Month: June 2003

It’s reasonably certain that we’re going to have a recall election on Gov. Gray Davis, and one of the two serious questions about it is whether it comes in November as a special election or in March as part of the presidential primary. Issa wants it this year, so he can run without stepping down from his Congressional seat, and Ted Costa wants it in March so as not to burden the taxpayers with additional costs, but mainly to screw Issa, who’s not conservative enough for him. Costa’s rumored to be sitting on 100,000 sigantures already, and we’ll have to wait and see how that plays out.

The other question concerns who’s going to take Davis’ place, especially interesting because the plurality format of the election of a governor to follow the recall means anything can happen. You don’t need a majority to win the election to fill the recalled governor’s seat, and there are no run-offs, it’s simply who gets the greatest number of votes.

This is prompting a lot of jockeying for position among various hopefuls:

While Issa clearly wants to run if the recall makes the ballot (voters would decide on a successor at the same election in which they decide Davis’ fate), he probably would not be alone. Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, state Sen. Tom McClintock and Bill Simon, whom Davis defeated last year, are among Republicans weighing a run. Private polls give an early edge to Simon, due to his high name identity.

Several Democrats who had hoped to run for governor in 2006, meanwhile, must decide whether to figuratively thumb their noses at Davis and run if the recall qualifies. Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Treasurer Phil Angelides, Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi and Controller Steve Westly are being forced to think about it as the recall drive picks up steam. Some Democrats believe that U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein would be the perfect alternative. There also are suspicions among Davis aides that Senate President Pro Tem John Burton harbors ambitions himself and may be aiding the recall by bucking Davis on several key budget issues.

The party that can exert the greater discipline by running the least candidates has a natural advantage, and that’s usually the Republicans. But this is California, where self-immolation is the Republican Party’s stock-in-trade, so anything can happen, even the election of crazy John Burton as governor.

Press conferences would certainly be livelier if Burton’s elected; he generally cusses a blue streak when he’s the least agitated, which is most of the time. He’d also pardon and parole dozens of prisoners who Davis wouldn’t even think about, and do whatever the Gov. can do to commute death sentences. His judicial nominees would be truly scary, and so would his budget priorities. He’d try and jigger the tax code so only Republicans paid taxes, and he’d wreck Silicon Valley.

While I like John personally, if he becomes governor, I’d have to leave the state.

On Inside Washington, Charles Krauthammer said: “In just two months we’ve seen the fall of Saddam Hussein and Howell Raines. It’s been a good spring.”

Things aren’t going so well in the Department of Child Support Services, according to this article in the LA Times:

Before 2000, the district attorney in each of the state’s 58 counties was responsible for helping parents collect delinquent child support. But the individual counties lacked uniform regulations and had such poor records of collecting child support that the state stripped prosecutors of the responsibility.

In its place, the state created a department that supervises child-support services in each county under a new set of guidelines.Since the system was overhauled, state officials have reported steady improvements in collection rates. The new state program is expected to collect a record $2.3 billion statewide this year, a nearly 7% increase over last year. With improved state funding, several county child-support departments began adding staff.

County officials now fear that the progress made over the last three years may suffer a serious setback. For counties such as Los Angeles, San Bernardino and San Diego, cuts will mean fewer resources to collect child support.

Most of what this agency actually does is collect money funds from dads that’s retained in the state and federal treasury to defray costs of welfare payments to moms, but the advocates never spin it that way, preferring the “for the children” dance for its obvious resonance.

Ironically, the spin is now biting them in the ass. The state isn’t cutting revenue collection programs, just service programs. For example, when it was learned that the 93 sales tax auditors on the layoff list brought in $24M more than their salaries, the state decided to keep them on board. The state actually makes a profit of several million dollars a year from collecting child support for welfare reimbursement, and cutting these collectors will cost the taxpayers money. But to admit that child support is a revenue program for the state is to admit that it’s not all that it’s been cracked-up to be in the media.

In a round-about way, lax efforts to collect court-ordered support also hurt the dads, because their unpaid support accrues 10% interest and isn’t dischargable in bankruptcy. It’s best to pay as you go, if you possibly can, dads.

It appears that the Department is putting the word out to friendly columnists about the revenue nature in order to avoid cuts, which is why we had Joan Ryan quoting Department staffer Leora Gershenzon a few days ago.