California adds just 5,500 jobs in November; unemployment rate declines to 5.7%

California employers added just 5,500 jobs in November, according to federal data — a significant slowdown from more robust monthly gains earlier in the year.

But the state unemployment rate continued its five-year-long decline, dropping to 5.7% in November, the lowest in eight years. The U.S. unemployment rate is 5%.

November's tepid job increases were the lowest one-month jump in more than four years, and far less than the 40,600 job gains the state posted in October.

See the most-read stories this hour >>

But economists cautioned against reading too much into monthly swings in the employment data, which often are subject to revisions. September's numbers, for example, were revised upward from 8,200 positions to 21,100 jobs.

“We're reading the economy on the fly,” said Robert Kleinhenz, chief economist for the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. “That's just the nature of these economic statistics.”

Despite the lackluster November, California's payroll employment grew 2.6% over last year, faster than all but six other states and better than the national rate of 1.9%.

Construction continued to be the leading growth sector, as the industry continues to rebound from the housing crash. The high-paying professional and technical services industry — including lawyers, accountants, architects and engineers — also recorded some of the fastest job growth in the state.

The only industries to post losses were mining and logging, along with manufacturing and financial services.

The state unemployment rate is down significantly from a year ago, when it stood at 7.2%. The jobless rate is often criticized as an incomplete economic indicator because it doesn't count discouraged job seekers who have dropped out of the labor force.

Some of those who stopped seeking employment may be returning to the labor force, which has expanded over the last year even as unemployment fell. That suggests newly returned job seekers may be finding success.

Join the conversation on Facebook >>

Economists say job growth tends to taper off as an economic expansion progresses. The U.S. is technically in the seventh year of expansion.

Although California's economic growth has outperformed the nation, there are still reasons for many people to believe their fortunes have not improved.

The gap between high and low earners is more pronounced in California because wages for middle-income earners have fallen.

Since 2006, median wages have declined 6.2% in California, compared with 1.9% for the U.S. overall, according to the California Budget & Policy Center.

California's economy is booming, so why is it No. 1 in poverty?

And while the share of part-time workers has declined since the depths of the Great Recession, that segment of the workforce is still larger than in the mid-2000s. About 5.9% of workers in California are considered part-time for economic reasons — meaning that they are unable to find full-time work.

That's down from 9.6% of the workforce in 2010, but still higher than when the economy last peaked in 2006.

“We don't want to miss the point that we are in one of the better times, employment-wise, in the last 40 years in California,” said Michael Bernick, a former director of the California Employment Development Department. “But at the same time, these numbers don't represent a lot of the instability: the part-time, contingent nature of the evolving labor market.”

Via Chris Kirkham, Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-jobs-20151218-story.html

Poverty Hitting One in Six Californians

The economic recovery in California has not reached a sizable percentage of the population, with more than 16% of Californians living in poverty, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the California Budget and Policy Center.

In most California counties, the poverty rate increased from 2007 to 2014. Of the 40 California counties with available data, 32 had higher poverty rates last year than they did in 2007 before the state's recession began, the study said.

The California Budget and Policy Center is a not-for-profit that conducts independent, nonpartisan budget analysis.

"Millions of Californians continue to struggle to meet their basic needs, even after several years of steady job gains," the study said. "Poverty remained widespread even though the state's unemployment rate declined from a high of 12.2% in 2010 to 7.5% in 2014."

The federal poverty line is about $19,000 for a family of three. The overall rate fell slightly between 2012 and 2014 -- by 0.6% -- but the 2014 level of 16.4% is a full 4 percentage points higher than it was in 2007.

The study highlighted the differences between counties:

• Not only was the poverty rate higher in 32 of the 40 counties with available data from 2007 to 2014, but there was no statistically significant difference in poverty rates in the other 8 counties;
• In Lake County, the poverty rate rose to 25.9% of the population. In Kings County, 26.6% live in poverty;
• In Lake, Kings and San Bernardino counties, the poverty rate jumped by more than 8 percentage points from 2007 to 2014; and
• In 15 other counties, poverty rates in 2014 were 4 to 8 percentage points higher than in 2007. Most of those counties are in the Central Valley and in the Sacramento region.

"Many factors could contribute to the uneven recovery across California's counties," fact sheet author Alissa Anderson wrote. "These include differences in the availability of well-paying jobs and/or of sufficient work hours, as well as changes in county demographics, such as whether large numbers of people who struggle to get by move into a county."

By David Gorn
Via http://www.californiahealthline.org/capitol-desk/2015/12/poverty-hitting-one-in-six-californians

Obama bans the box!

On Monday, President Obama is announcing a new order to reduce potential discrimination against former convicts in the hiring process for federal government employees.

It is a step towards what many criminal justice reformers call “ban the box” – the effort to eliminate requirements that job applicants check a box on their applications if they have a criminal record. While the rule was once seen as a common sense way for employers to screen for criminal backgrounds, it has been increasingly criticized as a hurdle that fosters employment discrimination against former inmates, regardless of the severity of their offense or how long ago it occurred. Banning the box delays when employers learn of an applicant’s record.

