Resolutions for better politics in the New Year

SACRAMENTO — Forty-five percent of Americans make New Year's resolutions, so I've read. And about 90% of those vows wind up being blown off.

But we're allowed to give it another try every year. It's part of the self-improvement process, a vital acknowledgment of personal flaws.

So in the interest of bettering the species — and nothing personal — I offer some 2014 resolutions for Sacramento politicians. Never mind that I have done this before and generally been ignored.

Gov. Jerry Brown should resolve to:

•Savor and bask in all the media speculation — even if it's a distant reach — about his possibly being tempted to run for president in 2016. For the fourth time.

At his age — he'll be 78 during the next presidential election — and after those earlier, ill-conceived stabs at the job, to even be mentioned is an achievement and honor. Soak it in. Smell the roses.

But Brown knows better than to take the chatter seriously. These are slow times in the news biz and political writers are scraping for anything to keep busy. He understands. Presumably.

•Be more considerate. But this seems hopeless.

Case in point: Brown continues to refuse to speak to the Sacramento Press Club, as previous governors routinely did, promoting their agenda for the coming year. It was always a sold-out luncheon for a good cause: refunding the club's scholarship program for college journalism students. This governor doesn't even bother to respond to the club's invitation.

It's not that he's too busy doing the people's work. He takes time to address special interests and rich supporters with his hand out for money to finance his 2014 reelection campaign.

Here I interrupt with a proposed resolution for fellow news types:

•Stop writing and broadcasting that Brown hasn't announced whether he'll run for a fourth term. When he's begging donors for millions to fund the race, that's enough announcement. That's running.

Back to Brown resolutions:

•Seriously rethink two potential behemoth boondoggles — the bullet train and delta tunnels — before the state gets in so deep it can't escape.

The bullet train has a $68-billion price tag with only $12 billion in sight. That's fiscally irresponsible.

The delta project is priced at $25 billion — but could soar to $60-billion-plus with interest on borrowing — and involves tearing up a garden spot to water a desert. More creative thinking is needed.

Now resolutions for legislators:

•Pass fewer laws. Address only legitimate state problems, rather than merely pumping out fodder for press releases. Each bill costs $20,000 on average to process.

The lawmakers regressed in 2013. They passed 901 bills, according to the governor's office. Brown signed 805 and vetoed 96. That's up from 2011, a comparable year in the legislative cycle. That year they passed 889. The governor signed 761 and vetoed 128.

•Conduct more of the public's business in the public light. Longer committee meetings with more public testimony. Fewer sneaky "gut-and-amend" shenanigans at the end of legislative sessions.

Copyright © 2013, Los Angeles Times

via: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-cap-resolutions-20131230,0,1522226.column#ixzz2p64IyREX

California Stood Up For Immigrants, Transgender People In 2013

2013 was a big year for the rights of immigrants, workers, women and children in California. The most populous state in the nation, led by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and a Democratic supermajority in the state Legislature, California this year passed groundbreaking laws that bucked the national trend of restricting abortion rights, rebuked the federal government's aggressive deportation program and led the country on workers' rights.

But 2014 is going to be even better -- that's when the laws start going into effect. Take a look at some of California's landmark laws from this past year below.

TRANSGENDER RIGHTS

In a nationwide first, transgender students in California will be able to choose which restrooms they want to use starting in January. They will also be able to choose between boys' and girls' sports teams.

California is the first state to enact these policies as a state law, but the groundbreaking legislation, which goes into effect Jan. 1, could be suspended within days if opposition groups gather enough signatures to test the law before voters on the November ballot.

PAPARAZZI REFORM

Paparazzi photographers who harass and intimidate celebrities and their children will face stiffer penalties under a new law passed in 2013: a fine of up to $10,000 and up to a year in county jail. Victims can also sue for damages and attorney's fees, according to the Associated Press.

Before the bill passed, celebrity moms Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner joined forces to deliver some emotional testimony about how aggressive photographers regularly frighten their children.

"My 17-month-old baby is terrified and cries," said Garner during the August hearing. "My 4-year-old says, 'Why do these men never smile? Why do they never go away? Why are they always with us?'"

