CVIndependent

Sat08082020

Last updateMon, 20 Apr 2020 1pm

Anthony Rendon arrived feeling a little punchy. At 51, the speaker of the California Assembly is adjusting to life as a new dad—and his 3-month-old baby hadn’t slept well the night before.

“She was up at 1:30, 3, 4:30. And then once she woke up at 4:30, she didn’t fall asleep until 6,” Rendon said. “So that’s my life.”

The Los Angeles politician—sporting a black hoodie and Converse high tops as he sat for an interview in his district office—assumed one of California’s most-powerful roles in the spring of 2016. As the Assembly’s Democratic leader, he’s negotiated $200 billion state budgets with two Senate leaders and two governors. He’s overseen a political operation that resulted in Democrats winning a historically huge majority of more than 75 percent.

And yet around the Capitol, he’s probably best known for his low profile, rarely calling press conferences and opting not to author any bills so his members can share the spotlight. His style—at turns cerebral and self-deprecating—is unusual in a statehouse that attracts its share of showboats.

So it was with a certain understatement, as well as exhaustion, that Rendon, clutching a cup of coffee, shared his expectations for 2020—in the Capitol, at the ballot and for his family. Here are condensed highlights from our December interview.

So who gives a better baby present, Gavin Newsom or Jerry Brown?

I like Jerry Brown very much. And I’m not asking that he send a present, but he didn’t. Gavin Newsom and his wife sent a very nice gift. … It was a onesie. … It says “One California” or something. Get it? It’s a play on words. It’s a onesie. It’s very cute. And I meant to take a picture of her in it and send it to him, but I haven’t done that. I’m glad you reminded me.

You’re the first speaker in a while to have a young family. Recent legislative leaders either didn’t have children or had much older children. Do you think having a baby is going to impact your ability to do such a demanding job?

It impacts all aspects of my life. I think I’ll have to make adjustments, for sure. … Being speaker is a demanding job. And I’m sure being a parent is a demanding job as well. So something will have to give.

March of 2020 will mark four years that you’ve been assembly speaker. And if you remain speaker until the end of the legislative session—

That’s ominous.

… You’ll become the longest-serving speaker since Willie Brown. So, any fears of restless colleagues who might mount a challenge?

It’s not something that’s on my mind right now. I haven’t heard any rumblings. 

Your caucus grew a lot in 2018 because of the seats you successfully flipped. Then it got even bigger when GOP Assemblyman Brian Maienschein switched parties. What was that like to have a Republican in your caucus? Is it as easy as just switching jerseys and joining your team, or is there any awkwardness in having a former opponent as a colleague?

It probably sounds ludicrous … but I was amazed how seamless it was. When Brian announced that he was switching, I had a meeting with the caucus and said, “Hey, this is what he wants to do, and how do you guys feel about it?” And I almost felt like I was overpreparing them, because they were all like, “Cool.” (Even as a Republican) Brian voted with us so often.

More recently, local Assemblyman Chad Mayes left the Republican Party as well. He’s now registered with no party preference. But if he wanted to caucus with the Democrats, would you allow it?

I don’t know. I’d probably have to ask the caucus how they felt about it. He doesn’t seem to want to. I saw him (a few days ago). He feels pretty liberated to not be a member of a party. … I don’t think he wants to become a Democrat, and I don’t think he wants to caucus with us. I don’t think he wants to caucus with Republicans (either).

How are you feeling about your Assembly races in 2020? Do you think you can hold your 61-seat mega-majority?

I have mixed feelings about it. The weather forecast is complicated. On the one hand, there’s a lot of very anti-Republican sentiment. … With Donald Trump on the ballot, you have to think that we’re going to do very well. That being said, we also know that there is very much an anti-incumbent tendency out there, and we just have more incumbents than they do. People are very angry around the issue of housing affordability and homelessness. We see that polling everywhere, in every district throughout the state. So I don’t think we can say, “Democrat X is running against Donald Trump” or “running against a Republican.” We have to tell a story about what we’ve done. … Just railing against Donald Trump, I don’t think that’s fair to Californians to do that.

Why?

I’m really impressed with the work that we’ve done … and also because … we have candidates who have incredible qualifications and have had incredible life experiences. You take someone like Thu-Ha Nguyen (challenging GOP Assemblyman Tyler Diep) in Orange County, who’s a cancer researcher, and a mom, and a council member. And I think to reduce all of that to just, “She’s battling Donald Trump,” I think is overly simplistic. And it’s also very—it’s a short horizon. I mean, Donald Trump will be gone someday, and the party needs to stand for something. And we will.

So how do you feel about Gavin Newsom’s approach? He’s been very much framing himself as the leader of the resistance and fighting Trump all the time. How do you feel about that?

