Old Brown tries to fix a young Brown's mistake

— Hang around long enough and you might see things turn full circle. People included.

Like a comet, they come back around.

Gov. Jerry Brown is a comet. He dominated the Capitol cosmos two generations ago, floated off and circled back.

Now one of the major public policy issues of 40 years ago also has returned, meteor-like. It concerns criminal sentencing.

Like too many things involving government, however, the jargon is wonky: "determinate" and "indeterminate."

Put simply, it's about whether a judge determines how long a felon will be locked up, or left undetermined, with parole boards having the flexibility to retain or release an inmate based on behavior and perceived rehabilitation.

In 1976, young Gov. Brown was a reformer who signed legislation changing sentencing from indeterminate to determinate.

Last week, he proposed a new reform: Scrap that 1970s reform and return to basically the way things had been for six decades before.

Times change. Situations change. Ideas? Not so much.

I asked Brown why he and the Legislature had changed the system in the first place four decades ago.

Back then, he'd been thinking about it for a long time, he recalled, even when his father, Pat Brown, was governor in the 1960s.

"People were lingering in prisons and didn't know when they were going to get out," he said. "Racial minorities might be in longer."

Prisoners, the governor continued, were compelled "to mouth certain words" to demonstrate their readiness for freedom. White parole boards seemed to be "trying to get the prisoners to have a certain mentality, messing with their heads. It didn't seem right to me.

"It came to me that if they did the crime, they should do the time. And then get out."

That became many legislators' attitude: The whole system was arbitrary and unfair — sometimes political and racial.

What else could you expect from sentences so broad? For example, one to 14 years or five to life.

Republican Sen. John Negedly, a former Contra Costa County district attorney, had sponsored the bill that switched sentences from flexible to more fixed.

"Punishment should be swift, certain and definite," Brown said after signing the measure. But soon he began having second thoughts, mentioning "ambiguities" in the new law.

There was bipartisan criticism.

Then-LAPD Chief Ed Davis, a conservative Republican, planning to run against Brown, complained that prisoners no longer would "have to pay much attention" to guards. Brown "is going to blow these prisons up before I can take over as governor."

State Sen. Alan Sieroty, a liberal Democrat from Los Angeles, feared that fixed sentencing would lead to longer terms. That would only "further brutalize the individual and make his reentry into society less possible."

Both were right.

"Liberals thought the Legislature would jack up the sentences, which it did," Brown told me. "And it never stopped. I never imagined there'd be thousands of [increased sentencing] laws and enhancements."

State government embarked on a prison-building, lock-em-up binge. There was a political stampede in the 1990s after the L.A. riots and the gripping kidnap-murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas. Voters and the Legislature passed "three strikes and you're out" — meaning you're "in" for life.

When Brown was governor the first time, there were 21,000 inmates in state custody. By the time he returned in 2011, the number had ballooned to 170,000 — packed like sardines into bunks and sleeping on cots in gymnasiums. At one point, taxpayers were spending more on prisoners than on college kids.

Prisoners-rights groups sued. A federal judicial panel ordered the state to knock it off. Voters and the governor got the message.

The California electorate softened three-strikes and other sentencing laws. Brown, through what he calls "realignment," began shifting control of low-level felons to the counties.

The state prison population is now down to 127,000.

Brown has wanted to eliminate determinate sentencing for years — calling it an "abysmal failure" in 2003 — but said he first needed to achieve realignment and form a political coalition.

"If I'd done it right out of the box, I might have made mistakes," he told me.

Brown added that he'd also been pretty busy.

"No one has done more than I have," he said, listing such things as pension reform, water programs and fighting climate change. "I haven't been sitting on my ass."

The governor's sentencing proposal is targeted for the November ballot as an initiative. It would affect only inmates convicted of nonviolent crimes. Murderers and rapists, forget it.

A nonviolent felon would need to complete his time for the basic crime. But he could earn credits for good behavior and rehab. And before serving added time for an enhancement — such as gang activity — he could seek parole for being a model prisoner

An "unintended consequence" of the law he signed 40 years ago, Brown told reporters, "was the removal of incentives for inmates to improve themselves, refrain from gang activity, using narcotics, otherwise misbehaving. Because they had a certain [release] date and there was nothing in their control that would give them a reward for turning their lives around."

Why the ballot and not the Legislature? It would require a two-thirds legislative vote, and that's a hassle. And he has $24 million in leftover campaign money begging to be spent.

This reform seems to make sense. The old one did, too — at the time. But this is another time.

The lingo also should change. Junk "determinate" and call it "fixed" or "flexible."