ABORTION RIGHTS

California's new law authorizes nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives and physician assistants to perform aspiration abortions during the first trimester.

California joins Oregon, Montana, Vermont and New Hampshire in allowing nurse practitioners to perform early abortions, the AP reported. In 2013, California was the only state to enact a law expanding abortion access, The New York Times noted.

Legislators also strengthened an existing law that makes it illegal to damage or block access to abortion clinics, the AP reported.

MINIMUM WAGE

California's minimum wage will go from $8 an hour to $9 in July, and it will reach $10 an hour by 2016. California joins 12 other states that are raising their minimum wage in 2014.

TEXTING LOOPHOLE CLOSED

A legislative loophole made it possible for teens to use voice commands like Apple iPhone's Siri to text while driving, and California's lawmakers closed that loophole this year. Adults will still be able to use the hands-free texting feature while driving.

Teens have been banned from using cell phones on the road since 2007, but an apparent loophole opened up in 2012 when legislators passed a bill allowing drivers to use hands-free devices to send text messages and perform other functions, according to the AP.

GUN SAFETY LAWS

California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, but lawmakers cracked down even further with laws that strengthen assault weapon permit requirements, require licensed psychotherapists to tell police about patients who threaten violence against others, and make it illegal to purchase gun parts that convert firearms into assault-style rifles.

The bills were written in reaction to mass shootings across the country, including the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn. In contrast, the federal government hasn't been able to pass any gun safety laws since the Newtown massacre.

DOMESTIC WORKERS BILL OF RIGHTS

California joined New York and Hawaii in creating statewide protections for domestic workers in 2013. California's law allows domestic workers like nannies and personal health care aides to claim overtime wages for more than nine hours of work a day or 45 hours of work a week.

The law is expected to affect about 100,000 workers, but it's only temporary --legislators will have to vote on whether to renew the law in 2017, KPCC reported. It's also a pared-down version of the bill that was originally proposed in 2011, which included meal and rest breaks.

IMMIGRATION REFORM

The federal government is stalling on immigration reform, and Gov. Jerry Brown made it clear that California isn't going to wait around any longer. Brown signed into law a group of bills this year to protect undocumented immigrants, the most significant of which is the Trust Act.

The Trust Act limits local police's cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security's Secure Communities, a federal deportation program that asks police departments to screen arrestees for immigration status and hold them for the feds if they're found to be undocumented. So far, Secure Communities has deported 100,000 Californians, most of whom did not have a serious criminal record, the Los Angeles Times reported, but the new law will require people to be charged with or convicted of a serious offense before being held for possible deportation by the feds.

Starting in 2015, California's undocumented immigrants will also be able to apply for driver's licenses. California joins Illinois, Colorado, Nevada, Maryland, Connecticut, Oregon, and the District of Columbia in passing the driver's license legislation in 2013, MSNBC reported. New Mexico, Washington and Utah also allow undocumented immigrants to apply for driver's licenses.

via: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/31/new-california-laws-2014_n_4521694.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics

PUBLIC SAFETY: Inland counties denied millions for jail construction

Riverside and San Bernardino counties each were denied requests this month for $80 million in state grants for jail construction, even though their applications ranked among the highest-scoring based on criteria used to evaluate grant proposals.

The denial hampers efforts to add and improve jail space in this region. In order to comply with federal court orders, each county has released thousands of inmates early since 2011 because there’s no room for them.

Riverside’s 3,906 jail beds in five jails are all filled. And the chronic lack of beds was exacerbated in 2011 with the enactment of public safety realignment. Under realignment, offenders convicted of low-level offenses serve their time in county jails instead of state prisons, a move made to satisfy a court mandate to reduce California’s prison population.

Almost 7,000 Riverside inmates were turned loose early in 2012 to relieve crowding. More than 9,000 have been let go so far this year.

Early release could cause a rise in low-level crimes, such as petty theft and drug possession, said Riverside County Assistant Sheriff Steve Thetford.

“There’s no deterrent effect when you can’t keep people in custody,” he said. “It’s not healthy for public safety.”