That works for him. A lot of what he does is about the resources from the federal government, and that’s a different dynamic. It’s not what I do. It’s not what I’m interested in. But I get why he does it. … Whether it’s high speed rail funds or water—that’s very real for (him).

How do you feel about the landscape for the Democratic presidential nomination?

I haven’t been following it all that closely. … I want to be supportive of a Democrat who could beat Donald Trump.

You were a Kamala Harris supporter early on. So with her out of the race, have you picked a candidate you’re going to endorse?

No … I don’t know if I will. I might. I’ve had Mr. Steyer call me, and the South Bend mayor called me. (Rendon turned to his staff member and asked to be reminded of his name.)

A lot of the policies the Democratic candidates are proposing are things that California is already doing to some degree—like $15 minimum wage, marijuana legalization, carbon pricing and paid family leave. Do you think that the nation wants to be more like California?

The California label is probably not a good thing in a lot of parts of the country for whatever reason. But I think in terms of policy, the state certainly has a story to tell. So I’m not surprised that some of our ideas are being put up there as models to follow. … We’re proud of our economy, and we’re proud of the $15 minimum wage, and all the stuff we’ve done on the environment. And at the same time, how many tens of thousands of people go to sleep every night in this state without a home? And we have long-lasting water problems, quality and supply. We have too many people in prison. So I think it’s important for us as Democrats to be honest. And it is very difficult to do that in election years.

On criminal-justice issues, California has been on a long course of reversing tough-on-crime policies of the past. Do you think the state has gone too far in any way? Or if you think we haven’t gone far enough, what’s left to do?

In our House, we passed the (parolee right to) vote bill. (ACA 6 would allow parolees to vote after they complete their prison sentences, if voters approve.) I’d like to see that get on the ballot and have Californians take a look at that. What we ask for in our society is for people who’ve done bad things to do their time and then become engaged citizens. And as long as you’re not allowing that, then you’re not living up to your principles.

A few months ago, my colleague Dan Morain wrote about the murder your brother-in-law John Lam was an accomplice to 16 years ago. Jerry Brown reduced his sentence, and Gavin Newsom made a final call allowing his release. Have you had any insights on criminal justice issues from this experience in your family?

I have. He was released on Oct. 10th. He’s in transitional housing. And you know, my wife and I are very fortunate. We have resources at our disposal. I’ve been on paternity leave. My wife is self-employed, so we have a lot of time that we can spend with him, and we take him out a lot. … When I pick him up, I sometimes look at the other guys at the home and wonder to what extent they don’t have those things, and what that means for them moving forward. So in the past few months, I’ve thought a lot about the things that we do or don’t do after (someone is released from prison) and the hurdles that people have. That is something that I’ve taken away from the experience.

Looking ahead, what are your priorities for 2020?

No surprise to you or anybody, wildfires and housing affordability/homelessness issues are on everyone’s mind—this sort of unresolved, you know, enigma, that is PG&E and where that goes moving forward.

So on wildfire, what can you do?

It’s a very good question. People (in Northern California) are constantly talking about insurance issues. 

What about on homelessness?

A lot of what we want to do is relating to oversight of the money and the opportunities that we’ve given to local governments. … It’s incumbent upon cities to do something, and it’s incumbent upon us to provide oversight.

Do you anticipate the Legislature responding to pressure from initiatives that are in the process of qualifying for the ballot? Like the challenge from Uber and Lyft on AB 5, the new California law that treats more contract workers as employees—would you pass a law to keep that off the ballot?

I don’t believe we would. I felt as though we were doing a tremendous favor to a lot of people by even addressing that. We could have easily just let it go and let the court ruling stand. I have no interest in getting involved in that. I think we’ve been quite good to those people.

A few years ago, there was a push to do a constitutional amendment asking voters to repeal the Proposition 209 ban (from 1996) on affirmative action. Given the 2020 electorate, do you want that to be something the Legislature does, give that to the voters this year?

I’m glad you brought that up. … I would like to see 209 repealed. That being said, if we are going to get something on the ballot, and get it passed in November, from a political standpoint, it almost seems too late. You have to raise a lot of money. You have to have your ducks lined up. And I haven’t seen that from any of the activist groups that have been talking about that. It’s disappointing that people sometimes seem to want to jam things on the ballot. Good intentions, but (they) don’t go through the very simple political steps of raising money and having a proper coalition to get something passed by voters.

What about a repeal of the death penalty? Would you want to see the Legislature put that on the ballot for the people?

I’ve been opposed to the death penalty for a long time. … But as long as it’s not being carried out (because Newsom halted executions by executive order), there doesn’t seem to be a rush.

Anything you hope will go differently this year in working with Gov. Newsom?

