In the midst of the national debate on healthcare, the California State Senate passed Senate Bill 810 this week in the hopes of creating a single-payer healthcare system for California residents. The bill would basically allow for a public option while also allowing those with private insurance to continue that coverage.
If you’d like to read the bill in its entirety, knock yourself out: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_810_bill_20100113_amended_sen_v97.pdf
Not surprisingly, the vote went almost exactly down party lines with one Democrat from Santa Ana (the reddest part of the state) voting no on the bill. Ultimately though, even if the bill makes it through the state assembly and through the Governor’s desk (which is extremely unlikely given that he has vetoed similar legislation twice already), the citizens of California will have to vote it into law in an election.
I know what you’re thinking, if this is already being done at the national level why are we putting an extra burden on ourselves? Glad you asked! After last week’s special election in Massachusetts, supporters of healthcare reform don’t believe that any meaningful reform will come out of Washington and it is now up to the states to take up the cause. (Fun fact of the day: newly elected Scott Brown of Massachusetts actually voted FOR the universal health care bill in Massachusetts when he was in the state senate. Oh and by the way, so did then-Governor, now- Republican Senator Mitt Romney.)
California is certainly not the only state to take up the cause. We’re in good company with Massachusetts, Vermont, New Mexico, Maine, and Connecticut. (http://www.newrules.org/equity/rules/singlepayer-and-universal-health-care)
Alright Schwarzy, so what’s the big problem? Well, there is the small issue of the $200 billion price tag at a time when we can’t even get a balanced budget passed. On the other hand, according to the bill’s author, Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), we’re already spending $200 billion on healthcare and this bill is, “the same $200 billion used in a more efficient, cost-effective fashion."
I don’t have a hard time believing that we’re already spending that much on healthcare, but the fact that the bill includes $1 million to set up a commission to decide how to pay for the new system does not make me feel warm and fuzzy inside.
The one thing that everyone (except Republicans) seems to agree on: even if we don’t pass this legislation, it’s at least good that we’re having a debate and getting the information about healthcare (and its ginormous issues) out there.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
And The Gloves Can Come Off!
The California Governor’s race has gotten a shake up in the last few weeks as Tom Campbell dropped out, to make a run instead for Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat.
Folks, things are about to get ugly! (Isn’t it exciting?!)
As noted in a San Jose Mercury News article this week, “Before, Whitman and Poizner would have had to keep a lid on nastiness for fear the famously genteel Campbell would ‘slip through the middle’ as the public became repulsed by multimillion-dollar mudslinging.” (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14251951?source=most_viewed&nclick_check=1)
Now why does that scenario sound familiar? Not that long ago, in the 1998 race for the Governor’s seat, when we elected none other than recently ousted Former Governor Gray Davis. The poor man in the race, Davis eked by while airline mogul Al Checchi and Rep. Jane Harman from Southern California spent massive amounts of their personal wealth attacking each other.
Afraid of a historical repeat, Whitman and Poizner have, thus far, run a cordial race. However, with Campbell out of the running, the mitts can come off.
Whitman, worth an estimated $1.3 billion, has already donated $29 million to her own war chest while Poizner, who is refraining from disclosing his personal net worth, has only given himself $15 million. Not surprisingly, since he (or she) with the most money wins, Whitman is currently leading the Republican primary race 45 percent to Poizner’s 17 percent. I know, I can do math, 38 percent of voters are still undecided.
To see whether or not the candidate’s have any actual differences in their platforms, check out this cute little chart: http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=2832973
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Citizens United v. FEC - an update
If you’ll recall (way back when, i.e. September) we talked about an interesting Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Well, the highest court in the land finally came to a decision, and not one that I am particularly fond of. I know, I’m not usually that blunt in my blog, but I have to admit, my hackles are up.
As a blogger, I like to think that I help to inform the electorate! Now, I have no illusions that my effect on the electorate is… well… itty bitty… and that’s if it actually exists at all. But this is my soap box, and I like that I have one (when I’m old I hope to have a real soap box and be crazy enough to actually stand on it on a street corner and yell at people – and not just about politics, but about anything… “Hey you, stop picking your nose! That’s disgusting!”).
