Clock in at the WC Blog

Hey folks. I am sure you have noticed the lack of posting lately. As the title indicates this will be the last post. The Working Californians blog is going dormant for the time being.

You can continue to find my postings over at Calitics and any number of other outlets.

Thank you for being such loyal readers. See you around the blogosphere.

Julia

Today the Senate Health Committee voted 7-1 not to advance AB 1x1 the massive health care reform bill championed by Speaker Fabian Nunez and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. That means health care reform legislation is killed for the year given the timing to make it on the ballot. Chron:

Shortly before the committee hearing, Senate President Don Perata, D-Oakland, said in a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that he does not support the measure because it lacks adequate funding and could worsen the state's budget problems.

The measure, which passed the state Assembly last month, needs the backing of a majority of legislators in each house before it can be sent to the governor, who supports it.

Schwarzenegger, speaking to the editorial board of the Chronicle, said he will do everything he can to keep the measure alive.

"I'm not taking 'no' for an answer," he said. "We've come a long way to get as far as we have ... this is the last mile."

The $14 billion plan was the product of more than a year of negotiations between the Republican governor and leaders of the Legislature's Democratic majority. The proposal had the backing of a diverse group of corporate, labor and consumer groups but failed to attract the necessary six votes from the 11-member health committee largely because of concerns over the long-term costs of the plan.

The amount of resources mobilized for this fight was enormous. Many groups and organizations poured many man hours and dollars into advancing this cause and then this specific piece of legislation. It is a bitter end to a noble goal: reforming our health care system. Our health care system is a disaster, yet fear of the unknown determined the outcome. We could not ensure that the expenses would not out strip revenues a crucial calculation given our state's current precarious fiscal state. It was not clear how much this bill would impact working middle class Californians. The plan was attacked from the right and the left.

The good thing is that this is not the mid-nighties all over again. When the budget situation improves we will again have a shot at reforming the system. This loss does not mean we have to wait a decade before working hard to enact sweeping change.

This is a victory for the status quo today, but we have a chance in the not too distant future to enact the reforms legislators dared against all odds to advance this past year. There were many more reasons for this to fail than to pass. That will not change the next time we take a shot at it. Hopefully we will learn some lessons from this fight and have a better chance the next time. They sure did a lot better than we did nationally in the mid-90s.

The supporters of AB 1x1 are pulling out all of the stops. A group of health care reform leaders signed a letter to Sen. Shelia Kuehl urging her to support the bill. Sen. Kuehl is a huge proponent of single payer and has stated she will not support the bill sitting before her committee. It cannot pass unless she votes for it or Sen. Perata replaces Sen. Yee from the comittee.

Here is the letter they sent (h/t to Anthony)

Stephen Johnson is the EPA chief who rejected his own staff's recommendations to grant California a waiver to regulate our own greenhouse gas emissions. Senator Boxer hauled him in front of the environmental committee she chairs for a grill session to see what the heck prompted him to ignore science and decades of legal precedent. LAT

"I was not directed by anyone," Johnson said at a hearing before the environment and public works committee, denying he had been influenced by political pressure from the White House or anyone else. "This was solely my decision."

Johnson failed to mollify Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the committee chairwoman and perhaps his fiercest critic, who vowed to press ahead with her investigation into how the EPA chief reached his decision. Within hours of his testimony, she introduced legislation -- co-sponsored by 17 senators, including Democratic presidential front-runners Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois -- to overturn the decision.

Good. They should. There appears to be no reasonable explanation for the rejection other than the car industry doesn't like California regulating its own air.

In his first Capitol appearance since denying California's request late last month, Johnson drew the ire of other Democratic senators whose states also want to enact greenhouse-gas-emission standards for new cars and trucks that are more stringent than the federal government's.

"Your agency's decision to deny California a waiver just defies logic to me," Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) told Johnson. "It's clearly a decision, I believe, that's based on politics and not on fact."