Obama is unveiling the plan on a visit to a treatment center in New Jersey, a state where Republican Gov. Chris Christie signed a ban the box bill into law last year. Hillary Clinton endorsed ban the box last week, while Republican Sen. Rand Paul also introduced similar federal legislation, with Democratic Sen. Cory Booker, to seal criminal records for non-violent offenders.

The White House says it is “encouraged” by such legislation in a new statement, but emphasizes the president’s order will take immediate action, mandating that the federal government’s HR department “delay inquiries into criminal history until later in the hiring process.”

President Obama spoke to several federal prisoners about that very approach in July, when he was the first sitting president to visit an American prison.

“If the disclosure of a criminal record happens later in a job application process,” he told them, “you’re more likely to be hired.” Obama described what many studies show – that when many employers see the box checked for an applicant’s criminal record, they weed them out without ever looking at their qualifications.

“If they have a chance to at least meet you,” the president continued, “you’re able to talk to them about your life, what you’ve done, maybe they give you a chance.”

About 60-to-75% of former inmates cannot find work within their first year out of jail, according to the Justice Department, a huge impediment to re-entering society.

Research shows the existence of a criminal record can reduce an employer’s interest in applicant by about 50%, and that when white and black applicants both have records, employers are far less likely to call back a black applicant than a white one. As a 2009 re-entry study in New York city found, “the criminal record penalty suffered by white applicants (30%) is roughly half the size of the penalty for blacks with a record (60%).”

Obama’s move also comes in the wake of a growing movement for criminal justice reform – from broad calls by groups like Black Lives Matter to a specific campaign on ban the box that ranged from half the Senate Democratic caucus to civil rights groups to artists like John Legend.

On Monday, Legend told MSNBC, “We applaud the President’s decision to end this unfair bias against people who have served their time and paid their debt to society. We hope that Congress and state legislatures across the country will follow suit.”

The President is announcing several other measures Monday, including public housing and money for re-entry programs, and he is speaking about prison reform in a speech and an exclusive interview with NBC Nightly News Anchor Lester Holt.

Via: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-bans-the-box 

JOBS: Amazon to add 1,000 more jobs

Amazon has announced it will create 1,000 more jobs for its Inland Southern California fulfillment centers.

In addition to 1,000 jobs announced earlier this month, takes the hiring roster to 2,000.

Mike Lee, the community and economic development director for Moreno Valley, says he hasn’t seen this many job

s created in such a short amount of time, ever. “This is huge for our region,” Lee said.

Amazon’s announcement was made at the Moreno Valley City Conference & Recreation Center. The hiring is part of a nationwide recruitment effort by Amazon.

“What we heard was Amazon was impressed with the quality of candidates they are getting from the region,” Lee said.

Amazon, in a statement issued Wednesday by spokeswoman Ashley Robinson, said the firm is proud to continue to hire for 1,000 more newly created permanent, hourly positions at the Inland Empire fulfillment centers in Moreno Valley, Redlands and San Bernardino.

Tuesday, the company held a hiring event with about 400 applicants in Moreno Valley, and each received a contingent offer of employment at facilities there, Robinson said.

Asked to comment on the caliber of the candidates on the whole, Robinson said, “We have found an enthusiastic, dedicated and customer-obsessed workforce in the Inland Empire.”

Moreno Valley Mayor Jesse Molina called the recruitment announcement terrific news.

“Anytime a business says that it is hiring this many people it is a big deal,” Molina said. “When it’s coupled with community investment, it means all that much more.”

Thomas J. Goldsby, a business and logistics professor at Fisher College of Business, Ohio State University, said in a Monday symposium for forecasters at Riverside Convention Center that “Amazon is expanding at a pace that is making Wal-Mart very, very nervous.”

Amazon has created thousands of full-time jobs in the Inland region since the first California facility opened in San Bernardino in 2012, Moreno Valley city officials said. Fulfillment centers in Redlands and Moreno Valley began shipping customer orders in 2014.

Amazon is making the news almost daily with innovations like rapid delivery and mail drops with drones, Goldsby said.

Tuesday’s hiring event was an offshoot of the Hire MoVal program and coordinated efforts with Riverside County Workforce Development Agency. Communication networks were shared. Amazon recruitment opportunities were publicized to Moreno Valley businesses.

As an added benefit to Amazon, the company qualifies for a 2 percent discount on electrical rates under the Hire MoVal program if at least 20 percent of the workforce hails from Moreno Valley. The discount rises to 4 percent if the workforce percentage is at least 40 percent.

Fielding Buck contributed to this report.

Via: http://www.pe.com/articles/amazon-771361-moreno-valley.html

Brown seeks money for fixing roads as gas tax value plunges

California lawmakers are looking at new ways to pay for crumbling roads, bridges and highways as the traditional repair fund from gasoline taxes dries up.

Revenue from gasoline taxes have been sliding as more fuel-efficient and electric cars hit aging roads. That's contributing to an annual $5.9 billion backlog in state highway repairs.