Today though, my effect on the electorate (who, in reality, are my family and friends – thanks for reading my blog by the way!) went directly to zero. And it definitely did not pass go or collect $200.
The Supreme Court’s decision today overturned a decades old rule limiting direct spending of corporations on elections. Heard of political action committees (PACs)? Well, after today, they basically no longer exist. Previously, PACs acted as a middleman between corporations and candidates. Corporations had to set up a PAC, register it, solicit donations, and file separately with the IRS. Now, that accounting firewall and limits to how much a corporation can raise are out the window. Now, a corporation can dip into its own cash, and give it to whomever it wants or independently advertise on behalf of (or against) a candidate.
To summarize, corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the electorate, and I have my blog. As proud as I am of my blog, somehow that just seems way unfair. And while I’m not saying that my first amendment rights don’t still exist, clearly I still have the right to say whatever I want, clearly I can’t say anything as loudly or as often as a multi-million dollar corporation. So, to that end, I feel that I have to say, shame on you Supreme Court! How dare you make me, as a United States citizen, feel like I have less of a voice today than I had yesterday.
As a blogger, I like to think that I help to inform the electorate! Now, I have no illusions that my effect on the electorate is… well… itty bitty… and that’s if it actually exists at all. But this is my soap box, and I like that I have one (when I’m old I hope to have a real soap box and be crazy enough to actually stand on it on a street corner and yell at people – and not just about politics, but about anything… “Hey you, stop picking your nose! That’s disgusting!”).
Today though, my effect on the electorate (who, in reality, are my family and friends – thanks for reading my blog by the way!) went directly to zero. And it definitely did not pass go or collect $200.
The Supreme Court’s decision today overturned a decades old rule limiting direct spending of corporations on elections. Heard of political action committees (PACs)? Well, after today, they basically no longer exist. Previously, PACs acted as a middleman between corporations and candidates. Corporations had to set up a PAC, register it, solicit donations, and file separately with the IRS. Now, that accounting firewall and limits to how much a corporation can raise are out the window. Now, a corporation can dip into its own cash, and give it to whomever it wants or independently advertise on behalf of (or against) a candidate.
To summarize, corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the electorate, and I have my blog. As proud as I am of my blog, somehow that just seems way unfair. And while I’m not saying that my first amendment rights don’t still exist, clearly I still have the right to say whatever I want, clearly I can’t say anything as loudly or as often as a multi-million dollar corporation. So, to that end, I feel that I have to say, shame on you Supreme Court! How dare you make me, as a United States citizen, feel like I have less of a voice today than I had yesterday.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Masses in Massachusetts
Last night in a special election to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts Senate seat, the voters elected Republican candidate Scott Brown. I know, I know, you’re like, who cares? They’re all the way across the country from me!
Oh, but you care. Believe me.
First the good news: Gone is the Democrats “supermajority”. Personally, I don’t think any party or any person should have a “supermajority”. Maybe that the balanced Libra in me, but I’m all about balance of power even within one of the branches of government.
Now the bad news: The Democrats actually needed that supermajority to bring the health care bill to a straight up and down vote on the Senate floor! I don’t care what party you’re from, you have to admit that it would be a shame for Congress to have spent so much time and effort on a health care reform bill only to have it filibustered (which I personally consider cheating) by the Republicans.
So what’s going to happen to health care now? Within hours of the election results, Democrats laid out a new approach that would still include major provisions such as 1. No longer allowing insurance companies to deny people coverage based on preexisting conditions, 2. Allowing young adults to stay on their parents insurance for a longer period, 3. Helping small businesses and low-income people pay premiums, and 4. Changing Medicare to encourage quality care rather than simply more care.
Clearly, as the president said in an interview with ABC, “We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don't then our budgets are going to blow up.” (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul;_ylt=AlJcU4LrjA7SQ1dkWs3gYLKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNuaWM5dWQ4BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTIwL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX292ZXJoYXVsBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMwRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDZnVsbG5ic3BzdG9y)
Just in Fiscal Year 2010, the Federal Government will spend more on Health Care than any other individual line item including education and defense. And, more importantly, health care costs are expected to increase by $0.1 Trillion every year for the next four years. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown?year=2010
Granted, I don’t have the answers, but I can see that there’s a problem and I really hope that the Senate can find it within themselves (I’m not sure if their hearts have turned to stone yet) to actually come to a compromise and pass some sort of health care plan that will contain costs. Good luck!