Via: http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-sac-cap-20160201-column.html 

Jerry Brown, lawmakers propose $1.1 billion drought relief bill amid increasing tension

With California trudging into its fourth dry year, Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders on Thursday announced $1.1 billion in emergency funding for flood protection and drought relief.

The vast majority of the money – all but about $30 million – was already included in Brown’s January budget proposal, and the measure is similar to a bill package lawmakers approved last year.

But tension over the drought runs higher today than it did then, when Brown first declared a drought emergency and urged Californians to reduce water consumption by 20 percent. This year, California recorded its driest-ever January, and state regulators on Tuesday ordered water agencies to limit the number of days each week customers can water their lawns.

Brown, who said last month that he was reluctant to impose mandatory water restrictions, suggested Thursday that he is open to more stringent measures.

“I’m not going to second-guess (state water regulators), but I would share your urgency that we step it up in the weeks and months ahead,” the Democratic governor said at a news conference at the Capitol.

Brown said, “If this drought continues, we’ll crank it down and it will get extremely challenging for people in California.”

The Legislature is expected to hold votes next week on the drought package, whose passage will allow spending immediately – months before the July 1 start of the next budget year.

The measure includes $272.7 million in water recycling and drinking water quality programs funded by Proposition 1, the water bond voters approved last year.

But the majority of the funding – $660 million – comes from water and flood-prevention bonds voters approved nearly a decade ago, in 2006.

Brown said, “The fact is, these projects take a long time.”

Outside the Capitol, patience appears to be waning.

According to a February Field Poll, 94 percent of California voters consider the drought situation in California “serious,” with nearly 70 percent calling it “extremely serious.” Public support for water rationing, though still just more than one-third of voters, has grown in the past year.

“I think, for the public, an increasingly large proportion is becoming alarmed,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the poll. “The governor is taking actions which I think make him at least appear to the public that he’s attending to the problem.”

Contributing to the public’s growing concern was a widely circulated editorial in the Los Angeles Times last week in which Jay Famiglietti, senior water scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said the state was at risk of running out of water altogether.

“Right now the state has only about one year of water supply left in its reservoirs, and our strategic backup supply, groundwater, is rapidly disappearing,” Famiglietti wrote. “California has no contingency plan for a persistent drought like this one (let alone a 20-plus-year mega-drought), except, apparently, staying in emergency mode and praying for rain.”

Speaking at the Capitol, Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León said the one-year water supply estimate and the lack of water this year “is creating a renewed sense of urgency.”

He said the drought package “is just the first round” in the Legislature’s effort to address the drought and that “we have much work to do.”

The water bond voters approved last year includes $2.7 billion for storage projects such as dams and reservoirs. Brown said “these are big projects, and I’m certainly looking very carefully at how we can get more storage as quickly as possible.”

Republican lawmakers have been more insistent, seizing on the drought to criticize the lack of water infrastructure investments in the past, as well as the current pace of project approvals.

“I’m calling on the state water agencies, on state government to get projects out of the red tape, to get them moving because they’ve been hung up for decades,” said Assembly Republican leader Kristin Olsen of Riverbank.

Nevertheless, Olsen and Bob Huff, the Republican Senate leader, stood with Brown and Democratic lawmakers for the drought package’s announcement.

Last year’s version was approved by the Legislature with nearly unanimous support, as is expected for this drought package.

Though Republican lawmakers appeared to have no hand in crafting the measure – having only been made aware of it shortly before the announcement – Brown said the Republicans’ support was evidence “we’re doing well.”

He dismissed the timing of their involvement as a “narrative that’s not particularly interesting.”

Still, it made for awkward stagecraft.

After first planning to address reporters after the news conference Thursday, Republican leaders changed course at the last minute to appear with Brown and the Democratic legislative leaders.

Republicans attended their first meetings on the plan Wednesday, and the governor contacted Olsen on Thursday morning, Olsen spokeswoman Amanda Fulkerson said.

She declined to elaborate further on Republicans’ role in discussions.

“I’ll let the governor’s remarks stand for themselves,” Fulkerson said.


DROUGHT RELIEF

Here is how most of the proposed drought funds will be spent:

$660 million for flood management planning and infrastructure improvements, including levee work.

$272.7 million for drinking water quality, water recycling and desalination projects.

$24 million for emergency food aid for people, such as farm workers, out of work due to drought.


Via: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article15381434.html#storylink=cpy

Optimistic on economy, California lawmakers OK $156.4-billion budget

Flush with optimism from California's resurgent economy, lawmakers approved a $156.4-billion state budget that expands preschool for children from poor families, increases welfare payments and provides critical funding for building the nation's first bullet train.

