CA Environmental Advocates Push to Protect Poor from Pollution

Precinct Reporter Group by: Dianne Anderson When, not if, $125 million comes down from future Cap and Trade dollars, a group of advocates and concerned doctors want to make sure that it gets to those who need it most. The Greenlining Institute and the Physicians for Social Responsibility have teamed up, along with many other advocates to push for SB 605, a piece of legislation calling for clean energy investments to help low income disadvantaged communities. The bill jumps off AB 1532 (Perez) and SB 535 (de Leon) signed late last year by the Governor, that was supposed to start tapping 10% revenues from the state pollution auction for environmental relief for hard hit low income communities. Instead, the Governor recently grabbed back $500 million of those auction dollars to provide relief toward the ailing state General Fund. Bruce Mirken, spokesperson for the Greenlining Institute, said while Cap and Trade auction dollars are mostly shot this budget cycle, if passed, SB 605 will put low income communities first in line for any money beyond $500 million, whenever that money comes down. The bill requires any money coming through the Cap and Trade fund over what the State borrowed to be used for underserved communities. “Hopefuly with the economy inching back to health, there won’t be any reason to pull anything like this again,” he said. “And, if there’s an attempt to, lots of us will scream bloody murder.” Advocates view the new bill as a short term way to get things happening as soon as possible, he said. The alternative — doing nothing about dirty air — is extremely costly to the state in terms of money, missed work, needless medical expensives, and illness. “The carbon auctions are still going on, so you don’t know exactly how much is [coming down], but if it exceeds that $500 million, the first $125 million needs to go to projects in disadvantaged communities.” Martha Arguello with Physicians for Social Responsibility said the bill is important toward getting clean energy investments into disadvantaged areas. With over 4,000 members and about 1,500 are physicians, the organization was involved in the fight for air quality and health legislation starting with AB 32, a bill that got the ball rolling for subsequent pollution legislation. She sees SB 605 as a beginning toward lowering the asthma epidemic in Southern California, and saving the state more money on health care dollars. Usually, Black and Brown children suffer the highest rates of asthma in urban areas, and doctors are seeing the correlation between environment and the health of low income people that live close to heavy traffic areas, freeways, or oil refineries. On a bad air day, she said research shows that more kids are getting sick. The connection, she said, is that big polluters continue to buy up cheap land, and site their facilities in low income communities where residents cannot afford to move away. “There’s a growing awareness among doctors that the environment matters. We’ve certainly seen that in the support we get from our doctors and members, there is more willingness to address these issues from a policy perspective,” she said. Long Beach port is also the starting point for the heavy goods movement into the Inland Empire, as trucks and trains once again move nonstop to warehouses, and contribute to the thick toxic zone along the freeways. The next step is getting community to call their legislators, she said, and even ten or 15 phone calls can make a difference. Many legislators say their offices are not receiving community calls of concern, but they are receiving a lot of visits from heads of industry and big business. “Even if it’s just a phone call that says we want you to do something about air quality — that matters,” she said. “I was at a legislative meeting and I said what do you hear from the district? She said, ‘You know what — we don’t hear anything.’” The post CA Environmental Advocates Push to Protect Poor from Pollution appeared first on The Greenlining Institute.

Growing Opposition to AT&T’s Attack on LifeLine Program

Beyond Chron
by: Randy Shaw


As we described on July 10, the California State Legislature is moving toward passing AB 1407, an AT &T backed measure that would devastate the state’s LifeLine phone program. The Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee voted 6-1 in favor of the bill on July 8, and the Senate Appropriations Committee votes on August 19. AT&T is used to getting its way in Sacramento, but the 1.2 million low-income Californians whose phone rates will jump under AB 1407 are finding surprising support from influential forces. On July 16, the Los Angeles Times editorial board urged the Legislature to defeat AB 1407, saying the measure “is premature and its consumer protections too thin.” The Greenlining Institute wrote in the Capitol Weekly that AB 1407 “undermines LifeLine’s essential guarantee of affordable phone service, effectively replacing that guarantee with a coupon.” As the media, community and labor organizations, and LifeLine participants learn of this corporate usurping of the state PUC’s jurisdiction, opposition to AB 1407 has grown. This may yet be a battle where David defeats Goliath, and the needs of low-income phone users trump corporate profits.

California’s LifeLine phone users are among the state’s poorest residents, and have least access to the communication methods many of us take for granted. For example, many using LifeLine are single-room occupancy (SRO) tenants. These tenants not only would have no phone access at all without LifeLine, but the San Francisco City Attorney’s office is in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals battling the US Postal Service’s decision to stop delivering mail to individual mailboxes in SRO’s.
No mail, no phone—and no connection to the outside world for people often already isolated from social interactions.