Oh, but you care. Believe me.
First the good news: Gone is the Democrats “supermajority”. Personally, I don’t think any party or any person should have a “supermajority”. Maybe that the balanced Libra in me, but I’m all about balance of power even within one of the branches of government.
Now the bad news: The Democrats actually needed that supermajority to bring the health care bill to a straight up and down vote on the Senate floor! I don’t care what party you’re from, you have to admit that it would be a shame for Congress to have spent so much time and effort on a health care reform bill only to have it filibustered (which I personally consider cheating) by the Republicans.
So what’s going to happen to health care now? Within hours of the election results, Democrats laid out a new approach that would still include major provisions such as 1. No longer allowing insurance companies to deny people coverage based on preexisting conditions, 2. Allowing young adults to stay on their parents insurance for a longer period, 3. Helping small businesses and low-income people pay premiums, and 4. Changing Medicare to encourage quality care rather than simply more care.
Clearly, as the president said in an interview with ABC, “We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don't then our budgets are going to blow up.” (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul;_ylt=AlJcU4LrjA7SQ1dkWs3gYLKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNuaWM5dWQ4BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTIwL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX292ZXJoYXVsBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMwRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDZnVsbG5ic3BzdG9y)
Just in Fiscal Year 2010, the Federal Government will spend more on Health Care than any other individual line item including education and defense. And, more importantly, health care costs are expected to increase by $0.1 Trillion every year for the next four years. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown?year=2010
Granted, I don’t have the answers, but I can see that there’s a problem and I really hope that the Senate can find it within themselves (I’m not sure if their hearts have turned to stone yet) to actually come to a compromise and pass some sort of health care plan that will contain costs. Good luck!
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Proposition 8 Goes to Court!
This week was an exciting week for gay and lesbian couples throughout California (although, let’s face it, it’s been an exciting last two years really). This week, a federal court judge in California started hearing arguments for and against upholding Proposition 8, passed by California voters in 2008.
The attorneys bringing suit, Ted Olson and David Boies, make a strange pair since after the 2000 election the two were on opposite sides of the aisle in Bush v. Gore, deciding who would run the United States for the next four years. But, as Olson (the conservative one of the group) reminds us, and as we all were reminded by Newsweek’s cover this week, (http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957) there is a very strong conservative case for gay marriage. I highly recommend reading the whole article, but if you don’t have time here’s the gist:
1. Marriage is a fundamental right of all Americans
2. Depriving gay and lesbian couples the right to marry causes serious emotional and mental harm
3. There’s no societal benefit to depriving gay and lesbian couples the right to marry
Sounds pretty solid to me. In fact, the way I understand conservative values, big government is a big, fat no-no. Most conservatives I know don’t want the government involved in their personal lives, especially not in their bedrooms. So it makes sense that the case against Proposition 8 would ultimately be a conservative argument. Strange, considering the Republican party’s stance on gay marriage (for their official stance go to their website: http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm). I confess, I sincerely hope that the irony of “Ensuring Equal Treatment for All” listed only four bullet points above “Preserving Traditional Marriage” is not lost on anyone.
Unfortunately, the judge ruled against showing the trial on television so there are no YouTube clips available (otherwise you would be inundated with them right about now), but there is plenty of information out there if you’d like to find out more about the case. At last count there were over 5,000 articles for your perusal. Happy reading!