Boxer called Johnson's decision "unconscionable" and accused him of going against the advice of his legal and science advisors and siding instead with the auto industry, which has resisted California's efforts to implement its tailpipe law.

There are fifteen other states that have sided with California and want to enact the same regulations we passed.

The EPA has stonewalled Boxer's attempts to get information on the decision. They even went to far as to cover up some documents with duct tape. Yes duct tape. It would be amusing if the subject were not so important to our quality of life.

In all reality it will likely take a new administration and a Democratic at that to let the states regulate their own greenhouse gas emissions.

The state simply does not have enough money in our bank accounts to pay our bills. That means we will need to borrow a bunch of money. Bloomberg:

Jan. 24 (Bloomberg) -- California may need to borrow as much as $9 billion later this year to pay bills, as the most populous U.S. state faces its biggest cash shortage since 2003, a budget official said.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's finance office estimates the state will need to sell $9 billion of short-term notes in September to cover cash needs for the fiscal year that begins July 1. That compares with $7 billion borrowed in November for this year's operations.

The cash crunch springs from slowing revenue growth over the last 12 months following the worst housing market slump in 16 years. Schwarzenegger last year saw a budget surplus transformed into a $14 billion deficit. Fitch Ratings has warned that California's credit ratings on $49 billion of debt are in danger because of the cash shortage.

The worse our credit ratings, the more expensive it is for us to borrow, just like any other borrower. This is somewhat routine for the state, but it is a jarring number all the same.

Today was the day the AB 1x1 was to be brought up in the Senate Health Committee. It didn't. Senator Don Perata asked to delay the vote until Monday since there were not enough votes to pass the bill. To complicate matters the Legislative Analyst came out with her report that had enough consternation about cost containment for the state that it made Senators nervous about moving forward. AP:

Given the Democrats' resistance, it seemed unlikely Perata could obtain the votes without changing the composition of the 11-member panel, although he has said he does not plan to do so. The committee's four Republican members have been opposed to the bill as an expensive and unnecessary expansion of government into the private health care system.

Democrats also sounded queasy about the potential expense, and they sought assurances that the state would not be saddled with new costs.

"It just seems to me that we go into it with a little more certainty of what the price might be," said Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. "Otherwise we don't go forward."

There are many more reasons for legislators to say no to major health care reform than to say yes. That does not mean that the bill shouldn't pass or that it is impossible to pass reform, but rather that this was always an uphill battle. The state of the economy and the budget made the odds even worse. It is providing an easy out for Democratic legislators who might otherwise be supportive.

Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill fed their fears with a report that undermined the administration's insistence that California can extend medical coverage to millions of uninsured people without having to spend additional state money.

More likely, she said, the new health care program would become a drain on the state budget. Hill said she estimated conservatively that within five years, the program would cost the state between $300 million and $1.5 billion a year.

"What you have in front of you is by no means the worst-case analysis," Hill said.

There is no way to guarantee that the cost of insurance will not rise at a higher rate than they anticipated. There are outs for the state. It's not as if it would be on the hock for the plan no matter what. Safety measures were built in. Howevier, if the legislators feel like it is more likely than not that we will encounter a situation where the costs exceed the revenue in the near future then it is not worth it for them to support a plan that they believe is headed for failure.

There are hard choices ahead for Senator Perata. Does he want to pull Yee or Kuehl off of the committee, or let this die a quiet death?

The status quo of our health care system is unacceptable, but that does not automatically translate into passage of this plan, no matter how well constructed.

Things are not looking very good for the prospect of health care reform in California at the moment. The bill AB 1x1 is going to come up in the health care committee tomorrow. Sen. Kuehl, the chair of the committee already indicated she would not support it. That meant if only one other Democratic Senator on the committee pulled their support the bill would not be able to advance on a straight vote. CapAlert has the goods.

On the eve of a hearing for landmark health legislation, a spokesman for Sen. Leland Yee said the San Francisco Democrat will oppose the health care measure. The move throws into limbo whether the legislation has the necessary votes to move forward.