San Bernardino’s four jails hold about 6,000 inmates. Since January 2012, more than 6,900 inmates have been released early. An expansion of the Adelanto jail will add another 1,392 beds.

Both counties competed for a slice of $500 million set aside by the state Legislature for jail construction with an emphasis on programs intended to stop inmates from re-offending. In all, Sacramento received $1.3 billion in requests from 36 counties.

Riverside wanted the money to add 582 beds to the 1,520-bed Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility in Banning. Grant dollars also would have paid for more space for vocational, substance abuse and education programs already taking place at Larry Smith.

San Bernardino wanted $80 million to reconfigure and add buildings to the Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center, said Cindy Bachman, a sheriff’s spokeswoman. Money also would have gone to improving a road to the jail that is subject to flooding, she said.

A state steering committee graded each request. Among large counties, San Bernardino scored the highest and Riverside ranked third. However, the recommended grant awards went to Orange, San Mateo, Fresno and Sacramento counties.

Robert Oates, a project manager with the state corrections board, said Riverside and San Bernardino did not do enough to show that their respective county supervisors were committed to funding the jail projects that were the focus of their grant requests. Preference goes to shovel-ready projects, he said.

Riverside County officials disagree. In an email, spokesman Ray Smith said the county plans to appeal the grant decision. He contends that the county demonstrated its commitment by expanding the Indio jail and building a new secure youth treatment facility.

A $100 million state grant is paying for the estimated $267 million cost of adding more than 1,200 beds to the 353-bed Indio jail, which will be known as the East County Detention Center. The expansion is supposed to be ready by 2017, but Riverside officials earlier this year were worried that delays in getting state approvals might push back the timeline.

Smith and Thetford said the county will try to find other funding to expand the Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility.

Besides seeking funds elsewhere, Riverside also is considering non-jail alternatives for offenders. These include sending more inmates to state-run fire camps and increased use of electronic monitoring.

Adding onto Smith remains a priority, Thetford said.

“It’s a competitive process. Sometimes you win and sometimes you don’t,” he said. “We’re just going to keep plugging away at it.”

Staff Writer Brian Rokos contributed to this story.

Follow Jeff Horseman on Twitter: @JeffHorseman

Grants rejected

Riverside and San Bernardino counties each were turned down for $80 million in state grants for jail construction.

What’s at stake? The denial hampers efforts to add and improve jail space in this region.

What it means: Lower-level criminals will continue to be released early.

Why does that matter? Early release could cause a rise in low-level crimes, such as petty theft and drug possession.

What’s next? Officials from both counties say they’ll seek funding elsewhere.

via: http://www.pe.com/local-news/politics/politics-headlines-index/20131224-public-safety-inland-counties-denied-millions-for-jail-construction.ece

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.

 

Sentencing commission, suggested in Sacramento, faces long odds

Key California lawmakers this summer suggested that a commission to review and overhaul criminal sentences not only could bring coherence to a disjointed system but also perhaps ease chronic prison overcrowding in the long term.

But the idea now appears stalled, despite the incentive of federal litigation that could force Gov. Jerry Brown to release as many as 10,000 inmates next spring. Lawmakers chastened by a history of unsuccessful sentencing commission bills hold out little hope that this time could be different.

“These issues are hard,” Sen. President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said in an interview last week. “They’re hard to bite off politically.”

The notion of a panel to overhaul California’s penal code has percolated for decades but eluded proponents time and again. Supporters argue that a steady accumulation of different regulations, layered on top of one another over time, has led to a labyrinth of sentencing guidelines.

“There is a lot of disproportionate punishment in our penal code, and that’s because not uncommonly a horrible crime may be committed in someone’s district and so the response is legislatively to get tougher,” said Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco. “These are emotional issues,” he added, “and to have politics infused in all of our decision-making does not create the most sound public policy.”

State sentencing commissions are typically independent bodies, appointed by officials, that study a state’s galaxy of sentencing laws and condense them into a comprehensive framework. They issue guidelines that would increase or decrease sentences for various categories of crimes.