The attorneys bringing suit, Ted Olson and David Boies, make a strange pair since after the 2000 election the two were on opposite sides of the aisle in Bush v. Gore, deciding who would run the United States for the next four years. But, as Olson (the conservative one of the group) reminds us, and as we all were reminded by Newsweek’s cover this week, (http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957) there is a very strong conservative case for gay marriage. I highly recommend reading the whole article, but if you don’t have time here’s the gist:
1. Marriage is a fundamental right of all Americans
2. Depriving gay and lesbian couples the right to marry causes serious emotional and mental harm
3. There’s no societal benefit to depriving gay and lesbian couples the right to marry
Sounds pretty solid to me. In fact, the way I understand conservative values, big government is a big, fat no-no. Most conservatives I know don’t want the government involved in their personal lives, especially not in their bedrooms. So it makes sense that the case against Proposition 8 would ultimately be a conservative argument. Strange, considering the Republican party’s stance on gay marriage (for their official stance go to their website: http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm). I confess, I sincerely hope that the irony of “Ensuring Equal Treatment for All” listed only four bullet points above “Preserving Traditional Marriage” is not lost on anyone.
Unfortunately, the judge ruled against showing the trial on television so there are no YouTube clips available (otherwise you would be inundated with them right about now), but there is plenty of information out there if you’d like to find out more about the case. At last count there were over 5,000 articles for your perusal. Happy reading!
Sunday, January 10, 2010
A Sad State of the State
Last Friday in Gov Schwarzenegger’s annual State of the State address, he unveiled his budget plan for the upcoming fiscal year. If you’d like to watch it, check it out here: http://gov.ca.gov/ And let me tell you, you’re in for a laugh!
In a bold (and honestly not-too-bright) move on his part, Schwarzenegger has written additional federal funding (that we can’t and shouldn’t count on) into the 2010-11 budget. How much would the plug be for? Oh, only about $6.9 billion. In an interview this morning with David Gregory on Meet the Press, Gov Schwarzenegger stated that for every dollar that California sends to Washington DC, we only get about $0.78 back. This would be grim indeed, if it were an updated figure. However, since California is receiving so much more than other states under the Federal Stimulus packages, the current amount is closer to $1.45.
Don’t get me wrong, the state of California certainly has some unfair disadvantages compared to the rest of the country. For example, immigration. We only received about $96 million from the Federal government to incarcerate illegal immigrants convicted of felonies (these prisoners account for approximately 10% of inmates and cost around $973 million every year).
But, I think our current Governator might be going about this the wrong way. In his interview with Gregory, Schwarzenegger said, “We also will inspire and push extra hard the California congressional delegation, the bipartisan delegation, because they’re not …. representing us really well in this case.” If he thought that writing extra Federal funds into the budget was going to be “inspiring”, well… here are some of the actual comments that his statement inspired:
“[Schwarzenegger] sounds like he’s trying to avoid responsibility. He’s the governor. We’re not. There has been a financial storm brewing in California for years. They haven’t dealt with it." - Rep. Zoe Lofgren of San Jose, head of the California Democratic delegation in Congress.
“What I don’t think is helpful is it’s the federal government against the state government. We’re representing the same people here.” - Sen. Barbara Boxer.
“The federal government is not responsible for the state of California's budget, and we look forward to hearing a sustainable plan for the state to get its house in order.” - Drew Hammill, spokesman for Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, Speaker of the House.
Hmm, good luck with getting the dough from those guys Schwarzenegger.
At the end of the day though, all the finger pointing is pretty useless (although it is what makes for entertaining politics!) since the chances that the California legislature will actually pass this particular budget are slim to zero. So never fear everyone, there is plenty more budget madness to go around!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/09/AR2010010902207.html?wprss=rss_politics
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=54968
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/governor-says-california-doesnt-get-its-fair-share-of-federal-money.html
In a bold (and honestly not-too-bright) move on his part, Schwarzenegger has written additional federal funding (that we can’t and shouldn’t count on) into the 2010-11 budget. How much would the plug be for? Oh, only about $6.9 billion. In an interview this morning with David Gregory on Meet the Press, Gov Schwarzenegger stated that for every dollar that California sends to Washington DC, we only get about $0.78 back. This would be grim indeed, if it were an updated figure. However, since California is receiving so much more than other states under the Federal Stimulus packages, the current amount is closer to $1.45.
