect of same-sex marriage," Alito said to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "It may turn out to be a good thing. It may turn out to be not a good thing."

Charles Cooper, representing the people who helped get Proposition 8 on the ballot, ran into similar resistance over his argument that the court should uphold the ban as a valid expression of the people's will and let the vigorous political debate over gay marriage continue.

Here, Kennedy suggested that Cooper's argument did not take account of the estimated 40,000 children who have same-sex parents. "The voices of these children are important, don't you think?" Kennedy said.

via Dallas News

California Voters Split on Jerry Brown School Plans

California voters have yet to strongly embrace Gov. Jerry Brown's controversial plan to shift money from rich schools to poor ones, an ominous sign as he works to win support for the idea from skeptical lawmakers and the state's powerful teachers unions.

A new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll found that 50% of respondents agreed with such a move, to help school districts that serve low-income children and English-language learners.

But a significant minority, 39%, opposed the plan, which is embedded in the governor's budget blueprint and is the centerpiece of his education agenda. Brown has described his bid as "a classic case of justice to unequals."

Support broke along ethnic and socioeconomic lines, with 67% of Latinos backing the proposal, compared with 42% of whites.

Voters solidly endorsed a separate Brown proposal to give school districts more control over the state funds they receive, with 59% in favor. Only 41% approved of a legislative effort to make it easier for local governments to raise more education money through parcel taxes — a priority for many Democratic lawmakers.

In the past, Democrats and their allies in teachers unions have resisted upending the way schools are funded. Brown's most contentious proposal this year would give all districts a base grant, with extra funding for each student who is low-income, struggling with English or in foster care.

"Our future depends not on across-the-board funding, but in disproportionately funding those schools that have disproportionate challenges," he said as he unveiled his plan in January.

With race and class at its core, the proposal could open a thorny debate.

"The challenge for the governor here is to make a case that this is not a divisive issue but a rising-tide-lifts-all-boats" proposal, said Drew Lieberman of the Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, which conducted the survey in conjunction with the Republican company American Viewpoint.

Lisa Andrews, a Latina from Fresno, approves of the plan. The 47-year-old Democrat grew up in a small Central Valley farming community where her elementary school classmates struggled with English skills.

"If you're going to set tax money aside, then give it to those who would benefit the most from it," she said. "You have to be able to speak English and learn your grammar first, because the other classes are useless if you're not on equal ground" with other students.

On the other side of the issue, Dave Kanevsky, a pollster for American Viewpoint, described the governor's plan as "class warfare applied to schools" because it is framed "in terms of taking from one and giving to another."

Respondent Debra Sexton, 57, a Democrat and retired photographer from Corona, expressed a similar view. She said the idea of giving more money to poor schools at the expense of wealthier ones was fundamentally unfair, particularly to high-performing campuses.

"I don't think those schools should be punished because a lesser school isn't making the grade," she said.

Brown's proposal to give districts more spending flexibility would eliminate dozens of state requirements for specific programs, such as vocational training and summer school, and instead allocate more money to districts with no strings attached.

via LA Times

California Agencies For Seniors Expect Sequester Budget Cuts

Agencies that serve seniors in the Sacramento County region are bracing for the hit: Federally funded programs for older adults - including the popular senior nutrition program - face automatic, across-the-board budget cuts as a result of the sequester.

But so far, no one knows exactly how much will be cut, or when, and no one wants to scare elderly recipients who use these services.

"As soon as we start talking about cuts to Meals on Wheels, our clients call wanting to know if we're closing down," said Donna Yee, chief executive officer of the Asian Community Center, which since 2011 has run Sacramento County's Meals on Wheels program.

"Our clients get anxious. The uncertainty of the situation makes it difficult."

More than three dozen agencies in the seven-county region served by the Area 4 Agency on Aging are on hold until they receive official word from the California Department of Aging, which distributes federal dollars to Older Americans Act programs.

Those programs include senior nutrition, in-home assistance, transportation help, caregiver respite and legal services.

Unofficially, though, word has begun to filter back that California's agencies serving older adults should expect statewide cuts of about 5 percent to transportation, preventive health and in-home caregiver support programs - and cuts of about 8 percent to the senior nutrition congregate meals program, said Area 4 Agency on Aging Executive Director Deanna Lea.

"What we're hearing from the National Association of Agencies on Aging and the National Council on Aging is that these cuts are real," she said. "It's hard to know what to prepare for, but you have to prepare."