Gov. Jerry Brown's administration is studying whether to tax drivers by miles traveled instead of gas guzzled. Changing the system could take more than five years, and lawmakers are calling for more money to repave roads and fill potholes in the meantime.

They are considering a dollar-a-week fee on most drivers, a temporary gas tax hike, re-directing money used to pay off state debt back to road projects and converting carpool lanes into paid toll ways.

Lawmakers in Congress and statehouses across the nation are grappling with transportation funding shortfalls. In California, Brown's vision for an eco-friendly fleet using half as much gasoline by 2030 is clashing with how the state pays for infrastructure.

"We have not had in the last 25 years a revenue source in transportation that is stable, ongoing and commensurate with our needs," said Brian Kelly, Brown's top transportation aide. "We have fallen further and further behind."

Road maintenance is primarily funded by an 18-cent a gallon gasoline tax, which hasn't increased since 1994. Collections fell from $2.87 billion in 2003 to $2.62 billion in 2013. Drivers pay even more in taxes at the pump for local, federal and new state projects.

State officials say they need more money each year because of the rising costs of fixing roads. About 16 percent of the highways were in poor condition in 2013, according to the California Department of Transportation.

"We are looking at getting revenue in place now to stem the blood flow because our roads are falling apart before our eyes," said Jim Earp, director of the California Alliance for Jobs, which represents construction companies and trade unions.

Hiking taxes and fees requires two-thirds support from the Legislature, including Republicans. Brown in his inaugural address called on both parties to come together on transportation funding, as they did when they developed a $7.5 billion water plan last year.

Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, on Wednesday announced legislation to raise an additional $2 billion a year for transportation, including an annual $52 fee for most drivers. While the details aren't worked out, Atkins said the fee could be charged as part of insurance plans and vehicle registration.

Electrical vehicle drivers who don't pay gas taxes and truckers could also pay more.

Assembly Republican Leader Kristin Olsen, R-Modesto, says she's not opposed to new revenue and charging people who don't pay for road repair, but changes should be balanced with cuts in spending and other taxes. Republicans have blasted the California Department of Transportation for having too many employees and want to redirect money from the $68 billion bullet train project, a personal priority of Brown's.

Brown said last month he would not "pre-empt the discussions" by publicly supporting legislative proposals.

Ellen Hanak, a senior fellow with the Public Policy Institute of California, says the key to a successful compromise is pressure from drivers and businesses fed up with poor road conditions.

"Like water, these are not red and blue issues, people care about transportation in red and blue and purple places," Hanak said. "A basic funding gap is something that affects everybody."

Transportation industry groups took steps to place a vehicle license fee hike for infrastructure on the November 2014 ballot, but abandoned it after finding little support. Earp, the leader of the construction group, says outside organizations may try to take a funding measure to voters in 2016 if the Legislature is unable to pass a deal.

Outside of the capitol, a committee of government and industry officials is looking at replacing the gas tax with a mileage fee. The idea is having drivers pay their share of wear-and-tear on roads, similar to paying water bills by the meter instead of flat rates.

Owners of electrical and hybrid vehicles are avoiding the burden of fixing roads, some transportation observers say.

"It's the more affluent people driving these vehicles getting out of paying their fair share," said Bill Higgins, executive director of the California Association of Councils of Government.

The tricky part is how to measure road use. Instead of simple odometer readings, many road use charge proposals include GPS devices that raise concerns about the government tracking driver habits.

"Your lives are encoded rather reliably in what you do in your car," said Lee Tien, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation who is pushing for non-GPS alternatives on the road usage charge committee.

California hasn't committed to such a tax, which Oregon is testing with 5,000 volunteers this summer. The California committee is due to set up its own pilot program and report findings to the Legislature by 2018, setting the stage for a larger battle over whether to make the shift.

AM Alert: Health and human services budget committee discusses May Revision

Legislators are usually back in their districts on a Friday, but with Gov. Jerry Brown presenting hisrevised budget proposal this week, there's enough to discuss to keep some of them in town today. The Assembly Budget Committee's Subcommittee on Health and Human Services meets in Room 4202 of the Capitol at 9 a.m.

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/05/am-alert-health-and-human-services-budget-committee-discusses-may-revision.html#storylink=cpy

Whether Brown has restored enough of the recession-era spending cuts to health programs and social services is one of the biggest points of contention surrounding the budget. With the first surplus in years, liberal lawmakers and advocacy groups have pushed the governor to spend the additional billions rather than socking them away in a proposed rainy-day fund. In-home caregivers have been especially vocal in pushing back against Brown's budget, which would limit the number of hours they can work.