“The costs are a big concern for him,” said Adam Keigwin, a spokesman for Yee, regarding the $14 billion health care price tag that coincides with a projected $14.5 billion budget hole.

We have not yet see the report from the Legislative Analyst that Perata requested. This seems to be an early indication that the report was not particularly favorable.

Meanwhile the It's Our Health Care coalition just sent out an email encouraging their members to contact their Senators.

If the Senate doesn't pass AB x1 1 this week -- first out of the Health Committee tomorrow, then, if it passes there, on the Senate floor shortly afterwards, health care reform in California will be dead for the year.

A golden opportunity will be wasted. Health care reform here in California and at the national level will be dealt a body blow. And millions of Californians who could have been helped will be left to suffer the consequences of a deteriorating and dysfunctional health care status quo.

If you want to change the status quo and support reform this year, call your Senator now!

Click here to look up your Senator's phone number and call them today!

Senate process allows for Perata to request that Kuehl pass the bill on without voting. However, it is unclear if he is interested in having her do that. Perata does also have the power to pull Lee from the committee and replace him with someone who will vote for the bill. However, Perata has been throwing considerable cold water on the whole thing and it does not seem like he is inclined to force the issue.

It is a real shame to see so much time and effort come down to this. California had a real shot at passing significant, historic health care reform. The odds have always been stacked against it, just like they are right now. Ever the eternal optimist, I still believe they could get this thing done. It is really up to Perata.

The governor has finally come around to reality. Reforming California's school system will require a huge investment in our children's future and we simply do not have the funds to do that this year. Arnold said this and more in an interview with the LAT editorial board.

But he also talked about investing more in some of the same government programs he once complained were bloated and inefficient.

The message has ceased to be that schools can do more with less.

Now, he said, properly reforming the state's education system could come with a hefty price tag.

Because of the need for funds, Schwarzenegger said, he would put off his plans for an ambitious overhaul of the state educational system until more money is available.

"We have to analyze and bring everyone in the education community together and look at all the reforms and look at if that means we need extra money to do all those things," the governor said.

"To say: 'The funding we leave off the table completely . . . because we don't have any money, but we want to do those reforms,' that is not the way it works."

He is sounding all the right notes at the moment with regards to his plans for his "Year of Education". The same cannot be said of his approach to the budget. He has already lined up the schools as a target for huge cuts.

It has come down to this: will any Democratic Senator on the health care committee vote against the proposal besides Sen. Shelia Kuehl? The Capitol Weekly has all of the wonky details:

The Senate Health Committee is chaired by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, who is openly opposing the bill. Kuehl’s opposition gives the bill’s supporters a single-vote margin on the 11-member health committee.

That means that any Democrat on the committee could single-handedly sink the proposal. And not all of the committee members are sure they’re going to vote for the bill. Kuehl, who has promised an exhaustive examination of the proposal, delayed the first hearing by a week.

“The issue I have is that we have a $14 billion shortfall,” said Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco. “We are cutting services like you cannot believe. So how can we pay for a new health care plan?”

The Senate, in particular this committee is moving slowly on this proposal to examine all of the details. This will not be a repeat of the rapid fire passage of the energy deal during the Enron crisis. AB 1x1 is a major piece of legislation that should impact just about every single Californian. I for one am glad that it is being gone over with a fine tooth comb.

Here is a clear sign that the speculation about Arnold's intentions in proposing a grossly unacceptable budget has some merit. He told the SacBee that he does not expect that they actually close the 48 parks he had called to close in his budget.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Wednesday he proposed closing 48 state parks to "rattle the cage" at the Capitol, but fully expects lawmakers to come forward with alternatives -- including higher fees -- to keep parks open.

"The budget is always a proposal ... There's the reality, and the reality will rattle the cage," Schwarzenegger said during a meeting Wednesday on a wide range of issues with the Bee's editorial board.