Potential cuts would also include a reduction to the home-delivered meals program by more than 4 percent, she said.

For the Sacramento region, the lost senior nutrition funds could amount to about $100,000 for the fiscal year ending in July, she said - but that reduction could be compounded by the loss of federal dollars from other sources, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

"People are hoping to maintain as many services as possible," said Lea. "Until we actually know the figures and period of time, it's very difficult."

Meals on Wheels by ACC is on track to serve 470,000 meals to seniors this year, said Yee. While 60 percent of those meals are delivered to the homebound elderly, the remainder are served at 23 sites around the county.

"With a reduction, so many fewer seniors would get care when they really need it," said Yee. "It's possible that seniors benefiting from the home-delivered meals would be discharged from the program because somebody else is more needy.

"Traditionally, people with the highest need have the highest priority to get served."

via The Miami Herald

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/21/3298102/california-agencies-for-seniors.html#storylink=cpy

AB 218 Fairness in Government Hiring Practices

AB 218 (Dickinson) helps level the playing field for qualified Californians to compete for jobs and promotes public safety by reducing unnecessary job barriers for the nearly seven million adult Californians with a criminal record. The bill applies to state agencies and city and county employers by delaying a criminal background check inquiry until later in the application process. Please send in your organization’s letter of support for AB 218 by March 25th.

Send in your letter of support on your organization’s letterhead to Assembly Judiciary Committee via fax at 916-319-2188 and to Assemblymember Dickinson via email Taryn.Kinney@asm.ca.gov or fax (916) 319-2107 (Attn: Taryn Kinney).

Please cc: Michelle at mrodriguez@nelp.org for tracking purposes.

 

[LETTERHEAD]

 

[DATE]

Chair Bob Wieckowski and committee members

Assemblymember Roger Dickinson
Assembly Judiciary Committee
1020 N Street, Room 104
Sacramento, CA 95814
Via facsimile (916) 319-2188
Via electronic mail Taryn.Kinney@asm.ca.gov or facsimile (916) 319-2107

RE: SUPPORT FOR AB 218

Dear Chair Wieckowski, committee members, and Assemblymember Dickinson:

[ORGANIZATION] strongly supports AB 218, which helps level the playing field for qualified Californians to compete for jobs and promotes public safety by reducing unnecessary job barriers for the nearly seven million adult Californians with a criminal record.

AB 218 removes the question about an individual’s criminal history from state, city, and county job applications while permitting a background check later in the hiring process. Studies have shown that stable employment significantly lowers recidivism and promotes public safety. All of California will benefit when people with criminal records are no longer shut out of jobs and can financially support their families and contribute to a strong economic recovery.

[DESCRIPTION OF ORGANIZATION; WHY ISSUE IS IMPORTANT TO ORGANIZATION; IF APPROPRIATE, INCLUDE ANY STORIES OF WORKERS]

In California and around the country, qualified job applicants are plagued by old or minor records and discouraged from applying because a “box” on job applications requires criminal history information that leads many employers to unfairly reject their applications. Because people of color are especially hard hit, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently endorsed as a best practice removing the question about conviction histories from job applications to maximize compliance with federal civil rights law.

AB 218 follows the lead of six states and over 40 U.S. cities and counties that have removed the conviction history inquiry from initial job applications in public employment and instead delayed a criminal background check until the later stages of hiring. AB 218 allows people with a conviction history to compete fairly for employment without compromising safety and security at the workplace. The bill exempts jobs for which a criminal background check is legally required and law enforcement related positions.

Public sector employers in California have a special obligation to pave the way for the private sector to reduce barriers to employment of people with criminal records. For these reasons, [ORGANIZATION] strongly supports AB 218.

Sincerely,

[NAME]
[TITLE]

Contact Governor Brown to Expand Medi-Cal

Please call Governor Brown Today, March 20th, and tell him, "We need you to expand Medi-Cal as quickly and as fully as possible."   The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provides federal funding to expand Medi-Cal to over 1.4 million uninsured Californians, over two-thirds of whom are from communities of color. Our state legislators have been working hard to expand Medi-Cal as quickly, and as simply as possible, but we need Governor Brown’s support! Forcing our communities to delay or forgo care because they are uninsured has negative impact on their health as well as the fiscal health of our state. Call the Governor TODAY at (916) 445-2841 or email him through his website at http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php. Every phone call counts – especially when advocate after advocate calls in with a unified message! Let us know if you took action by emailing Cary Sanders at csanders@cpehn.org. Via California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, www.cpehn.org.