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/05/am-alert-health-and-human-services-budget-committee-discusses-may-revision.html#storylink=cpy

SB 391 Advances Further Than Any Other CA Housing Trust Fund Bill

From Campaign Co-Chairs Shamus Roller and Ray Pearl

On behalf of SB 391's co-sponsors -- Housing California and the California Housing Consortium -- we would like to congratulate all of you on an amazing job advocating for homes and jobs for Californians. To date, the California Homes and Jobs Act (SB 391) has advanced further than any bill to fund the state housing trust fund since the trust fund was permanently established in 1988.  Given the recent suspension of three Senators who voted yes on SB 391 (and whose votes would be needed again to approve amendments made in the Assembly), SB 391 is unlikely to advance this year in its current form.  While this news is disappointing, we remain strongly positioned to build upon our successes from this year and come back to win an ongoing source of state investment in homes and jobs. Even if we are successful with some of the exciting proposals currently in the Legislature (see below), California needs a statewide, flexible source of funding like SB 391 would provide.       Video Message to SB 391 Supporters from Senator Mark DeSaulnier The author of SB 391, Senator Mark DeSaulnier, recorded this special message for all of you who dedicated time and energy to this important campaign, reinforcing that you've done a fantastic job and our work is not over. Click here to watch Senator DeSaulnier's video.

California drought to drive up food prices in the long term

With 2013 the driest year on record and 2014 possibly worse, the devastation of California’s drought is trickling down to crops, fields, farmers markets, grocery stores — and the kitchen table.

While it’s too early to tell precisely how much the drought will push up household grocery bills, economists say consumers can expect to pay more for food later this year because fewer acres of land are being planted and crop yields are shrinking.

Large grocery chains have distribution networks and can import produce from around the world to keep customers in everything from cantaloupe to cauliflower, but experts say California’s smaller yields will inevitably lead to higher consumer prices here and elsewhere. Some consumers already are plotting ways to keep their food budgets under control if there is a big spike in prices.

“The first thing I would cut back on is eating meat,” retired schoolteacher Sharon Jay, 66, said as she shopped for pears and asparagus at a Safeway in Oakland’s lower Rockridge neighborhood. “And I wouldn’t go out to eat very often. If food costs go up, restaurant meals will cost more, too.”

Kathy Jackson, CEO of the Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, which distributes 52 million pounds of food each year to low-income residents from Daly City to Gilroy, says the drought could prove devastating to the people her organization serves. That’s because 27 million pounds of the food her organization hands out annually is fruits and vegetables donated by California farms and growers.

Many of the families Second Harvest serves live in “food deserts” with no major retailers nearby, just corner stores. “Fresh produce is the most difficult food for our clients to both find and afford,” she said.

Jim Cochran of Swanton Berry Farm in Davenport, Calif., offers a hint of what may come. He stopped watering his artichokes a month ago and expects the cost of a pint of organic strawberries, which usually sell for $3.50 at Bay Area farmers markets, to go up roughly 20 percent to at least $4.20 a pint.

“We are going to have to sell our products for higher prices because we are not going to have the yield,” Cochran said. “We’re not trying to make more money; we’re trying to lose less.”

California is the nation’s largest producer of many fruits, vegetables and nuts. But with the traditional rainy season more than half over, farmers are making hard decisions about what crops to plant and how many acres to leave fallow. At least 500,000 prime acres, representing an area the size of Los Angeles and San Diego combined, are expected to go unplanted this spring because of insufficient water.

“We’re really concerned about the extent to which acreage is being taken out of action,” said Richard Volpe, an economist in the Foods Markets Branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. “The real economic impact is long term and will be felt down the road, when there will be a structural shift in prices.”

Dave Heylen, spokesman for the California Grocers Association — which represents 80 percent of the grocery stores in California, including large chains like Safeway and Trader Joe’s — said the reduced planting may result in a limited supply of particular produce at certain times of the year. But he declined to speculate on the exact impact the drought will have on food prices, noting that large retailers have global distribution systems that give them access to foods from other parts of the country and throughout the world.

“When I was growing up, when peach season was over it was over; there were no more peaches,” Heylen said. “Now you can get peaches from South America.”

While California’s drought may be good for growers elsewhere, the state’s farmers are feeling increasing stress. Last week, the federal government announced that it will not allocate any water to the Central Valley via the federally controlled Central Valley Project, California’s largest water delivery system. The Westlands Water District provides water to nearly 600 farms in western Fresno and Kings counties and now has to contend with an allocation of zero. Roughly 200,000 acres of the 500,000 acres of land expected to be taken out of production this year fall within Westland’s boundaries.

“Typically there would be huge amounts of lettuces in the ground right now, and you are going to see lost production of lettuce,” said Gayle Holman of the Westlands Water District. “As we move further into the prime harvest season, consumers are not going to see as many California-grown honeydew, cantaloupes and watermelon at their Fourth of July celebrations. We imagine higher prices, higher demand and less availability. We need buckets of daily rainfall to even get us to the point of catching up to the worst-case scenario.”

Besides being the nation’s leading wine and dairy state, California produces 80 percent of the world’s almonds and is a major producer of strawberries, walnuts, celery, leaf lettuce, spinach and cattle. The $45 billion agriculture sector includes 2.6 million acres of permanent crops like almonds and grapes, which allow farmers less flexibility in tough times.

“There will be thousands of acres of fruit and nut trees that will die this year because of lack of water,” said David Sunding, a professor in the College of Natural Resources at UC Berkeley. “The reduction in yield will drive up prices.”