Last week the governor released a $101 billion general fund spending plan that was balanced largely through government spending reductions. Closing 48 state parks would eliminate 136 positions and help the parks department save 8.9 percent of its budget -- or $13.3 million.

That is $13.3 million out of a $15 billion budget deficit. This was a very high profile proposal, with little fiscal gain, designed to fire up people. It worked.

Current analysis suggests that increasing fees will drive down attendance exacerbating the problem, not solving it.

The governor continues to maintain his high approval ratings according to a new LAT poll. While the voters do not approve of his approach to the budget crisis, they are blaming the legislature rather than the governor for it. They still view him as the outsider shaking things up, when he has been anything but when it comes to this budget. In general, voters have a gloomy outlook on the state.

Interestingly, there are some strong parallels to what is going on now and what happened in early 2005.

Mark Baldassare, president of the Public Policy Institute of California, notes that voters remained pleased with Schwarzenegger in the weeks after he unveiled those plans -- much as they do today, following the release of his tough budget blueprint. In 2005 it was months later, after the details sank in and opponents had organized their campaign against the governor, that Schwarzenegger's approval rating sank to 37%.

"We're following the same pattern that we did in January of 2005," Baldassare said. "When he rolled out his plans, they were surprising to a lot of people and not what they wanted, but they didn't initially take it out on him. As he started getting attacked by teachers and interest groups, his numbers fell."

The parallels are so strong that his approach to the budget is perplexing. The governor seemed to learn some lessons in 2006, but appears to have regressed again. It's bizarre and it is what is fueling the this is all a ruse to drum up support for tax increases Capitol analysis.

The non-partisan Legislative Analyst, known as the "budget nun" has reinforced what I and most other progressives have been saying: Arnold's budget is a terrible proposal and the solution to our budget deficit is to increase revenue. LAT:

The state's chief budget analyst warned Monday that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposals for closing a $14.5-billion budget gap fail to properly prioritize how the state should spend its money, use questionable accounting methods and would be unnecessarily disruptive to schools and community colleges.

Schools in particular need stable funding levels. They cannot easily expand or contract their budgets. Teachers must be hired in advance, supplies must be ordered. That is why Prop. 98 was passed in the first place, insulating them from the ups and downs of our state's finances.

Legislative Analyst Elizabeth G. Hill, whom Democratic and Republican legislators look to for unbiased advice on fiscal issues, is particularly critical of the governor's plan to spare almost no agency or program in calling for state spending to be cut immediately by 10%.

"It reflects little effort to prioritize and determine which state programs provide essential services or are most critical for California's future," Hill wrote in a report released Monday morning. She also said the proposed spending plan cuts too deeply into state services, and she called on the Legislature to offset some of the governor's suggested reductions by raising fees and taxes or by scaling back existing tax breaks.

California has a revenue problem. Our state bonds are being downgraded, making it more expensive if not impossible to borrow our way out of this problem.

Soon after Hill released her report, a major bond rating agency put the state on notice that it was at risk of a downgrade. Fitch Ratings, expressing concern that the Legislature would balk at the steep cuts advocated by the governor, said failure to take action to balance the budget soon could lead to a downgrade of California's rating on approximately $43 billion of outstanding debt.

Administration spokesman H.D. Palmer said the Fitch warning "is as clear a statement as I have seen that there will be consequences for inaction."

If the governor had actually chosen a responsible path, instead of direct confrontation with the Democratic controlled legislature there would not be these fears. Instead he picked the least acceptable path and set us on a path for major conflict not resolution. That is all on the governor.

George Skelton spends much of his column today rejecting the comparison Arnold has been trying to make between himself and FDR, while I wholeheartedly agree with Skelton on the preposterousness of the comparison, I would like to focus on the elected officials who match up more closely with our governor. LAT:

The historical figure that Schwarzenegger should be trying to emulate is Ronald Reagan, a fiscal conservative but pragmatist.

I know, I know, but bear with Skelton.