California Experiment Could Open U.S. Market for Online Courses

A California proposal to use online courses to soften a higher-education funding crisis has the rest of the country watching for lessons in how to deal with the rapid expansion of high-tech learning.

The experiment, floated by a Sacramento lawmaker last week, would allow the nearly half-million students on waiting lists at the state's public universities and colleges to take online courses instead.

The bill has been touted as a way to release pressure on a system overwhelmed by a surge in enrollment and crippling budget cuts. But it could also open the door to free "massive open online courses" (known as MOOCs) developed by private, third-party vendors — a development that could spark massive changes in the the country's education system.

Many other states are grappling with issues of limited money and higher enrollments — both of which are functions of the country's economic downturn — and are toying with ways to offer online courses, but none so much as California. They view the California proposal as an experiment that could help guide them, warily, into an uncertain future.

"They're all a little spooked at what's going to happen," said Eric Hanushek, a fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University who studies the economics of education. "We have these MOOCs, and no one understands the business model behind them, how to charge for them, who pays for them, who gets credit for them and in what way."

The results, he said, could lead to a revolution in the higher education industry, with Silicon Valley startups rushing to meet demand.

Like many innovations, the California experiment was born of calamity. The state's three-tiered system of universities and colleges was created to give students of all talents and means a way to earn a degree. It was a huge success, but relied on massive amounts of state funding to keep tuition low. Starting in the late 1970s, taxpayers and lawmakers began to reduce that flow of cash. Tuition and fees went up. So did student debt. Faculty were laid off, and course offerings reduced. Officials estimate that 470,000 students at California's community colleges cannot get into classes required for graduation.

The crisis coincided with the rapid growth in the number of online courses developed by private for-profit startups, many of them free.

Advocates of the California proposal say that if it succeeds, it could lead more states to try MOOCs, especially as pensions and health benefits eat up a growing amount of state money, and the Obama administration pushes for ways to make higher education more affordable.

California "is probably a bellwether for what's going to happen across the country, because the business models for these public institutions are broken," said Michael Horn, director of the Innosight Institute, a Bay Area think tank that pushes innovation to solve education problems. "These startups are going to see an opportunity and want to meet it."

"I think what you're going to see in terms of a trend is the state tinkering with online courses," said Matthew Smith, policy analyst at the Education Commission of the States. "They'll watch the failure and dropout rate, and then if they find success there will be a large scaling."

Officials in many of those other states are watching with a mix of interest and skepticism.

"California is in a much different situation than we are," said Karen Hunter Anderson, vice president of the Illinois Community College Board, which has seen a surge in enrollment over the last five years and has its own internal system of online courses. "I think that the community colleges and university administration and faculty in Illinois are very wary of using MOOCs as a solution to the current higher education issues."

Steven Johnson, the vice president of public affairs for the Texas Association of Community Colleges, which has lobbied against state funding cuts at a time of higher enrollments, said the system's existing online offerings suited students fine.

But Hanushek, of the Hoover Institution, said that any states that fail to take MOOCs seriously are in danger of getting "run over."

"Some of these online courses are really well done," with higher production values and better teaching than some traditional core courses at public universities, he said. And they could be cheaper than what the brick-and-mortar school is charging.

"Of course, there's still the question of what is the business model," Hanushek continued. "How do you pay for the development of these courses, and get the returns you need?"

That, he said, is why "California could be the experiment that everyone watches."

California Unemployment Rate Holds at 9.8%, Highest in U.S.

The state's jobless rate, unchanged in January for the second straight month, is tied with Rhode Island. But California is No. 2 in payroll job growth.

California's jobless rate was unchanged at 9.8% in January for the second straight month, and that lack of improvement put the Golden State in a tie with Rhode Island for the worst unemployment in the U.S.

On the other end of the spectrum, North Dakota had the lowest jobless rate, 3.3%, the government said Monday in releasing updated and revised employment data for all 50 states.

California will release its county-by-county breakdown of jobs Friday, which economists expect will reflect the slow growth that is predicted in the state for 2013.

"We are expecting growth to pick up in the latter part of the year and in 2014, and the unemployment rate to come down at that point," said Jerry Nickelsburg, a UCLA economist who writes a quarterly economic forecast on the Golden State.

These statistics, based on more complete payroll information that includes tax records, show that California and other states in the western half of the country did much better in job growth over the last 12 months than the rest of the U.S., powered by the energy sector, technology, trade with Asia and a rebounding housing market.