AT&T’s proposed hijacking of the LifeLine program is particularly surprising in light of Democratic Party control of the California Legislature and the Governor Brown-appointed California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC’s) strong opposition to AB 1407.

On June 27, 2013, the CPUC voted to oppose AB1407, which would legislate rates for California LifeLine Program wireless phone service subsidies. The CPUC told the bill’s sponsor in a letter that “the bill would supersede an open proceeding on this topic at the CPUC that is considering the views of all stakeholders and all relevant issues in a deliberate and thorough manner.”
What clearly troubles the CPUC, and should anger all Californians, is AT&T’s effort to use AB 1407 to effectively destroy state regulation of the LifeLine program. As the CPUC put it in its letter:
It removes or limits the CPUC’s ability (a) to keep LifeLine service affordable, (b) to address the unique needs of California’s low-income residents, (c) to resolve LifeLine consumer complaints, and (d) to ensure all households are sufficiently informed of the LifeLine program. The bill would eliminate the current requirement that LifeLine providers must offer “basic service,” as defined by the CPUC, to residential customers.

It further repeals provisions requiring service providers to inform LifeLine subscribers of the availability and terms and conditions of LifeLine service, as well as any safety implications of the service provided.

As the Los Angeles Times noted regarding the PUC’s plan to release its recommendations in October,
“The right way to proceed is to let the commission do its work. If lawmakers don’t like the result, they can override it. Unlike the Legislature, the commission has developed an
extensive record of views not just from industry executives but from Lifeline users and
other consumers. That process shouldn’t be short-circuited when it’s so close to
completion.”

Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg sits on the Appropriations Committee that considers AB 1407 on August 19. If former State Senate leader John Burton were confronted with a bill raising phone rates on the very poor, he would probably have to be restrained from grabbing the bill’s Democratic sponsor and throwing them down a flight of stairs. Few legislators have Burton’s passion for defending the very poor, but Steinberg needs to use his leadership to kill this destructive measure.
Defeating AB 1407 requires increasing public knowledge of its provisions. So spread the word.

The post Growing Opposition to AT&T’s Attack on LifeLine Program appeared first on The Greenlining Institute.

Bill to let non-citizens work at California polls heads to governor Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/08/bill-allowing-non-citizens-to-be-poll-workers-heads-to-governor.html#storylink=cpy

A bill that would allow legal immigrants who are not U.S. citizens to serve as poll workers is headed to Gov. Jerry Brown's desk after passing its final vote Thursday.

After some partisan discussions, the Assembly agreed to technical amendments made in the Senate toAssembly Bill 817 by Democrat Rob Bonta of Alameda.

AB 817 would allow an election official to appoint up to five people who are not U.S. citizens to serve as poll workers at each precinct. The non-citizens would have to be lawful permanent residents who meet all the other requirements for being eligible to vote except for citizenship.

Bonta said the measure would increase language access for voters.

"There are nearly 3 million citizens who are fully eligible to vote and not English proficient," Bonta said.

"We have a shortage of multilingual poll workers in the state of California," he added. "There has to be language access at the polls."

Republican Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen of Modesto said she didn't buy into that logic.

"Let's keep in mind what poll workers can and cannot do," Olsen told fellow Assembly members during floor debate. "Poll workers cannot go into a voting booth with a voter, cannot read the ballot to the voter, cannot help them understand what they are voting on."

Republicans have opposed the bill since it was first introduced. The bill originally passed the Assembly in May on a 49-23 vote. Last month, the Senate passed it 22-10. The bill returned to the Assembly on Thursday for concurrence on minor changes made in the Senate.

"If somebody is not registered to vote and they aren't a citizen and they can't vote, then why would they even want to sit at the poll?" asked Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point. "What could possibly entice them? Is this just another career path? I'm a bit confused."

Democrats focused their rebuttal on pointing out that legal residents who are not U.S. citizens can serve in the military but are not welcome to serve as poll workers.

"It's offensive to suggest that those people could go and put their lives on the line for their country and go off to war in Iraq or Afghanistan, but when they come back home, they are unfit to serve as a poll worker," said Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Watsonville. "That's offensive."

PHOTO: An elections assistant instructs a class of poll workers in this 1998 file photo. The Sacramento Bee / Owen Brewer.