Don’t get me wrong, the state of California certainly has some unfair disadvantages compared to the rest of the country. For example, immigration. We only received about $96 million from the Federal government to incarcerate illegal immigrants convicted of felonies (these prisoners account for approximately 10% of inmates and cost around $973 million every year).
But, I think our current Governator might be going about this the wrong way. In his interview with Gregory, Schwarzenegger said, “We also will inspire and push extra hard the California congressional delegation, the bipartisan delegation, because they’re not …. representing us really well in this case.” If he thought that writing extra Federal funds into the budget was going to be “inspiring”, well… here are some of the actual comments that his statement inspired:
“[Schwarzenegger] sounds like he’s trying to avoid responsibility. He’s the governor. We’re not. There has been a financial storm brewing in California for years. They haven’t dealt with it." - Rep. Zoe Lofgren of San Jose, head of the California Democratic delegation in Congress.
“What I don’t think is helpful is it’s the federal government against the state government. We’re representing the same people here.” - Sen. Barbara Boxer.
“The federal government is not responsible for the state of California's budget, and we look forward to hearing a sustainable plan for the state to get its house in order.” - Drew Hammill, spokesman for Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, Speaker of the House.
Hmm, good luck with getting the dough from those guys Schwarzenegger.
At the end of the day though, all the finger pointing is pretty useless (although it is what makes for entertaining politics!) since the chances that the California legislature will actually pass this particular budget are slim to zero. So never fear everyone, there is plenty more budget madness to go around!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/09/AR2010010902207.html?wprss=rss_politics
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=54968
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/governor-says-california-doesnt-get-its-fair-share-of-federal-money.html
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Midterm Elections Wreaking Havoc Already
2010 is officially in full swing and already full of midterm election drama! With two democratic Senators announcing today that they would not be seeking reelection in the fall, the pundits are out in full force attempting to predict which party will lose seats and which party will gain.
Please don’t be confused by all the hypotheses, let me tell you right now: the Democrats will lose more seats than the Republicans. Why am I so confident?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738236/posts
Historically speaking, every single President since Lincoln (with four notable exceptions – the Roosevelts, Clinton, and Bush 43 after 9/11) has lost seats in the midterm election. Don’t think that the Democrats losing seats is some sort of mandate for someone or that it should give Congress a bigger message. It’s simply probability.
What will be interesting to see is exactly how many seats the Democrats lose. Voters hate overspending, so the question is: How much spending in the last two years will voters think really mattered? (Oh, and hopefully they can get their timing straight too with the bailouts that passed in the 11th hour of 2008 BEFORE this Congress took over.)
The chances that the Democrats will lose control of either Congressional house is slim. Republicans would have to pick up 40 seats in the House and 11 seats in the Senate to reclaim control. I know that doesn’t sound like a lot, but current projections (from those pesky pundits I just warned you about) show that in a regular midterm election Democrats would lose between 10-15 seats total because of the way voter turnout falls in midterm elections. Of course, throw in the “great recession” and the numbers jump to between 20-30 seats total. Now I’m no math whiz (ok, that’s a lie, I actually kind of <3 math), but I’m pretty sure that’s not enough to regain control over both branches of Congress! Oh, and in case you were wondering, the historical average loss of seats for the President’s party is 3 Senate seats and 34 seats in the House.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31209.html
So who were these two Senators announcing their lack of reelection plans? Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), and Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND). Way to cause some serious commotion guys. No candidates have officially come forward yet in either state to run for the newly vacant seat, but no to worry, I’ll keep you posted!
Please don’t be confused by all the hypotheses, let me tell you right now: the Democrats will lose more seats than the Republicans. Why am I so confident?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738236/posts
Historically speaking, every single President since Lincoln (with four notable exceptions – the Roosevelts, Clinton, and Bush 43 after 9/11) has lost seats in the midterm election. Don’t think that the Democrats losing seats is some sort of mandate for someone or that it should give Congress a bigger message. It’s simply probability.
What will be interesting to see is exactly how many seats the Democrats lose. Voters hate overspending, so the question is: How much spending in the last two years will voters think really mattered? (Oh, and hopefully they can get their timing straight too with the bailouts that passed in the 11th hour of 2008 BEFORE this Congress took over.)