Texas led all states in payroll job growth from January 2012 to January 2013; it added 332,400 jobs, an increase of 3.1%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

California was second. Though little changed from December to January, California's payroll count grew by 286,100 positions, or 2%, over the 12-month period. (Payroll jobs exclude work by the self-employed and jobs such as unpaid family work.)

The biggest gains came in leisure and hospitality, which added 7,800 jobs; construction saw a 7,300 jump. The largest drop in jobs — 5,500 — came in the combined trade, transportation and utilities sectors. The manufacturing sector shed 2,900 positions.

Nickelsburg said California was feeling the effect of a nationwide payroll tax increase as well as a state-implemented bump in sales tax and income tax on wealthy individuals. The automatic federal budget cuts that kicked in March 1, known as sequestration, will also affect growth.

"There are a lot of things going on," he said. "It's a little hard to ferret out what is the sequester and what are the other factors."

The Northeast region lagged behind the West, hurt by its relatively greater commercial links to Europe and by consolidation in financial services. Although the Northeast had a good January — partly the result of rebuilding after Superstorm Sandy — its job tally in the month was up just 1.1% from a year earlier. New York added 90,800 jobs over the year, an increase of 1.1%.

The pace of job growth in the Midwest was higher than in the Northeast but lower than in the West. The region has benefited from sturdy gains in manufacturing, particularly in the car industry.

For the U.S. as a whole, hiring accelerated in February, with employers adding 236,000 net new jobs compared with 119,000 in January, the Bureau of Labor Statistics previously reported. The national unemployment rate fell to 7.7% last month.

via LA Times

California May Start Huge Water Project Before Knowing If It'll Work

One thing stood out in the pile of documents released Thursday detailing state plans to replumb California's water hub: Construction could start on the massive project before water managers know whether it will work as intended.

The still-evolving proposal, backed by Gov. Jerry Brown's administration and the federal government, is designed to partially restore the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta environment and halt reductions in delta water exports.

But uncertainty over the volume of future water deliveries is likely to linger for years as government scientists try to nail down how much water imperiled salmon and smelt need in the delta.

"This plan does not include any guarantees for water supply deliveries," said Mark Cowin, director of the state Department of Water Resources.

Proponents also don't know whether restoring about 100,000 acres of habitat in the much-altered delta will produce the desired effect of bolstering fish and wildlife populations.

But state officials argue that doing nothing will guarantee the continued deterioration of the delta ecosystem, and with it, additional cuts to southbound water deliveries.

The more than 1,000 pages released Thursday by the California Natural Resources Agency covered only part of a plan that has been under discussion for years.

It would change the way supplies are diverted from the delta by constructing three large intakes on the Sacramento River that would feed into two 35-mile tunnels, each about four stories tall. The tunnels, burrowed more than 150 feet beneath the delta, would carry water by gravity to existing export pumps in the south delta.

The new facilities would cost $14 billion, which would be paid by water users, including Southern California agencies and San Joaquin Valley irrigation districts that depend on the delta for part of their supplies.

Restoration of delta wetlands, flood plains and wildlife habitat would cost an additional $4 billion, most of which is expected to come from federal and state funds.

A final decision on the project is more than a year away. The resources agency will roll out the rest of the draft plan over the next two months. The proposal still has to obtain environmental approvals, and federal and state fish and wildlife agencies have to determine the conditions under which the system would operate.

Those conditions, aimed at protecting endangered species, would determine the volume of delta exports. The resources agency said deliveries could be 10% less than the average of the last two decades — or 5% more.

Reactions to the plan echoed previously voiced support and criticism.

"There's a rush to build it first and then test it," said Zeke Grader, vice chairman of the Golden Gate Salmon Assn., a consortium of commercial, recreational and tribal fishermen that says the new system would harm migrating salmon.

Water and irrigation districts that have suffered cutbacks in delta supplies called the plan a landmark.

"California's water delivery system is broken and the [plan] is the best option our state has in securing a reliable water future," said Mike Wade, executive director of the California Farm Water Coalition.

via LA Times

California Bill Would Promote Statewide Online College Courses

The legislation calls for development of 50 online classes as potential substitutes for the hard-to-get core courses required for graduation at UC, Cal State and community colleges.

Students locked out of overcrowded core courses at California's state colleges and universities should instead be able to take those classes online, according to legislation introduced Wednesday in Sacramento — sending shock waves through academia nationwide.