But Mike Wade, executive director of the California Farm Water Coalition, said the precise impact on consumers is difficult to gauge because other states and countries might increase production of the crops that California farmers cut back on.

“We’re not expecting to see much in terms of spring planting of peppers and melons,” said Wade. “But planting may be ramped up somewhere else. It could be grown in Arizona or Mexico.”

Full Belly Farm, a 350-acre organic farm in Yolo County’s Capay Valley, is cutting back on water-intensive crops like corn and melons, which means that there will be less variety at Bay Area farmers markets. And the lack of rain has forced growers to spend money fighting another intrusion: wildlife. Deer and wild pigs are increasingly coming onto the farm in search of food, and Full Belly expects to spend $20,000 this year just on fencing.

PHOTO: President Barack Obama, walks and chats with Joe De Bosque, second from right, and his wife Maria Gloria De Bosque, far right, while California governor Jerry Brown walks at the far left, addressing drought issues on the couple's farmland south of Los Banos, Calif. on Friday. (The Fresno Bee, Eric Paul Zamora, AP Photo) 

via: http://www.sbsun.com/business/20140312/california-drought-to-drive-up-food-prices-in-the-long-term

The Republican War on Hungry Women: The Newly Invisibile and Undeserving Poor

While the rest of the world debates America's role in the Middle East or its use of drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the U.S. Congress is debating just how drastically it should cut food assistance to the 47 million Americans -- one out of seven people -- who suffer from "food insecurity," the popular euphemism for those who go hungry.

The U.S. Government began giving food stamps to the poor during the Great Depression. Even when I was a student in the 1960s, I received food stamps while unemployed during the summers. That concern for the hungry, however, has evaporated. The Republicans -- dominated by Tea Party policies -- are transforming the United States into a far less compassionate and more mean-spirited society.

The need is great. Since the Great Recession of 2008, the food stamp program, now called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), has doubled from $38 billion in 2008 to $78 billion in the last year. During 2012, 65 million Americans used SNAP for at least one a month, which means that one out of every five Americans became part of the swelling rolls of "needy families," most of whom are women and children.

Democrats defend the new debit card program, which can only be used to purchase food, as feeding needy Americans at a time of high unemployment and great poverty. Republicans, for their part, argue that the program is rife with fraud, that its recipients (who are mostly single mothers) are lazy and shiftless, and that we must make drastic cuts to reduce government spending. Their most Dickensian argument is that if you feed the poor, they won't want to work.

But as the New York Times economic columnist Paul Krugman has repeatedly pointed out, welfare entitlements, including the food debit card, are not only good for families; they are also good for the economy. People who receive such help spend the money immediately. Single mothers hold down multiple jobs at minimum wages to keep their family together. The debit card allows them to go shopping and to buy needed groceries. Such entitlements boost spending and the economy, rather than depleting it.

Despite these arguments, the cuts have already begun. On November 1, 2013, Congress cutnearly $5 billion from SNAP and Republicans now want to cut another $40 billion dollars. The stalemate has resulted in the failure of Congress to pass the farm bill, which provides SNAP subsidies to farms, mostly of which are large agricultural corporations.

Meanwhile, poverty grows, the stock market zooms to new heights, the wealth of the one percent increases, and corporate executives continue to get tax exemptions for business entertainment expenses, which allow corporations to deduct 50 percent of these costs from their annual taxes.

In all this discussion, the real face of poverty -- single mothers -- has strangely disappeared. Welfare policy in America has always favored mothers and children. In a country that values self-sufficiency and glorifies individualism, Americans have viewed men -- except war veterans -- as capable of caring for themselves, or part of the undeserving poor. Women, by contrast, were always viewed as mothers with dependents, people to be cared for and protected precisely because they are vulnerable and raise the next generation.

As I read dozens of think tank and government reports, and newspaper stories, however, I am surprised to notice that even strong opponents of the cuts describe SNAP's recipients as children, teenagers, seniors or the disabled. Why have single mothers disappear from such accounts about the poor? There are plenty of "needy families," "households," and "poor Americans," but the real face of poverty and the actual recipients of food assistance are single mothers, whose faces have been absorbed by the more abstract language of "poor Americans" and "needy households."

Even the strongest opponents of these cuts don't focus on women or mothers. Instead they publicize pinched-faced children -- a better poster image -- staring hungrily at food they cannot eat. Or, they discuss the public health impact these cuts may have on children. According to most reports, even from the Agriculture Department, "children and teenagers" make up almost half of the recipients of food assistance. But they don't mention the mothers who receive this assistance in order to feed those children and teenagers. From the stories about food stamps, you'd think that only children, teenagers, the elderly and the disabled have gone hungry.

The words "women" or even "mothers" rarely appear. In a powerful column against the cuts, the liberal and compassionate New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, for example, argued that "two-thirds of recipients are children, elderly or disabled" and warnedhis readers about the long-range impact of malnourished children. He, too, never mentioned women, who are the main adult recipients of the SNAP program and who feed those children, elderly or disabled. Nor did he point out that those who apply for such assistance are the mothers and women who seek to nourish these children. It's as though women are simply vehicles, not persons, in the reproduction process of the human race.