That troubles some law enforcement leaders who see the potential for weakened sentences. And it rattles lawmakers wary about constituents – or future electoral opponents – who could hold them responsible for changes that emanated from an unelected body.

“No legislative body wants to give up power,” said Rep. Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, a former Assembly speaker who pursued a sentencing commission during her time in the Legislature.

Historically, the state’s law enforcement community has been hostile to allowing appointed entities to dictate consequences for crimes. District attorneys, sheriffs and police chiefs have opposed past efforts, raising concerns about who would sit on panels with expansive authority to reshape criminal justice.

“In California, the only times sentencing commissions come up, it has been code for sentence reductions,” said Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully.

But the idea resurfaced this summer when Gov. Jerry Brown, seeking to satisfy a federal order to reduce California’s prison population without resorting to more early releases, proposed spending an additional $315 million to provide more cells. Steinberg broke with the governor, rallying Senate Democrats behind an alternate plan that questioned expanded capacity.

Among other provisions, Steinberg’s blueprint included a detailed plan for immediately creating an 18-member sentencing commission that could provide recommendations by the end of 2014. A letter to Brown argued that “short-term fixes provide no sustainable remedy.”

Steinberg’s letter said the panel would make recommendations aimed at “long-term prison capacity, staying within the (prison capacity) cap, including changes in criminal sentencing and evidence-based programming for criminal offenders.”

He included private poll results that showed nearly three-fourths of Californians supported a panel “to streamline California’s criminal statutes with the goal of safely reducing prison costs and maximizing public safety.”

But by summer’s end, the governor got his cash infusion. The final bill also created a special corrections policy committee tasked with broadly examining criminal justice in California.

Last week, Steinberg called sentencing reform “a key piece” of rethinking the state’s criminal justice system. But he expressed doubt that substantial changes would materialize in the coming legislative session.

While Brown is considered an overwhelming favorite to win a second term (he has yet to formally declare a campaign), potential Republican challengers perceive the governor as vulnerable on public safety. They have hammered his plan, known as prison realignment, to shuffle low-level offenders to county jails.

“I hope there’s a lot of discussion on it this year,” Steinberg said of a sentencing overhaul, “but my expectation is it is what will largely be a second-term issue for Gov. Brown.”

This session, Leno carried his second consecutive bill easing penalties for simple drug possession.Brown vetoed it.

Part of Leno’s argument emphasized the state’s uneven sentencing statutes, which make possession of cocaine a felony but allow possession of Ecstasy or methamphetamine to be charged as misdemeanors. Leno cited such inconsistencies in arguing that the sentencing commission is “an idea whose time has come,” adding that the state’s struggles to reduce its prison population“only underscores the need for it.”

“This is not a radical notion or a novel idea,” Leno said, pointing to more than 20 other states that have established similar commissions.

Bass described a similar scenario when, as Assembly speaker, she pushed a sentencing commission bill in 2009. Then, as now, California was grappling with a federal court order to trim its prison population, and some saw a durable solution in an overhaul of sentencing laws. But the bill collapsed, marking at least the 12th time in the last 25 years lawmakers have pressed the concept and failed.

“I viewed it as an opportunity to put something in place that would prevent us from being in the same situation again,” Bass said. She attributed the measure’s failure in part to lawmakers fearing they would be “barraged” with electoral challenges.

Past sentencing commission efforts have self-destructed because the panel’s recommendations, though subject to legislative approval, would have carried the force of law, argued Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley.

By contrast, Steinberg proposed a purely advisory body.

After seeing previous resentencing campaigns stymied, Hancock said an advisory commission may be the only tenable approach. Even if a commission’s recommendations remain just that, Hancock said she would push to see them implemented.

“It’s just so important to cast some rational light on what goes on with our sentencing that I would be happy to see one that makes discretionary recommendations,” Hancock said.

“As long as I chair the Public Safety Committee in the Senate,” Hancock added, “those recommendations would not sit on the shelf.”

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/12/23/6021724/sentencing-commission-suggested.html#storylink=cpy

Don't get too worked up over today's big ObamaCare deadline

Monday is the last day to sign up under ObamaCare for coverage that kicks in January 1... sort of.