The bill by state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg(D-Sacramento) calls for the development of 50 online classes as potential substitutes for the most oversubscribed lower division courses required for graduation at UC, Cal State and community colleges. In a controversial portion, the proposal would allow these classes to come from commercial providers or out-of-state colleges if their academic quality passes review by a panel of California faculty.

"The world is changing. Technology is a growing force in our lives and we want to use it to try to help as many young people as possible be able to achieve their dreams and compete in the modern economy," Steinberg said during an online group video chat.

His bill, SB 520, Steinberg said, would reshape higher education by partnering it with the technology "to break the bottleneck that prevents students from completing courses." He described it as the first such effort in the nation.

While some California academics did not want to publicly criticize such a powerful figure as Steinberg, they said they feared that the quality of education could suffer and teaching jobs could be lost if state schools lose control over part of their curricula and allow more private companies to get involved.

Cal State faculty union President Lillian Taiz issued a statement pledging to work with Steinberg but pointedly added: "We want to maintain academic credibility and the delivery of accessible, quality public education, rather than chase the latest private sector fad."

Some experts said the proposal could ease financial pressures on colleges and universities and improve graduation rates.

Steinberg's bill could be "a watershed moment for higher education" and encourage the rest of the nation to take similar steps, said Dean Florez, a former California state senator who is president of the Twenty Million Minds Foundation, a Pasadena-based organization that seeks to widen access to online learning and helped shape some of the bill's ideas.

With the state Senate leader behind it, some form of the legislation will land on the governor's desk even if details change, predicted Florez.

UC, Cal State and California community colleges are working to boost online learning, with Gov.Jerry Brown advocating forcefully for such a goal and offering extra funding for it in next year's budget.

For example, in January, San Jose State began a partnership with the for-profit Udacity organization to offer more low-cost online classes in entry level subjects. The same week, UC system leaders pledged to have UC students take about 10% of classes online in a few years.

On Wednesday, Daphne Koller, the Stanford University professor who is a co-founder of the for-profit Coursera firm, said she thought that Steinberg's plan would help more California students finish college on time, and show that massive open online courses — so-called MOOCs — offered through groups such as hers are rigorous enough for college credit.

Under SB 520, the UC, Cal State and community college systems would each have three faculty representatives on the panel to certify online courses for credit. Among the factors to be reviewed would be whether the classes provide enough interaction with instructors. 

Though online courses would offer limited face-to-face connections, the students are "still in an institution that provides a lot of support for them," said the bill's co-author, Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens).

The bill does not specify fees for the courses, but Steinberg said the costs should be comparable to or less than current ones. The bill also does not provide separate funding for administration or outline how many online classes can be taken for credit.

Patrick Callan, president of the Higher Education Policy Institute, a think tank in San Jose, said the bill is a major step because until recently, California colleges had been slow to innovate.

"It appears that up until this year that [the schools] preferred to turn away students than try these new ideas," he said.

via LA Times

Bill Would Ban Lead Ammunition in California

"There really is no question that lead ammo is a threat," said Kim Delfino of Defenders of Wildlife. "To pass a bill in California would set the stage for this happening throughout the country, the way low-emissions vehicle standards changed the market nationwide."

Lead is a neurotoxin that has thwarted efforts to restore endangered California condors to their historic habitat. It's the major cause of death for condors and affects other scavengers such as bald eagles, golden eagles and turkey vultures.



Opponents of restrictions on ammunition purchases argue that animals that suffer from lead poisoning could be getting it from another source. They cite the fact that incidences of poisoning have not declined despite a ban since 2008 on the use of lead ammunition in the eight-county area where condor recovery is under way.

The National Rifle Association has opposed all bans on lead ammo in the past. The gun rights group has dismissed studies from the University of California, Davis and the University of California, Santa Cruz that show poisonings of birds of prey are highest during hunting seasons and that the lead isotopes in their bloodstreams match ammunition. The NRA says those studies are flawed.

NRA officials did not immediately return telephone messages seeking comment on the new bill.

Studies have shown that nonlead ammunition fires as accurately, but in some calibers it is more expensive than bullets made of lead. Proponents of the ban argue that as nonlead ammo becomes more popular with hunters, the prices will continue to decrease.

The bill comes as a subcommittee of the California Fish and Game Commission is studying whether to institute a ban statewide.