Yet the reality tells a different story. In 2010, for example, 42 percent of single mothersrelied on SNAP and in rural areas, the rate often rose as high as one-half of all single mothers. What's missing from this picture -- on both sides -- are the real faces of hunger, which are not "needy" families, or "poor Americans", but single mothers with "food insecurity" for themselves and their families. According to the Center for Budget Priorities, women are twice as likely to use food stamps as anyone else in the population. They are the ones who apply for the SNAP debit card, go shopping, takes buses for hours to find discounted food supplies, and try to stretch their food to last throughout the month for their children, teenagers and, less often, husbands. They are the pregnant women with older children whose infants are born malnourished, and the Americans who, at the end of the month, make hasty runs to relatives, food banks and even join other dumpster divers.

When journalists do focus on the women who are recipients of food assistance, they discover a nightmare hiding in plain sight. These women are either unemployed, under-employed or service workers who don't earn enough to feed themselves and their families. By the end of the month, they and their children frequently often skip meals or eat one meal a day until the next month's SNAP assistant arrives.

So why have women disappeared from a fierce national debate over who deserves food assistance? I'm not actually sure. Perhaps it is because so many adult women, like men, now work in the labour force and are viewed as individuals who should take care of themselves. Perhaps it is because Republicans find women's appetite, as opposed to that of children, an embarrassment, hinting at sexual desire. Perhaps it is because this is part of the Republican war on women's reproductive freedom -- a single mother with children is somehow guilty of bringing on her own poverty.

Whatever the reason, the rhetoric does not match the reality. Once in while, the media publishes or broadcasts a "human interest" story that gives poor women a face.

"It is late October," one reporter began, "so Adrianne Flowers is out of money to buy food for her family. Feeding five kids is expensive, and the roughly $600 in food stamps she gets from the federal government never lasts the whole month. 'I'm barely making it, said the 31-year-old Washington, D.C., resident and single mother."

End of story. On to weather and the sports.

For the most part, however, poor women remain invisible, even as the mothers who feed the children, teenagers, elderly and disable who live with them. They do not elicit compassion. If anything, they are ignored or regarded with contempt.

Whatever the reason, Americans are having a national debate about poor and needy Americans without addressing the very group whose poverty is the greatest. The result is that we are turning poor, single mothers, who are 85 percent of all single parents, into a newly invisible and undeserving group of recipients.

Republicans may view single mothers as sinful parasites who don't deserve food assistance. But behind every hungry child, teenager and elderly person is a hungry mother who is exhausted from trying to keep her family together. Women who receive food assistance are neither invisible nor undeserving. They are working-class heroes who work hard -- often at several minimal wage jobs -- to keep their families nourished and together.

This story originally appeared on openDemocray.net.

 

Support the California Homes and Jobs Act of 2013!

Campaign News August 06, 2013

In just 6 days, the California Homes and Jobs Act will be heard by the first Assembly policy committee, with the second hearing scheduled only two days later. Housing and Community Development: Monday, August 12 (1:30 p.m.)  Labor and Employment: Wednesday, August 14 (1:30 p.m.)  DAY 2 of Our 6 Days of Action  Imagine a legislator who serves on the Assembly committees getting 200 letters one day, 100 phone calls two days later, and 300 tweets the day of the hearing, all asking for a YES vote for homes and jobs for Californians.   Today's Action: CALL the members of the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee.  If you can make 3 calls, phone: Cheryl Brown 916.319.2047 Brian Maienschein 916.319.2077 Beth Gaines 916.319.2006 What to Say: "Hi, my name is ________. [If calling on behalf of an organization . . .  I'm calling on behalf of __________.] I am a strong supporter of SB 391: The California Homes and Jobs Act. Our community desperately needs the jobs and affordable places to live that it will generate. I urge Assemblymember ________ to vote yes on SB 391 in housing committee on Monday."   __________________________________________________________________ If you can make 6 calls, first phone the Assemblymembers above (using the script above), then phone the Assemblymembers below (using the script below): Ed Chau: 916.319.2049 Toni Atkins 916.319.2078 Sharon Quirk-Silva 916.319.2065   What to Say: Hi, my name is ________. [If calling on behalf of an organization, I'm calling on behalf of __________.] I am a strong supporter of SB 391: The California Homes and Jobs Act. I wanted to call and thank Assemblymember ________ for coauthoring SB 391 and let the Assemblymember know we appreciate his/her yes vote in housing committee on Monday." Take credit for your work!  Enter your name to let us know you made calls.  What else can you do? Forward this e-mail to your listservs/contacts.  via: http://ow.ly/nH0Ce

Foreclosure activity plunges in California with new laws in effect

New California forecloure actions posted a sharp plunge in the first quarter to levels not seen since the last housing boom.

Lenders filed 18,567 mortgage default notices on California houses and condominiums during the first three months of the year. That was a 51.4% drop from the previous quarter and a 67.0% drop from the first quarter of 2012, according to real estate firm DataQuick.

The filing of a notice of default is the first step in California's formal foreclosre process.