Yes, most people must sign up by 11:59 p.m. Monday night to have coverage in place at the start of next year. And as such, the cutoff is being trumpeted as a major hard deadline for the president's health care law.

Yet due to a number of administration-mandated tweaks and delays, the deadline is actually kind of squishy, and thus more symbolic than anything.

Last Thursday, the administration announced that some of the hundreds of thousands of people who had lost their existing health care plans because of ObamaCare could be exempt from the individual mandate's penalty. The "hardship exemption" written into the mandate stipulates that someone may be considered exempt if there are "financial or domestic circumstances…that prevented him or her from obtaining coverage under a qualified health plan."

That means people who have unexpectedly been dropped from their existing plans do not necessarily need to find new ones just yet. And as the Wall Street Journal noted, there are 14 specific ways people can qualify for the "hardship exemption," some of which require little to no documentation to prove. In other words, there are more than a dozen ways around the December 23 deadline, including one specifically made available to a group of people who have become a political flashpoint for the health care law.

In addition to the new hardship exemption, the administration had already this month extended the deadline from December 23 to the end of the year for people to make their first premium payments for new coverage. And more recently, it urged insurers to retroactively extend coverage to people who sing up by the 23rd but do not make their first payment until January 10.

There will also reportedly be a "good faith" exemption for others who try but are unable to enroll by the Monday deadline, something that will further soften Monday's supposedly hard deadline, according to Reuters. As you may recall, the federal exchange marketplace functioned so poorly in the early going that it effectively prevented people from getting coverage even if they wanted to.

Then there's the fact that the original "hard" deadline was December 15. But when Healthcare.gov crashed in the early going, the White House extended the deadline to the 23rd.

The White House had hoped to enroll 3.3 million people in new health plans through the federally run marketplace by the end of the year. They've so far enrolled about one-third that number. And though the pace of enrollments is trending upward, polls continue to find the law deeply unpopular; a CNN survey released Monday found a record low 35 percent of Americans supported the law.

Still, there's plenty of time for people to find coverage in the new year before they'll be penalized for going uninsured. Due to another extension, the uninsured have until April 1 to enroll in coverage before they'll be hit by the individual mandate's penalty.

So in that sense, the hard deadline for the law itself is April 1 — or, given the numerous delays to date, it's the law's hard deadline for now.

via http://theweek.com/article/index/254543/dont-get-too-worked-up-over-todays-big-obamacare-deadline

Steinberg proposes $50 million for treating mentally ill criminals

Democratic state Senate leader Darrell Steinberg wants California to spend $50 million on programs that try to keep mentally ill criminals from re-offending.

The proposed legislation calls for bringing back a program that existed for about 10 years in California. The "Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant" program allows counties to apply for funding to support mental health courts, substance abuse treatment, and employment training programs. Those efforts would reduce recidivism and crowding in California jails, Steinberg said, and help mentally ill people become more stable.

"We are trying to bring back something that was a great success in the late 90s early 2000s that went away as a result of the budget cuts," Steinberg said during a press conference this morning, where he was backed by law enforcement and mental health care leaders.

"We do not have a specific funding stream dedicated to providing mental health services to people in jail that continue once they leave jail and get into the community... We had that before, prior to 2008. We want to reinstate that and make it part of our overall approach."

Steinberg said lawmakers should treat California's projected budget surplus with an approach that dedicates one-third to paying down debt, one-third to reserves and one-third to spending.

"We shouldn't be shy about saying that there are areas of public investment that we must make, that are important," he said.

Speaking in support of Steinberg's proposal today were Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson; Sacramento County's Chief Probation Officer Lee Seale; Sacramento County's mental health director Dorian Kittrel and Sacramento County Supervisor Phil Serna.

PHOTO: Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, in March 2013. The Sacramento Bee/Hector Amezcua

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/12/steinberg-proposes-50-million-for-treating-mentally-ill-criminals.html#storylink=cpy

via: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/12/steinberg-proposes-50-million-for-treating-mentally-ill-criminals.html