To plug a huge deficit his first year as governor in 1967, Reagan raised taxes by a then-record $1 billion. He never had to worry about red ink again. Back then, the total budget was only $5 billion. The budget Schwarzenegger just proposed hit $141 billion, even with 10% across-the-board cuts.

We are only short about $15 billion, way less of a percentage of the total budget than what Reagan increased revenue by during his tenure. There are other Republicans that Arnold should be comparing himself to.

A more recent role model for Schwarzenegger should be his political mentor, Pete Wilson. In 1991, the new governor faced a $14-billion hole in a $43-billion general fund. (Schwarzenegger's proposed general fund is $101 billion.)

Wilson raised taxes by a staggering $7 billion -- on income, sales, cars, liquor, candy. Name it. Then he filled the rest of the gap with cuts and magicians' tools.

Schwarzenegger's draconian plan "is a wake-up call for the public," says Assembly Budget Committee Chairman John Laird (D-Santa Cruz). "This is reality. If you don't like it, what's your alternative?"

The alternative is raising taxes, because the cuts are flatly unacceptable.

Pitney says: "I don't think taxes are avoidable."

Schwarzenegger still thinks they are. Or so he says. I believe him -- believe that he's living in denial.

The governor should think hard about who he is and how he wants to be remembered. I doubt it's reflected in the budget that bears little resemblance to the statesmanlike policies of Reagan and Wilson -- let alone FDR's New Deal.

We shall see if the insider calculation that Arnold is doing this just to raise support for taxes or not is true. In general, I think Skelton has this right. Arnold rarely thinks three steps ahead, so it is hard to believe that he has planned this out as a major scheme, then again I don't really believe he wants to drown the government in a bathtub. It just doesn't make good photo-ops.

The headline on the AP story reads "Schwarzenegger is facing the kind of crisis that ruined Davis". There is a reason for that. Arnold never actually fulfilled his campaign promises, now we are right back where we started.

Arnold Schwarzenegger stormed into office during California's last budget crisis, promising to "end the crazy deficit spending" so the state would never go over the financial cliff again.

But four years later, California is back in the same spot.

The cooling economy has opened up a projected $14.5 billion deficit over the next 18 months, and the governor proposed this week to cut school spending, release 22,000 prisoners early and shut dozens of state parks.

The irony is rich: He is facing a repeat of the financial crisis that undid Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, the man Schwarzenegger ousted in a turbulent recall election.

The question is: will Arnold actually take this opportunity to make good on his campaign promises? His previous actions have only exacerbated the situation.

Far from solving California's systemic budget problems, Schwarzenegger has taken several actions that have made them worse. Just like Davis, Schwarzenegger cut taxes but not spending, which has risen 30 percent since he took office. That ensured that when tax revenue tapered off, the budget gap would reappear.

The latest crisis came on so fast that California is in danger of running out of cash this year. Schwarzenegger has ordered more borrowing — the sale of $3.3 billion in bonds — to make sure the state can pay its bills.

Arnold opened up the gubernatorial wallet and pulled out the state's credit card. I guess he duct taped it back together.

The boxes were never blown up. Reform was not accomplished. The result is deja vu. It is like 2004/05 all over again. Schwarzenegger is proposing massive budget cuts, power grabs and talking like a partisan Republican again.

His true colors are showing again. They have been hiding for a few years.

Meanwhile, they are starting to tally the real world impact of the budget cuts the governor is proposing. It is staggering. LAT:

Facing the worst fiscal crisis of his tenure, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today proposed a $141-billion spending plan that would reduce health care programs for the poor, close 48 state parks or beaches, release tens of thousands of nonviolent inmates early and make substantial changes in almost every other area of the state's budget.

At the same time, he proposed expanding the state's debt load by more than $40 billion to finance more construction at public schools, colleges and other major institutions.

Schizophrenic no? Let's chop billions from classrooms so they can't buy more books or have enough teachers to teach, but let's borrow billions, driving up our future deficit issues to build new classrooms. Take from one hand and give it to the other. The construction companies get a little too.