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/08/bill-allowing-non-citizens-to-be-poll-workers-heads-to-governor.html#storylink=cpy

Covered California delays offering 'embedded' dental plans

Board members of the California Health Benefit Exchange voted Thursday to delay soliciting bids for medical plans that include pediatric dental care until next year.

Covered California, the state's health insurance exchange, has said it will offer five stand-alone pediatric dental plans for 2014 as well as what's called a "bundled" plan in which insurers pair a stand-alone dental plan with a medical plan.

Critics have argued that Covered California should also offer so-called "embedded" pediatric dental plans that are included in medical plans.

But Leesa Tori, senior adviser for plan management, told the board at its special meeting that too many questions remain for the exchange to offer embedded pediatric dental plans before 2015.

The exchange still must decide whether to make purchasing dental insurance mandatory, and for whom it would be necessary. Until Covered California makes this decision, Tori said, staff members will not know which types of plans to include in the exchange.

"There is no silver bullet for 2014," said Tori, as board members considered final recommendations on pediatric dental plans. "What we are suggesting here is that we go back, we do the proper policy analysis, look at the various products and then put it into a portfolio for 2015."

Tori also said that six of the eight health insurance firms with the ability to provide embedded dental plans said they could not develop a bid for next year.

"If we thought we could, we would," said Susan Kennedy, one of the board members. "We don't believe it's technically feasible or in the best interests of consumers to do so right now."

The board's plan to solicit multiple options for children's dental plans in 2015 comes in response to concern from children's advocates and families about the affordability of pediatric dental care. Monthly premiums for the pediatric dental plans to be offered in 2014 start at $10 per child, depending on the plan. The plans cover children up to age 19.

A coalition of children's health advocates sent a letter on Monday to the health exchange's board members urging them to request bids for embedded pediatric dental plans in addition to the stand-alone and bundled plans the exchange has already solicited.

The coalition -- which includes Children Now, United Ways of California, California Coverage and Health Initiatives, The Children's Partnership and Children's Defense Fund California-- called for the board to give the public the opportunity to choose their dental coverage.

"Consumer choice is important, and we recognize that for some families the option to select a stand-alone plan will be attractive," the letter read. "But stand-alone plans must not be the only choice."

PHOTO: Tribal dentist Gurminderajit Sufi works on Jonathan Jesus Lomeli, 10, of Arbuckle at the Colusa Casino's Wellness Center on April 23, 2013. The clinic offers subsidized medical care for low-income families. The Sacramento Bee/ Randy Pench.

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/08/covered-california-delays-offering-embedded-pediatric-dental-plans.html#storylink=cpy

Student loan deal to get Obama's signature Friday

By Ricardo Lopez

August 9, 2013, 8:03 a.m.

It took an entire summer of wrangling, but students heading to college this fall won't see dramatic student loan interest rate hikes once President Obama signs a deal on the matter, a move expected Friday.

About 11 million college students are expected to benefit from the legislation, which brings interest rates near what they were before a temporary extension expired in June.

Undergraduates will now be able to borrow at a 3.9% rate for subsidized and unsubsidized loans, according to legislation that was negotiated in July.

The previous rate for undergraduate borrowers was 3.4%.

Workers beware: Top cities with falling wages

Graduate students will be able to borrow at 5.4%; parents at 6.4%. But rates are expected to edge higher as they are tied to financial markets. The lower interest rates are in place because the government can borrow more cheaply now, but once the economy improves, borrowers can expect to see rates rise.

There is a cap, however. Interest rates for undergraduates cannot go higher than 8.25%, for instance. Congressional Budget Office estimates show that those higher rates are not expected to be reached any time in the next decade.

The bill, which Obama is expected to sign Friday, was approved by the Senate Aug. 1 -- two months after the previous extension expired and caused interest rates to double to 6.8%.
 
Student loan debt has ballooned in the last decade as more people went to school during the recession. There is now between $902 billion and $1 trillion in total outstanding student loan debt in the U.S, according to Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Consumer Finance Protection Bureau estimates.

via: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-obama-student-loan-deal-20130809,0,6067318.story

Reforming the Prison-Industrial Complex

By Rich Lowry

Prison is one of the most important institutions in American life. About a quarter of all the world’s prisoners are behind bars in the United States, a total of roughly 2 million people. It costs about $60 billion a year to imprison them.

This vast prison-industrial complex has succeeded in reducing crime but is a blunt instrument. Prison stays often constitute a graduate seminar in crime, and at the very least, the system does a poor job preparing prisoners to return to the real world. Since 95 percent of prisoners will eventually be released, this is not a minor problem.