There were some bumps in the road with Gavin early on. At the time, it was hard to contextualize. It was just irritating. But when you think about it, yeah, it makes sense: It’s a whole new team, whole new relationships. So I think things will get better. And I don’t know that we necessarily need to tweak any individual thing. I think it’s just learning people’s tendencies and learning how people like to communicate

One last question: How do you feel about having another Anthony Rendon in L.A.? (A Major League Baseball player by the same name recently left the Washington Nationals for the Los Angeles Angels.)

It’s a lot. After my wife and I had a baby, our first date with a baby sitter was the night he hit a big homerun in Game 6 of the World Series. And I got 69 texts … That includes people who sent texts saying, “Oh, aren’t you glad I’m not sending you another Anthony Rendon text?” That’s included in that total. Just for the record.

What were most of the texts saying?

“Oh, you hit a home run tonight! Ha ha ha.” Oh, so clever. I’ve never heard that one before. I’ve literally been following this guy since he was Freshman of the Year at Rice University. I know he exists. I don’t need another freakin’ person to tell me that he exists.

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Published in Politics

When Antoinette Martinez rolls her cart through the produce section of the FoodMaxx in Watsonville, her 5-year-old son, Caden, often asks for strawberries and blueberries.

Sometimes Martinez bends, but usually she sticks to the produce on sale: Roma tomatoes for 69 cents a pound, or cucumbers at three for 99 cents. Banana bunches are relatively cheap.

“If it’s not under a dollar, then I don’t buy it,” Martinez said, bypassing $2 lettuce as Caden clambered into her grocery cart. “It’s about stretching the dollar.”

The food budget isn’t as tight as it used to be since Martinez, a single mother, got a job at the Second Harvest Food Bank in Santa Cruz County. She helps people sign up for food stamps, known in California as CalFresh.

Between her $2,380 monthly paycheck and about $100 she receives in CalFresh, Martinez can make it through the month without her or Caden ever going hungry. But under a new proposal from the Trump Administration, Martinez and her son would lose their food stamps. So would many clients she helps at the food bank, along with an estimated 3.1 million other Americans.

Californians are likely to be hit particularly hard. The proposed rule, announced last week, would undo the ability of states to provide food stamps to households that have incomes above the federal food stamp limit—130 percent of the federal poverty line—but hefty expenses.

That would have the biggest impact in states like California that have raised the minimum wage to try to chase the skyrocketing costs of housing. As California’s minimum wage creeps towards $15 per hour by 2023, many more workers could be bumped off food stamps when their monthly incomes rise above the federal limit.

Under current law, a California family of two with a gross monthly income between 130 and 200 percent of the federal poverty level—or between $1,784 and $2,744—can qualify to receive CalFresh as long as their net income after housing, childcare or medical costs falls under 100 percent of the poverty level, or $1,372.

For now, Martinez falls right into that bracket.

The rule would also cut the benefit for families who have savings or assets above a federal limit that many states, including California, currently waive. That limit—$2,250 for most families—is only slightly more than the median monthly rent for a two-bedroom apartment in California ($2,110), and about half that of a two-bedroom in San Francisco ($4,730).

“It’s clear that states like California are a target on this,” said Jessica Bartholow, a policy advocate for the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said that the proposal to eliminate what he called a “loophole” would reduce fraud and save the federal government money—more than $9 billion over the next five years, according to a federal estimate. The proposal could go into effect following a 60-day public comment period. 

“Our job is to make sure folks have the tools they need to move away from (food stamp) dependency … and preserve the benefits for those most in need,” Perdue said.

But advocates counter that the move would largely cut benefits for working families who spend large chunks of their paychecks on housing and care-taking costs for young children or ill or disabled family members.

“There’s actually no evidence that making someone hungrier makes them less dependent on public benefits. And there’s plenty of evidence showing the opposite,” said Bartholow.

The Western Center estimates that some 250,000 Californians could lose CalFresh, based on estimates made when California expanded eligibility in 2008 under Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and again in 2013 under Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown.

Additionally, children in those families could lose automatic eligibility for free lunches at school.

The proposal to cut food stamps is the latest in a series of Trump administration initiatives to curtail government benefits for low-income people, including a rule that would tighten food-stamp work requirements, another to block some legal immigrants from getting a green card if they are deemed likely to use public services, and another to adjust the way the federal poverty measure is calculated.

Those other proposed rules have cleared their comment periods, but the Trump administration has yet to impose them.

Opposition from California’s Democratic leaders to the latest proposal was swift and predictable.

“There is not a state in the country that is probably more aggressive in pushing back from a litigation perspective, so that will be analyzed by the lawyers,” Gov. Gavin Newsom told CalMatters. A spokesman for Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who has sued the Trump administration over 50 times thus far, said his office was reviewing the proposal.