The state's financial turnaround has allowed the Democratic-led Legislature, with the blessing of Gov. Jerry Brown, to spend more freely just a few years after the recession prompted deep cuts to government services. And if tax receipts outpace expectations, the budget could send even more money to schools, public universities and local governments.

Lawmakers also are addressing more of California's lingering financial problems, stockpiling cash in a rainy-day fund and chipping away at pension costs.

"This is a much brighter day than what we've seen in years past," Senate Budget Chairman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) said.

The spending plan — which includes a $108-billion general fund, $7.3 billion larger than last year's — now goes to Brown, who has until the end of the month to sign it. He can still veto items he dislikes.

The budget marks lawmakers' first major effort to combat global warming with revenue from the state cap-and-trade program, which charges fees on polluters when their carbon emissions exceed set limits.

Over the next several years, billions of dollars from those funds could flow to affordable housing, mass transit and environmental programs in a broad effort to get Californians to drive less and consume less energy.

A quarter of the money will be used for building the $68-billion bullet train, a decision that may draw legal challenges from groups that oppose the project and view it as an improper use of cap-and-trade revenue.

Republicans criticized the money for high-speed rail, and Senate Republican leader Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar) called the budget a "missed opportunity."

"You're enacting policies to make California unnecessarily expensive, drive people into poverty and then propose new government programs to subsidize their life in poverty," Huff said.

Long-term costs for public employee retirements and overdue maintenance continue to weigh on state finances, and the budget starts tackling the $74-billion shortfall in the teacher pension fund. Under the plan, schools, teachers and the state will contribute more money to the fund in an attempt to close the gap over the next three decades.

The budget also deposits $1.6 billion into a reserve fund, a down payment on the state's effort to create a cushion for future economic downturns. Voters will have an opportunity in November to approve a constitutional amendment that would set aside money in the fund every year and help pay off the state's debt and long-term costs.

Despite the budget's increasing size, some cuts remain in place. Most notably, doctors who participate in Medi-Cal will continue receiving reduced payments even as hundreds of thousands of new patients enroll in the state's public healthcare program. Brown's resistance to increasing the payments disappointed lawmakers from both sides of the aisle, who fear fewer doctors will agree to care for Medi-Cal patients.

"The Senate wants to do this, the Assembly wants to do this and the governor understands we need to," Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) said. "So we are working as of tomorrow to figure out how soon we can do this. But we have to make sure we can pay for it."

Other programs for California's poor are being boosted. Beginning next April, welfare payments for a family of three in such high-cost counties as Los Angeles would increase to $704 per month, up from $670.

Over the next few years, preschool enrollment is expected to increase by 43,000 4-year-olds from low-income families. There's also more money for subsidized child care.

The budget already had been negotiated among Brown and top Democratic lawmakers before Sunday's vote, tamping down the drama in the Capitol. Still, controversy bubbled over a series of new policy proposals that were included in budget-related bills, sometimes after little public vetting.

For example, Brown has pushed new limits on how much money school districts can keep in their reserve accounts. Administration officials say the schools won't need to stockpile as much cash because the state will have its own rainy-day fund, but angry district officials called the proposal a ploy by the powerful teachers union to make more money available while negotiating contracts.

The California Teachers Assn. spent $4.7 million to help elect Brown in 2010 and donated nearly $290,000 to lawmakers, mostly Democrats, for this year's campaigns.

Lawmakers from both parties criticized the governor for inserting the proposal late in the budget process, but Democrats ensured the bill passed.

Another measure approved by the Legislature would modify California's new rules for granting driver's licenses to immigrants here without documentation, eliminating the requirement for applicants to submit affidavits saying they cannot prove legal residency.

Ronald Coleman, a lobbyist for the California Immigrant Policy Center, said the change would provide "peace of mind" that applying for a license won't increase the risk of deportation for immigrants who are here without those papers.

A separate budget-related bill, also approved Sunday, would remove the ban on drug felons receiving food stamps and welfare payments. Democrats say the measure would help former inmates reintegrate into society, but Republicans were critical.

"In what universe does it make sense to give cash benefit cards to drug users?" Huff said.

More budget bills have yet to be considered by the Legislature. Democrats are angling to pass two new taxes, on fireworks and insurance. The levy on fireworks — 10 cents per pound, to be paid by distributors — is intended to finance the safe destruction of illegal pyrotechnics. The other tax — 15 cents per insurance policy for residential and commercial renters — would fund earthquake research.

via: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-pol-state-budget-20140616-story.html