The firm reported the numbers Tuesday. It attributed the drop to rising home prices, a stronger economy and government interventions designed to curtail foreclosures.

In particular, a series of new laws backed by state Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris that place new regulations on foreclosre practices appears to have played a big role in the sharp reduction, DataQuick reported. 

"It appears last quarter's drop was especially sharp because of a package of new state foreclosure laws-- the 'Homeowner Bill of Rights'-- that took effect Jan. 1," John Walsh, DataQuick president, said in a news release." Default notices fell off a cliff in January, then edged up."

Once lenders adjust to the new regulations, the numbers could pick up again, Walsh noted.

Default notices remained more revalent in California's cheaper neighborhoods, according to DataQuick. And most of the loans going into default were born between 2005 and 2007.

Among the state's biggest counties, loans were least likely to go ito default in the less-affluent Riverside, San Bernardino, Solano and San Joaquin counties.

The number of homes taken back by lenders through the foreclosure process also fell dramatically last quarter. The total number of homes taken back by lenders through the foreclosure process also fell dramatically last quarter. The total number of trustees deeds filed on homes 35.7% from the previous quarter and 55.1% from the first quarter of 2012 A lender records a trustees deed on a property after it's been foreclosed upon. 

via LA Times

Gov. Jerry Brown Works to Spread California's Green Doctrine

 When Gov. Jerry Brown called on his fellow governors at a conference in Washington last week to embrace a California-style pursuit of cleaner air, he was doing more than reinforcing the state's image as an environmental trailblazer. He was trying to protect its economy.

Brown needs other states and the federal government to adopt key elements of California's environmental agenda, such as reaping more energy from renewable sources and capping greenhouse gas emissions, if those programs are to be successful here.

The state's aggressive pursuit of environmental goals has provided a new impetus for green jobs and federal subsidies. But the programs are costly to businesses, raising the price of their energy and forcing them to upgrade to cleaner manufacturing technologies.

If others don't go green, California could become an outlier, saddling businesses with costly new power while neighboring states continue to use traditional, cheaper energy, experts say. If the efforts under way in California spread to become the new normal, however, all will benefit from economies of scale.

If more states order power companies to limit their use of fossil fuels, for example, the incentive will grow nationwide for firms to develop cheaper alternatives, leaving California consumers less exposed to spikes in electricity rates.

Likewise, if greenhouse gas caps are widely implemented, the state's landmark climate change law is more likely to be successful. Cleansing the air is "clearly not something California can do on its own," said Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California Energy Institute.

The authors of California's emissions law said as much in its text: The ultimate goal is "encouraging other states, the federal government and other countries to act."

Brown has vowed to keep pushing to "decarbonize the economy." He wants to advance the state's mandate for renewable energy — already the most ambitious in the nation — further so California will receive as much as half its power from renewable sources within 20 years. In the courts, his administration is defending a state law, challenged by some oil and ethanol companies, that requires gasoline to contain 10% less carbon by the end of the decade.

In Washington, Brown pushed for others to join in. "We can't do it alone," he told state leaders gathered for the National Governors Assn. meeting. "We need other states.... We need China. We need India."

Many elements of California's environmental blueprint have already become a national model as other states and the federal government have adopted some version of them over the past several decades.

Using its leverage as the largest automobile market in the nation, California in 1975 required the use of catalytic converters to help reduce pollution from cars. Six years later, the federal government required them in all cars sold in the U.S.

A California law that passed more than 10 years ago limiting tailpipe emissions was the basis for a federal standard imposed by the Obama administration in 2010.

The state's global warming law, called AB 32 and passed in 2006, has been partly imitated elsewhere.

It was a model for federal legislation to curb greenhouse gas limits in 2010. President Obama failed to get the measure through Congress, but the Environmental Protection Agency created new rules to roll back emissions from coal-fired power plants.

The California law was grounded in the creation of a market that puts a price on greenhouse gas emissions. Owners of power plants and factories buy and sell permits to release the gases into the atmosphere.

The system, called "cap and trade," limits the volume of air pollutants that may be released in California each year but permits high polluters to buy the right to emit more.

Many business interests say cap-and-trade is too costly, though they may have fewer objections if that market grows large enough.

"The current system amounts to a tax to continue doing business in the state," said Shelly Sullivan, executive director of the AB 32 Implementation Group, a coalition of California businesses that has opposed many of the state's environmental regulations. "A broader system would create a larger market and, depending on how it's constructed, could address some of our concerns."

A limited number of cap-and-trade markets are in place in other parts of the country, although their scope is more modest than California's. Nine northeastern states, for example, have a carbon market aimed at reducing only power plant emissions.

Another landmark California environmental law requires power companies to generate more electricity from wind, solar and other "renewable" sources. Under a bill signed by Brown in 2011, California utilities must generate one-third of their power that way by 2020 — the most ambitious such standard in the nation.

The California Public Utilities Commission estimates that reaching that goal could propel energy costs to nearly 11% above what they would be from gas-fired energy plants.