Schwarzenegger proposed reducing education spending by $4.4 billion, $400 million of which would be trimmed from money schools had been promised this year. The reductions target special education classes, child nutrition programs, class-size reduction efforts, transportation and charter schools. Schools would receive 9% less next year than they would otherwise be entitled to under the constitutional guarantee for education funding, which the governor proposed suspending.

They are talking about cutting the minimum guaranteed money schools receive under Prop. 98. This will be vigorously opposed by the teachers. Meanwhile those in the Capitol are getting really cynical. Sounds to me like they are actually trusting Arnold to come to reality. I wouldn't take that bet.

Some in the Capitol are already dismissing the proposed deep cuts as a ruse -- an attempt to stir up so much public demand for a tax hike that the governor ultimately will be able to break his pledge not to take that route. The governor disputed any such idea, saying: "I will not go back and ask [voters] for any tax increases. They deserve better than that."

They do deserve better than this short sided plan to slash the budget. What they deserve is comprehensive reform. What they deserve is not the stop-gap measures they have gotten in previous years. What they deserve is a governor who has the political courage to invest his political capitol in getting that done.

If anyone still had any doubts about Arnold's party affiliation, yesterday's State of the State address should have erased them. Arnold is a Republican. His solution to a budget crisis is to slash spending and grab more power for himself. It is that simple.

He refuses to examine the reasons why we have found ourselves staring at a $14 million deficit. Instead, he has gone back to his failed ideas from 2005. LAT:

Returning to policies he advanced without success early in his tenure, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called Tuesday for state government to permanently rein in spending and vowed not to raise taxes next year -- even as he prepared a budget that would increase insurance fees for millions of property owners.

Schwarzenegger, facing a $14-billion deficit, said in his annual State of the State address that he would propose a "difficult" budget Thursday that would hurt many groups, such as AIDS patients, the poor and the elderly. He did not mention that he would also try to raise money for firefighting efforts through a proposal, a copy of which was obtained by The Times, to collect a surcharge from renters, homeowners and business owners who buy property insurance.

Perhaps he has finally learned one lesson: don't attack firefighters in California.

But back to the issue at hand. The state has a huge budget deficit. Our governor has decided to side with the Republicans who want to drown the government in the bathtub. The result of their policies would be catastrophic for hundreds of thousands of Californians. Children would go without health insurance, elderly without assistance and schools without books. For years, California has been tightening up it's budgetary belt. There is just nothing to give anymore.

The Democrats panned the idea.

"The governor is willing to sell us short," Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) said immediately after the speech. "He is selling us on the excellence of mediocrity. Advocating automatic cuts, but failing to establish the priorities and how to fund them, is political expediency at its best and political leadership at its worst."

The governor does not appear to be charting any sort of middle of the road path on what is a very stark partisan divide on budgeting. He is simply siding with his fellow Republicans and that is not exactly the way to get things done in the legislature. Arnold already tried this concept directly with the voters and it failed miserably. The political calculation here makes about as much sense as the policy concepts.

Arnold refuses to take a comprehensive look at the problems that have created our budget deficit and now appears to be pushing what essentially amounts to Prop. 76. It is a power grab, short and simple. The voters rejected it overwhelmingly in 2005, with 62.4% voting NO. It was a bad idea to give the governor more power over the budget then and it is still a bad idea now. SacBee:

Heading into a week in which he's expected to deliver grim news about the state's fiscal health, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is also preparing to propose changes to the budgeting process.

The Republican governor will offer a "budget reform" plan when he outlines his goals in his State of the State address Tuesday. Such a proposal, if successful, would likely give the executive office more authority in making cuts even after the Legislature has passed an annual spending plan.

When Arnold talks about budget reforms, he means being able to cut the budget whenever he feels like it. Meanwhile Nunez has some ideas of his own.

A spokesman for Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez said lawmakers will have to wait to see what the governor proposes. The Democratic leader from Los Angeles has suggested changing the minimum vote for passing a budget, from the current two-thirds to a simple majority. The move would greatly diminish the role of Republicans, who are a minority in the Legislature.