The chances that the Democrats will lose control of either Congressional house is slim. Republicans would have to pick up 40 seats in the House and 11 seats in the Senate to reclaim control. I know that doesn’t sound like a lot, but current projections (from those pesky pundits I just warned you about) show that in a regular midterm election Democrats would lose between 10-15 seats total because of the way voter turnout falls in midterm elections. Of course, throw in the “great recession” and the numbers jump to between 20-30 seats total. Now I’m no math whiz (ok, that’s a lie, I actually kind of <3 math), but I’m pretty sure that’s not enough to regain control over both branches of Congress! Oh, and in case you were wondering, the historical average loss of seats for the President’s party is 3 Senate seats and 34 seats in the House.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31209.html
So who were these two Senators announcing their lack of reelection plans? Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), and Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND). Way to cause some serious commotion guys. No candidates have officially come forward yet in either state to run for the newly vacant seat, but no to worry, I’ll keep you posted!
Sunday, January 3, 2010
A New Year and New Laws
Happy 2010 everyone! To usher in the New Year and celebrate the 696 bills signed into California law last year (fewer than any year in recent history, but still an outrageous amount) here are some of the laws that went into effect on January 1, 2010 (in alphabetical order).
Air safety: Allows airports to kill birds that pose a danger to aircraft without violating state fish and game laws.
Blueberries: Creates a California Blueberry Commission, to be funded by an industry fee of up to $0.025 per pound of berries sold.
Burial fees: Allows state-owned cemeteries to waive the fees for interment of the spouses and children of honorably discharged veterans if they determine the families cannot pay the costs.
Charter schools: Allows such schools access to about $900 million in voter-approved bond money for construction. A separate law gives districts more incentive to approve them by cutting red tape.
College violence: Allows universities to obtain restraining orders on behalf of students against a person who has threatened them with violence.
Cow tails: Bans the dairy-industry practice of shortening cows' tails unless necessary to protect the health of the animals. Some argue that tail-docking is inhumane.
Delta restoration: Creates a new Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy to oversee restoration of the failing delta ecosystem. Sets goals of "providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the delta ecosystem." Part of the larger water package.
Dog fights: Raises the maximum penalties against those convicted of being spectators at dogfights, subjecting them to as much as a year in jail and a $5,000 fine.
Drunk driving: Creates a test program in four counties, including Los Angeles County, in which judges can require that first-time drunk-driving offenders install a breath-testing device on every vehicle they own and pass a test on it before the vehicle will start.
Education: Allows school and student performance data to be used to judge the quality of instruction. The change will allow California to compete for federal Race to the Top education grants.
Fat in food: Requires restaurants to use oils, margarine and shortening with less than half a gram of trans fat per serving of regular foods. The standard will apply to deep-fried bakery goods next year. Trans fat has been linked to heart disease.
Football stadium: Exempts a professional football stadium proposed in the City of Industry from state environmental laws, so it can proceed despite a lawsuit filed by opponents.
Fire prevention: Requires government officials to improve guidelines for protecting property from wildfires, including larger brush-clearance zones and better access roads in regions vulnerable to such fires.
Fire safety: In response to evacuation problems during a 2008 wildfire that destroyed dozens of mobile homes in the San Fernando Valley, a new law requires owners of mobile home parks to adopt and post notice of an emergency preparedness plan.
Gangs: Allows tougher penalties, including a fine of up to $1,000 and up to a year in jail, for gang members who return to school campuses within 72 hours of being asked to leave.
Gasoline: Increases the underground storage fee paid by gas retailers to help fund grants and loans to those who need to meet tank cleanup rules and install devices that capture more vapor from gas nozzles.
Gay marriage: Recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states before California voters banned gay marriage in 2008 by approving Proposition 8.
Hanging nooses: Makes it a misdemeanor to hang a noose, "knowing it to be a symbol representing a threat to life," in order to terrorize a person who lives, works or attends school at the property where the noose is hung. The law is in response to a series of incidents at California colleges.
Harvey Milk: Proclaims gay-rights activist Harvey Milk's May 22 birthday as a day of recognition and encourages schools to consider commemorating his life.
