Bonds away

Mar 24, 2009

Capitol Weekly's John Howard looks at the Senate's investigation into in-home health care. "The $5.5 billion-a-year program that provides in-home, personal care to more than 444,000 Californians doesn't effectively track its own payroll and has failed to conduct annual studies to estimate the level of overpayments and fraud, according to a Senate investigative report. The program, which relies in part on the honor system in its billing, also is hamstrung by an antiquated system that delays the flow of crucial information for months, the study says.

 

"The report, prepared by the newly created Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes, was commissioned by the Senate Human Services Committee. The report targeted compliance with 2004 legislation, part of the state's Budget Act, that sought to tighten up the guidelines governing the quality and finances of the In-Home Supportive Services program, which is run by the state Department of Social Services."

 

The Senate Human Services Committee will hold a hearing on the report this morning. 

 

"California officials struggling with finances got a boost Monday from eager investors who scooped up $3.04 billion in state bonds that will be used for public works projects," writes Matthew Yi in the Chron.

"The sale is part of an effort to sell $4 billion worth of general obligation bonds by end of Wednesday. The sales are necessary to begin $500 million worth of infrastructure projects that were halted in mid-December because the state was running out of cash.

"'We're extremely pleased with the results so far,' said Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for state Treasurer Bill Lockyer. 'It shows that demand for California bonds is strong as ever despite the budget and (bond) rating challenges that we face.'

"Early estimates on Monday showed the state will likely pay between 3.25 percent and 6 percent interest on the bonds. In June 2008, when the state last sold general obligation bonds, the rates ranged between 1.75 percent and 5.3 percent."

 

Ouch.  What interest rate can we get from the Fed?

 

The Wall Street Journal's Stu Woo profiles Gavin Newsom's early campaign for governor.

"Voters haven't put a Northern California politician in the governor's office in 47 years, which helps explain why San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has already begun campaigning -- 20 months before the election.

"Mr. Newsom is little known in Southern California, and many voters here who recognize him do so for controversial issues: his championing of same-sex marriage, an affair with a top aide's wife and his admission of alcohol abuse. His likely Democratic challengers, Attorney General Jerry Brown and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, have much wider bases of support.

"During a tour of Los Angeles last week, Mr. Newsom greeted bystanders in front of the Venice Family Clinic. Two minutes later, Starr Herron struggled to remember the name of the dapper 41-year-old mayor who had just shaken her hand. "I don't know!" the part-time security guard said with a laugh.

"Mr. Newsom acknowledged his obstacles winning votes south of the Tehachapi Mountains, where most of California's 38 million people live. 'I've got a lot of work to do in the southern part of the state, so that's exactly why we're doing this,' the mayor said of his weeklong Southern California tour, which included meetings with business and labor groups."

 

"Hundreds of thousands of jobless Californians could see their unemployment benefits extended under legislation approved Monday by the Assembly," writes Jim Sanders in the Bee.

"The measure would extend a lifeline to an estimated 469,000 out-of-work residents whose benefits otherwise would expire this year.

"Federal stimulus funds would bankroll an extra 20 weeks of unemployment benefits for Californians who exhaust the 59 weeks available now."

 

Dan Walters notes that the federal funds may simply delay the state's unemployment fund's looming insolvency.

"Federal loans and UI benefits extensions will keep the checks flowing for a while, but both are very temporary. Sooner or later, Schwarzenegger and the Legislature will have to hold their political noses and swallow some of the four distasteful remedies, and the longer they wait, the bigger the dose will have to be."

 

The Bee's Susan Ferriss checks in on the ballot initiative to get the state out of the marriage business.

"On March 10, five days after the court hearing, two California college students got the OK from state election officials to try to put Ming's question before voters.

"The students are circulating petitions for a ballot initiative that would strike the word "marriage" from state laws and substitute "domestic partnership."

"The change would keep all the rights of marriage now on the books. But it would nullify Proposition 8 and make the new partnership category applicable to both gay and straight.

"'We want to take marriage out of the battlefield,' said Ali Shams, a University of California, San Diego, student who co-authored the language."

 

Speaking of the ballot, the Chron's John Wildermuth posts on his blog that Republican money is being used on both sides of the May 19 ballot measures.

"The Republicans aren't the only political family divided over the May 19 election. Just this weekend, the California Teachers Association voted to back all six budget measures while the California Federation of Teachers opposed five of the six. Democratic Assembly Speaker Karen Bass backs Prop. 1A, but she can't get her caucus to support it.

"And moving back to the Republicans, state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, two of the three likely GOP candidates for governor, are opposed to Prop. 1A, while Tom Campbell, former San Jose congressman and one-time state finance director, backs the spending cap.

"'There are a lot of Republicans in favor of Props 1A to 1F and we'll be getting a lot of bipartisan support,' said Julie Soderlund, a spokeswoman for Budget Reform Now.

"Unfortunately for Schwarzenegger, it's looking like the opposition may be just as bipartisan, which will make for an interesting run to the May 19 election."

 

Meanwhile, the California Nurses Association says no to everything.

 

"There is no legal way to ban a controversial anti-illegal immigrants group from participation in the state's Adopt-A-Highway program without shutting it down entirely, state Transportation Department chief Will Kempton said Monday," reports Steve Wiegand in the Bee.

"'The bottom line is there is no way to deny these folks regardless of how we feel about them,' Kempton said in a meeting with a dozen Latino legislators and representatives of minority organizations. 'We will lose in court if we try to eliminate these folks.'

"Latino lawmakers are angry that Caltrans issued a litter pickup permit to the San Diego Minutemen for a stretch of Interstate 5 that straddles a major immigration checkpoint south of San Clemente."

 

Could the state be moving to take away your big-screen TV? The Register's Brian Joseph says it's possible. "In their continuing quest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, state regulators have uncovered a new villain in the war on global warming : your big screen TV

 

"The California Energy Commission is considering a proposal that would ban California retailers from selling all but the most energy-efficient televisions. Critics say the news standards could take 25 percent of televisions off the market — most of them 40 inches or larger."

 

And finally, from our Two Birds, One Stone Files,  AP reports, "Authorities said a 63-year-old man suspected of drunken driving crashed his pickup truck into a neighbor's house, leaving a gaping hole and revealing a small marijuana farm inside. San Diego police got a search warrant after the Sunday afternoon crash and confiscated more than 20 pot plants from the house.

 

"Police Sgt. David Jennings said no one was inside the house, and neighbors told officers the residents were gone on a ski trip."