Prison tends to be harsh in small-minded ways (taking away weights and various TV programs) and lax in the important things. Needless to say, sexual violence and de facto rule by gangs — all too common — shouldn’t be tolerated in a civilized country. And when it comes to inculcating habits that might make prisoners decent citizens, prison should be more prescriptive, rather than less.

In an essay in the journal National Affairs, Eli Lehrer sets out an agenda for reform geared toward rehabilitation, and the conservative group Right on Crime, a project of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, advocates a similar program.

Most fundamentally, prisoners should be required to do what many of them have never done before, namely an honest day’s work. Fewer than a third of offenders hold full-time jobs at the time of their arrest, according to Lehrer. They won’t acquire a work ethic in prison. University of Pennsylvania Law School professor Stephanos Bibas notes that only about 8 percent of prisoners work in prison industries, and about 4 percent on prison farms.

Labor unions and businesses have long supported restrictions on productive work by prisoners for fear of cheap competition, but their self-interested concerns shouldn’t obstruct attempts to instill the most basic American norm in people desperately in need of it. Prisoners should be made to work, but be paid for it and rewarded if they are particularly diligent and skilled. As Bibas argues, some of the proceeds can go to restitution for victims, to paying for their own upkeep, and to support for their families.

Prison should align itself with other norms. Inmates with drug and alcohol addictions should be forced to get treatment. There should be maximum openness to faith-based programs, such as those run by the splendid Christian organization Prison Fellowship. Prisoners should be encouraged to keep in contact with their families rather than cut off from them through what Bibas calls “cumbersome visiting policies and extortionate telephone rates.”

Once offenders get out, there’s a good chance that they are going back. Lehrer notes that about 40 percent of ex-prisoners are rearrested within three years. The goal should be to reduce recidivism as much as possible. Offenders shouldn’t be discharged directly from solitary confinement, or discharged without a photo ID. In the job market, they shouldn’t be denied occupational licenses when the job in question has nothing to do with their crime. They should, if their crime wasn’t too serious, eventually have it expunged from the records for most purposes.

Ex-inmates out on parole or on probation should be monitored more closely. As Lehrer writes, “Transition programs should increasingly involve random, unannounced home visits, subject ex-offenders to round-the-clock electronic monitoring, require them to take random drug tests, and offer them swift and certain punishment for slip-ups.”

Playing against type, hang-’em-high Texas has been a model of prison reform and innovative reentry programs of the sort championed by Right on Crime. It has sent fewer people to prison while crime has continued to decline in the state. It has funded more slots for treatment for substance abuse and mental illness and increased the use of drug courts, creating alternatives to prison. It has strengthened supervision of probationers and parolees, by reducing caseloads for officers and fashioning a system of swift and certain sanctions for violations.

We have proved in the past several decades that we can lock a lot of people up. The challenge now is if we can do it more humanely and intelligently and, ultimately, create less work for the prison-industrial complex.

— Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. © 2013 King Features Syndicate

Can you help us reach our goal of 5,000 signatures?

Two weeks ago we started a petition to thank Assemblymember Holly Mitchell for authoring Assembly Bill 271 and for always championing women and families. And 1,000 of you have already taken action and signed our letter. Can you help us reach our goal of 5,000 signatures by August 12? If you haven’t already, please sign the below letter. If you've already signed, thank you! Would you let your friends know about this campaign? You can help us by forwarding this email or by clicking on the Facebook and Twitter icons at the top of our action page. This is the letter we hope you'll sign: Dear Assemblymember Mitchell, Thank you for always championing women, children and families. Thank you for tirelessly defending our social safety net programs, which help us when we fall on unexpected hard times. Because life often takes us by surprise. Thank you for speaking out on behalf of low-income women on CalWORKs. It’s cruel to expect them to pull themselves out of poverty when CalWORKs grants have been reduced to a pittance. Thank you for pointing out an egregious wrong and for launching, heart first, into a battle to repeal the Maximum Family Grant rule. All children deserve the chance to succeed. Why punish some children before they’ve even had a chance to draw their first breath? Thank you! In our eyes, you’re a superstar! P.S. We're almost there. Stay strong on AB 271!  Can you sign this letter? Our goal is 5,000 signatures by August 12. Can you help us spread the word on social media?
The Women’s Foundation of California is a publicly supported grantmaking foundation that invests in women as a key strategy for creating a California where all communities are economically secure and can thrive.
Connect. Lead. Influence. Fund. www.womensfoundca.org    Women's Foundation of California 340 Pine Street, Suite 302 San Francisco, CA 94104 415.837.1113