High-speed rail: Requires the state's High-Speed Rail Authority to prepare, publish and adopt a business plan by Jan. 1, 2012, and every two years thereafter, so the public knows how its money is being spent.
Hospital fee: Imposes a new fee on hospitals to make them eligible for $2 billion in federal funds. The funds are subsidies for Medi-Cal, the state's health insurance program for the poor.
Human trafficking: Quadruples the fine, to $20,000, for those convicted of human-trafficking crimes and allows law enforcement officers to seize traffickers' assets.
Inhalants: Makes it a misdemeanor for a person to sell or furnish products containing nitrous oxide to a minor.
Jail guards: Allows jail guards and custodial assistants to have the blood of people taken into custody tested for specified communicable diseases when exposed to the suspect's bodily fluids.
Liquor ads: Waives rules prohibiting indoor alcohol advertisements in one club that sells the featured products: Club Nokia, a downtown Los Angeles venue owned by billionaire Philip Anschutz.
Mammogram safety: Requires facilities that operate mammogram machines to post any notices of "serious violations" they may receive in an area visible to patients. Serious violations are those posing a significant threat to public health.
Mortgage crimes: Creates a new offense, "mortgage fraud," punishable by up to a year in prison. Such crimes are defined as those in which someone makes "any misstatement, misrepresentation or omission during the mortgage lending process with the intention that it be relied on by a mortgage lender, borrower, or any other party to the mortgage lending process."
Office bets: Changes the penalty for participation in a non-commercial or office "sports betting pool" from a misdemeanor, punishable by fines up to $1,000, to an infraction, punishable by a fine not to exceed $250.
Paparazzi penalties: Allows celebrities and others to sue for up to $50,000 when someone takes and sells their pictures without permission while they are engaging in "personal or familial activity," such as taking their children to school.
Plastic surgery: Enacts the Donda West law, named after the deceased mother of rapper Kanye West, that prohibits elective cosmetic surgery unless the patient is first cleared by a physical examination.
Political spouses: Prohibits political candidates from paying their spouses or domestic partners to work on their campaigns to enrich their own households.
Prostitution arrests: Allows local government agencies to impound vehicles used in the commission of prostitution-related crimes.
Rental cars: Allows car-rental companies to recover from customers an increase made last year in the vehicle license fee from 0.65% to 1.15%.
School books: Expands the use of digital textbooks in public schools by allowing districts to use textbook money to buy electronic viewing devices.
School buses: Extends to school buses the $300 penalty already applicable to commercial vehicles that idle too long. Existing clean-air regulations prohibit school buses from idling for more than five minutes within 100 feet of a school, but the fine has been $100.
School safety: Makes it a misdemeanor to possess a razor blade or box cutter on school grounds.
Talent agents: Prohibits talent representatives from charging advance fees.
Teen voting: Permits a California resident who is 17 to pre-register to vote.
Snake food: Requires pet stores to use specific, "humane" methods for killing rodents before they are used as food for another animal.
Toll roads: Allows toll road operators to use license-plate-reading technology to bill motorists who use their roads.
Used car sales: Bars car dealers from selling a used vehicle until action is taken to cover any previous loan or lease obligations held by a previous owner. Also boosts by $25 fees for dealers' state business licenses.
Vietnam veterans: Establishes an annual Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day on March 30.
Water management: To better manage California's water supplies, creates a statewide monitoring program to track groundwater levels.
Water softeners: Allows local governments to ban residential water softeners if regulators find that salts discharged into municipal sewer lines pose a pollution problem.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-new-laws1-2010jan01,0,3437892,full.story
To sum it up, 1/1/10 was a good day to be a dog and a cow, but a bad day to be a bird near an airport. Even though gay marriage remains illegal under the California constitution, those previously married in same-sex ceremonies will continue to be recognized as legally married under the law and May 22nd is now considered a holiday in recognition of Harvey Milk. It was a good day to be Jennifer Aniston and Kayne West, but a bad day to be a talent agent. For the rest of us, don’t text while you’re driving and don’t be surprised if fast food doesn’t taste quite the same. Happy New Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