"Reform is in the eye of the beholder," said Núñez's spokesman, Steve Maviglio.

Indeed. California's budgetary process is a mess with the 2/3rds requirements and the Republicans refusal to do anything other than make cuts. Hardly any other states put such limitations on their legislature. The solution is not to give the governor more power, but to untie the hands of the legislature.

See also Dave Dayen on the same subject.

This state desperately needs a big boost to our education funding. There are some greatly needed reforms and Arnold wants to make this year, the year of education. But that is going to be tough. The scope of the problems are very large and so is our current budget deficit. That said, he is still pushing forward and his blue ribbon panel has just released a proposal, complete with a $6 billion price tag. Merc:

Setting the stage for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Year of Education," a panel he appointed has proposed a sweeping set of reforms that will help define the debate, including performance-based pay for teachers, universal preschool and full-day kindergarten.

A blueprint of the recommendations obtained by the Mercury News also calls for:

• Billions more to be spent each year to educate English-learners and other low-income students who are lagging behind more affluent peers.

• A sophisticated new data system to better track students' successes and failures.

• A school "inspection system" similar to those used in New York City and several European countries. To increase the accountability of schools, the results of the inspections would immediately be made available to the public.

A lot of time, money and resources have been poured into a series of studies to investegate the California education system and ways that it can be improved. This is just one of many. They all have a common theme: we can make things better, but it will take real money. Reforms with out money don't work and just more money won't work either.

This is assured to be a subject of Arnold's upcoming State of the State speech. He has not signed off on this report, so it is unclear if he supports all of the proposals.

There is a lot to get up to speed on and a relative light news day, so here are a few of my favorite articles from today for folks to chew on.

• A bunch of new laws went into effect yesterday, including another $.50 raise in the minimum wage. Great news for the countless workers trying to eek out a living on what is now $8 an hour.
• The Bee has a good overview on the health care deal, done in a Q and A style. Go check it out for the basics on the proposed legislation that is awaiting the Senate's action.
• Steve Lopez has an excellent column today telling the story of one kid who is being screwed by Blue Cross. It is just one of tens of thousands that could be told. There is something seriously wrong with our health care system.
• California is suing the EPA after it rejected our request for a waiver to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Bush is sure to drag this one out until the end of his term. Meanwhile global warming gets worse. Fabulous isn't it?

The EPA dragged its feet for years and when they finally ruled it was not surprising to see them turn down our waiver request to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. It is another in a long line of anti-environmental rulings from the Bush Administration. They are using the passage of the energy bill as an excuse to deny the waiver. AP:

The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday slapped down California's bid for first-in-the-nation greenhouse gas limits on cars, trucks and SUVs, denying a request for a waiver that would have allowed those restrictions to take effect.

"The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution _ not a confusing patchwork of state rules," EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson told reporters on a conference call. "I believe this is a better approach than if individual states were to act alone."

I will wait for the laughter to stop about the Bush Administration moving forward with a solution on greenhouse gas emissions before bringing you another excerpt.

The long-awaited decision amounted to a serious setback for California and 16 other states seeking the new car regulations to achieve their anti-global warming goals.

The tailpipe standards California adopted in 2004 would have forced automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016, with the cutbacks beginning in the 2009 model year.

Under the Clean Air Act, the state needed a federal waiver to implement the rules.

"It is disappointing that the federal government is standing in our way and ignoring the will of tens of millions of people across the nation. We will continue to fight this battle," said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. "California sued to compel the agency to act on our waiver, and now we will sue to overturn today's decision and allow Californians to protect our environment."

This was the first time that EPA has fully denied a waiver since Congress gave the states the ability to apply for a waiver back in 1967.

It is unclear how California and the other 12 states who signed on to adopted our emissions standards will proceed. I would imagine there will be lawsuits of some variety. It may be impossible to get anything done until there is someone else in the White House.