While 30 other states have also set requirements for power companies to utilize more renewable energy, their mandates are far more modest. Obama has been unsuccessful in his efforts to persuade Congress to pass a national mandate, and the prospects for Washington embracing more California-style energy policies is unclear.

via LA Times

Jerry Brown Creates California Surplus Miracle, But Can It Last?

Something close to a civic miracle seems to have occurred—at least on the surface.

California has long been synonymous with budget deficits so deep that it looked like the Golden State would inevitably be our Greece—beautiful and bankrupt.

But Gov. Jerry Brown announced that his state has suddenly projected a surplus of $851 million. Two years ago, when Brown came back into office, the state had a $25.4 billion deficit, a Sisyphean problem Governor Arnold struggled with unsuccessfully all last decade.

This reversal of fortune raises a lot of questions. What caused California’s budget turnaround? Is it sustainable? And finally, could there be a national lesson here as Washington tries to confront deficits and debt?

The top-line takeaway is that a balanced deficit-reduction approach seems to have worked in the Golden State. When he entered office in 2011, Brown proposed billion-dollar-plus cuts in welfare and Medi-Cal, as well as $500 billion from the UC system.

All told, his initial proposed budget was almost $20 billion less than Governor Schwarzenegger’s 2008–09 budget, which clocked in at $103 billion. Democrats and unions howled, and Brown’s ultimate budget was less austere than originally advertised, but deep cuts were enacted.

Crucially, Brown also took on the unpopular task of raising taxes—winning a 2012 ballot fight sonorously known as Proposition 30 and 39—that raised sales taxes and closed business tax loopholes. Next year, the combined new revenues are expected to exceed $5.8 billion.

The final factor is an improving economy—always the decisive X factor in deficit-reduction efforts. California’s economy is improving slowly, but the shift from the pit of the Great Recession moved the numbers in the right direction.

The result of increased tax revenues and spending cuts is that—at least for now—a projected deficit has been turned into a surplus.

This is good news. But not everyone is happy. And the numbers do sidestep a deeper problem.

Remember, deficits and debt are different things. Projected year-to-year deficits are comparatively easy to close, especially on the back of an improving economy. But out-of-control debt is ultimately what drags you down.

The Los Angeles Times offered a front-page reality check, under the headline “Debt a Cloud Over State’s Future,” pointing out the inconvenient fact that California “has accumulated a crushing load of debt for retiree pensions and healthcare now totaling more than taxpayers spend each year on all state programs combined.” Ouch.

Brown’s budget does begin to pay down the debt, but the outstanding amount dwarfs the pay-down. Of course, that hasn’t stopped liberal activists from demanding more money be spent immediately on social services, under the banner of “investment.”

Moreover, there are real questions about whether the increased tax burden—especially on the wealthy—will end up eroding the state’s tax base in the near future.

“There’s some doubt that high income taxpayers won’t either move to Nevada—or some other low or no-income tax state—or find other ways, such as delaying realization of cap gains, to avoid hefty new surtaxes—especially since their federal taxes are also increasing,” emails the Sacramento Bee’s Dan Walters. “California’s marginal income tax rate (federal plus state) is now highest in U.S. at highest level, about 52 percent.”

But Walters acknowledges that Brown’s budget miracle is more or less legitimate, at least for now. “It’s mostly new revenue from sales and income tax hike approved by voters in November with a dash of economic recovery and a smidgen of creative bookkeeping such as slowing down some debt repayment and assuming renewal of a tax on health care providers to trigger some federal aid,” Walters’ continues. “But overall it’s mostly the new taxes.”

Other Golden State observers take an even more skeptical view. “There is a reason Gov. Brown is known as Governor Moonbeam,” says KABC’s center-right John Phillips. “Structural deficits are everywhere, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office says there’s still a $1.9 billion budget deficit, and rich people can’t cross the state line fast enough—taking revenues down almost 11 percent since the passage of his Prop 30 tax hikes with them. On the plus side, hey, we’re not Detroit!”

The Rust Belt does have problems that make California’s cyclical deficits and deep legislative dysfunction seem comparatively easy to solve. But Jerry Brown deserves credit for pulling off at least short-term success in a state budget situation that had many experts calling impossible to solve. In the near term, the deficit turned surplus highlights the improving national economic environment.

It also provides a compelling object lesson for advocates of a “balanced approach” for reducing deficits, like President Obama & Co. Contrary to conservative talking points about how revenue is not a legitimate part of deficit-reduction solutions—instead, it’s all spending cuts all the time—California’s recent example shows that increased tax rates can help rapidly reduce deficits. Moreover, especially compared with much of Europe, the Obama administration’s decision not to simply pursue a path of deep austerity cuts seems to have been the wiser path, at least for now.

But conservatives could have the last laugh if the wealthiest Californians decide to flee the state for comparatively low-tax climes, like a sun-baked Gérard Depardieu.

Bottom line: This fight ain’t over. But at least for the moment, Jerry Brown’s balanced if painful plan to turn deep deficits into a modest surplus deserves study. It offers a rare glimpse of good news in the relentlessly bleak world of state budget. Whether it is sustainable remains to be seen.

via the Daily Beast