"The commission has looked at the lead issue for years," said Michael Sutton, the department's president. "Should we ban it on state lands, ecological areas and preserves? For all hunting statewide? I'm not going to hazard a guess as to what the commission will do."

Bill supporters, including pediatrician Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, say lead shot in animals consumed by humans is a public health issue because it puts children at risk of brain damage.

"We don't have to choose between hunting and protecting wildlife," said Jennifer Fearing of the Humane Society of the United States. "Removing lead from the environment isn't just good science. It's also the right thing to do."

via ABC News

California Farms Face Labor Shortage as Farmworkers Age

 California's $44 billion agricultural industry faces a worsening labor shortage as farmworkers age, more return home to Mexico and fewer new migrants arrive to replace them.

The state's farming workforce is aging and shrinking for several reasons, including stricter immigration enforcement, an improving economy in Mexico and the lack of interest in field work among the children of farmworkers, according to the Sacramento Bee (http://bit.ly/ZC3Q0j ).

"Basically, we're running out of low-skilled workers," said J. Edward Taylor, a University of California, Davis, economist who has studied the migration of farmworkers from Mexico. "The second generation doesn't do farm work. That's why we've relied on a steady influx of newcomers. And the newcomers are in dwindling supply."

More than 70 percent of state agricultural producers expect a worker shortage starting this spring and worsening through the growing season, according to the California Farm Bureau Federation.

Lawmakers and farm lobbyists are discussing remedies, including granting legal status to more than 1 million undocumented farmworkers and expanding the number of visas for agriculture.

"We have to try to find a system that is not going to cause a major disruption to our industry," said Bryan Little, the farm bureau's director of labor affairs.

Manuel Cunha Jr., president of the Nisei Farmers League, representing 1,100 farms and other agriculture outlets, said his group's workforce fell by 20 to 30 percent during last year's harvest season. By September, some farm crews were as much as 60 percent short of the workers they needed.

Cunha blamed increased farm audits by federal immigration officials and the increasing dangers of crossing the border from Mexico.

"Workers were leaving agriculture because they were fearful of the audits and getting busted," Cunha said. "And then, when they went home, they realized it wasn't worth it to return because of the drug traffickers and human traffickers."

The declining number of farmworkers is prompting some growers to switch to crops that require less labor.

Chandler Farms, about 40 miles southeast of Fresno, decided to cut back on peaches and plums and use more land to grow almonds, which can be harvested by machine.

"I don't know if it is going to get better for a while," said Bill Chandler, who runs the family ranch in Selma with his son. "If you want peaches or plums, or strawberries or lettuce or tomatoes, we need a program in which we can have labor. I don't have the answers."

Arcadio Castro, a foreman at the Chandler ranch, said workers in his Mexican hometown of Zacatecas can't afford to pay a "coyote" to smuggle them across the border and prefer construction jobs in urban areas.

So Castro, 59, has depends on veteran laborers willing to do work many of their children won't consider.

"You're not going to believe me, but the older workers are better," Castro said. "They go slower, but they work all day long. The younger ones start complaining. They say, 'Oh, it's so hot.' Then they climb up a ladder and start texting."

California Senate Approves $24 Million for Gun Confiscation Program

The California Senate approved a $24-million expenditure on Thursday to speed the confiscation of guns from people who have been disqualified from owning firearms because of criminal convictions or serious mental illness.

Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) said budget cuts to the Department of Justice have hampered a program that targets people who purchased firearms legally but were later disqualified because of a subsequent conviction or determination of mental illness.

As a result of the cuts, there is a backlog of 19,000 people who have improper possession of more than 40,000 guns, including 1,600 assault weapons, and the number is increasing faster than their firearms can be confiscated.

"The mountain continues to grow," Leno said. "This is a serious and immediate threat to our public safety."

The Senate voted 31-0 to approve an urgency bill that would take the $24 million over three years from a Department of Justice account funded by gun owners who pay a fee when they register their guns with the state.

Sen. Jim Nielsen (R-Gerber) abstained from the vote, saying the $24 million is a surplus indicating gun owners are being overtaxed and that the Department of Justice is not properly managing its funds. "I argue we cannot reward this incompetence," Nielsen said before the vote to send SB 140 to the Assembly for consideration.

California is the only state that has such a computerized tracking program. Atty. Gen. Kamala Harrissaid the money would allow her to temporarily double the program staffing for three years to whittle down the backlog.

"Taking guns away from dangerous, violent individuals who are prohibited by law from owning them is smart and efficient law enforcement," Harris said in a statement.

via LA Times