Late Friday afternoon, news broke that Senate pro tem Kevin de León had eliminated the Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes, an investigative unit created by his predecessor, Darrell Steinberg, in 2008. Laurel Rosenhall has the story at the Sacramento Bee.
“Their investigations found that a lack of scrutiny allowed sex offenders to treat drug addicts at state rehab clinics; that California’s mortgage lender foreclosed on homeowners who were current on their loans; that redevelopment agencies spent money without adequate accountability; and that tax breaks had cost the state $6.3 billion more than anticipated. Other reports made recommendations for curbing fraud in the home health care system and found that an illogical bureaucracy made it hard for regulators to detect fraud in state child care programs. The findings were frequently used as the basis for Senate oversight hearings and also led to new legislation, according to a July report by the unit.”
George Skelton’s latest column, suggesting that maybe it’s time that government regulates agricultural crops for water usage, is sure to get a rise out of farmers and water districts. From the Los Angeles Times:
“Government long has regulated land use for shopping malls, factories and dumps. Why not also for crops based on their water use? Agriculture claims 80% of the state's developed water. And 55% of exported delta water goes to two irrigation districts in the San Joaquin Valley.
But ‘farm production and food processing only generate about 2% of California's gross state product,’ according to the Public Policy Institute of California.
“With row crops — vegetables — the land can be fallowed during a drought. Not so with orchards. Almonds especially are water-gulpers and they've proliferated to 940,000 acres, mainly in the San Joaquin Valley. One estimate is that it takes more than a gallon of water to grow a single almond.
“You also can add pistachios and wine grapes to water-sucking crops that can't be fallowed. They're all cool when there's ample water. When not, some rural folks are forced to haul in their own water for cooking and cleaning. That's not sustainable politically or socially.”
2014 California campaign spending reached its zenith in the Bera-Ose congressional race, where the competing camps spent $129 per vote cast. But, in this hyperpartisan environment, did it make a difference? Mark Barabak looks at the question for the Los Angeles Times.
“When asked how they made up their minds, not one person in three dozen interviewed cited anything they had heard or seen in any of those TV spots, or mentioned a single thing they read in the blizzard of campaign pieces that choked 7th District mail boxes….
“Few people ever admit to paying close attention to political commercials — or, heaven forbid, being persuaded by their self-serving content — though political advertising goes a long way toward shaping perceptions of a candidate and setting the campaign agenda.
“Still, it was telling that more than a third of those asked couldn't even name the two candidates who have been an unavoidable presence on their TV screens for months, or else wrongly identified them. Two people said they voted for ‘Issa’ and ‘Cooley,’ when they meant Ose, and several named ‘Barry,’ ‘Omni’ or ‘Abi,’ when they meant Ami Bera.”
Some high profile former California lawmakers, including Vic Fazio, John Doolittle, and Dan Lungren, have found second careers as DC lobbyists. From Curtis Tate at McClatchy:
“Lobbying is a logical next step for former members of Congress: They’re well connected; know their way around Capitol Hill and the federal bureaucracy; and can offer their experience to corporations, trade associations, nonprofits, foreign governments and a long list of industries which have business with Washington….
“Some restrictions apply. Outgoing members of the House are barred from lobbying their former colleagues directly for a year. The Senate requires a two-year “cooling-off” period. Former lawmakers can, however, provide strategic advice to lobbying firms, and some continue to do so without formally registering as lobbyists.”
Covered California, still stinging from lessons learned during last year’s Open Enrollment, is working to increase Latino participation in the health exchange this year. But poverty and fear of drawing attention to undocumented family members are still hurting enrollment. Tracy Seipel has the story at the San Jose Mercury News.
“Over the current three-month enrollment period that ends Feb. 15, about 40 percent of the exchange's $29 million media budget is being directed at the roughly 600,000 Latinos who qualify for subsidized coverage on the exchange but never enrolled, according to Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California. The exchange also has doubled the number of Spanish-speaking enrollment counselors after discovering last year that many Latinos prefer face-to-face interaction to signing up online.
“Yet Lee acknowledged that one ‘absolutely huge’ roadblock is still the fear Latinos in mixed immigration-status families have that their application information will be handed over to the federal government, even though immigration authorities have made it clear they will not use that information to enforce immigration laws.”
It all happened so fast.
Last week, Twitter figure @CapitolHillFox revealed the surprising tidbit that conservative Texas rep. Blake Farenthold is the owner of the domain Blow-Me.org.
Or, perhaps, not so surprising. This is, after all, the same Blake Farenthold who had to explain all those photos of him in his ducky pajamas, partying with lingerie models during his 2010 campaign.
Buzzfeed followed the domain story, and by Friday afternoon, Farenthold’s spokesman had announced that the congressman will not be renewing the domain name.
Takers? Anyone?