U.S. Rep. Jimmy Panetta, who represents Martinez’s district, sent Secretary Perdue a letter, signed by 45 California Democrats in Congress, asking that he take into consideration the harmful effects of this proposed rule and act quickly to rescind it.”

Martinez knows the feeling of hunger well. For many years, she said, she was homeless, battling addiction and mental illness. “When I was homeless … there was no place to eat,” Martinez said. “I wasn’t really too sure where to go.”

She recalled what happened next: She got pregnant, enrolled in CalFresh and was finally able to count on a steady source of food. Then she entered an intensive program to help homeless people get back on their feet.

Martinez and her son have now been housed for two years. She said she’s close to finishing her associate degree in human services at Cabrillo College and dreams of being a case manager for a nonprofit, helping others battle addiction and poverty.

She worries about what the food-stamp proposal would mean for her and her growing son. But she said she’s also concerned about the rest of the community she serves in Santa Cruz.

Within the county, 21.7 percent of residents live in poverty, the third-highest rate in the state after Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties, according to new data from the Public Policy Institute of California.

“CalFresh is the first line of defense against hunger; the food bank is the second,” Martinez said. “We were barely surviving, but we’re not going to be able to survive if (President Trump) continues to push this.”

Jackie Botts is a journalist at CalMatters working for The California Divide, a collaboration among newsrooms examining income inequity and economic survival in California. CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Published in National/International

California’s resistance began before there was a resistance.

When Gov. Jerry Brown unveiled his final budget on Jan. 10, it bookended eight years of a progressive march to reduce greenhouse gases, expand health care, grant more rights to undocumented immigrants and raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Along the way, voters have assented by passing temporary taxes on the rich—not once, but twice. The top marginal income tax rate is now 13.3 percent, the highest state income tax rate in the country.

In short, policies that are now labeled acts of resistance to President Donald Trump were alive and ascendant in California long before Trump won the White House. But the contrasts have become much more stark.

Instead of cutting taxes, the Democratic governor and his party’s legislative leaders have passed a gas tax to help pay for aging infrastructure. Instead of trying to shift government out of the healthcare marketplace, California is looking for a way to fund single-payer health care, including coverage for undocumented immigrants. Instead of criminalizing pot, the state is looking forward to collecting taxes on marijuana sales.

In the months between now and the June deadline for a final budget, the governor and the Legislature will hammer out details. The focus this year: what to do with an expected surplus of $6.1 billion—and there are definitely differing opinions all around. Republicans say return it to California’s 40 million residents as a nice tax refund. The governor's priority is to fill up the state’s rainy-day fund. Democratic legislators mostly want to spend it.

“We have a very different approach,” said Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, who chairs the Assembly Budget Committee. “Our focus, the people who we think need tax relief, are the working Californians who are making less than $25,000. That’s where we want to spend our money, making sure they have money to pay rent, to pay for food.”

Rather than giving out “huge corporate tax breaks and a huge tax break for the wealthiest in this country,” Ting has a long list of how he would like to spend that extra money, including:

• Increasing the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit, which puts money into the hands of the working poor.

• Expanding Medi-Cal health care for poorer Californians to cover all remaining uninsured residents, mostly undocumented immigrants.

• Expanding early education for 4-year-olds through preschool and transitional kindergarten programs.

• Increasing college aid.

• Expanding mental and social services to reduce the number of criminals who go on to re-offend.

As supportive as Brown might be of these Democratic aspirations, his administration is urging legislative leaders to proceed with caution. The state’s tax structure is more vulnerable than ever to the stock market gains and losses of its wealthiest citizens, and the governor said California must prepare for the next economic downturn, because a mild recession could wipe away at least $20 billion a year in revenues.

He also warns of uncertainty from Washington, D.C.

“There are certain policies that are radical departures from the norm, and California will fight those, whether it’s immigration or offshore drilling,” Brown said. “We don’t know what will happen. I wouldn’t want to portray a California-Washington battle, although there are some key differences, and we’ll espouse our values.”

Since Brown was elected to begin his second stint as governor in November 2010, the state has climbed out of the recession and enjoyed economic prosperity. The unemployment rate, which topped 12 percent, now stands at 4.6 percent. Since his return, California has added 2.4 million jobs, and hourly wages are up $4.76 an hour. The state, which carried a $25 billion deficit in his first year back, has enjoyed billion-dollar surpluses in recent years, and the state now has a rainy-day fund.

The governor’s proposed $190 billion budget is dominated by spending on education (29 percent) and health care (32 percent). Health care spending has been growing particularly fast since the state embraced the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The act not only grew the marketplace for private health plans; it allowed states to expand their Medicaid health insurance programs for the poor.

Because California is among 30 states that expanded Medicaid, the federal government is paying at least 90 percent of the cost for newly eligible enrollees. That has allowed California to draw billions in extra funding from the federal government to bolster Medi-Cal, the state’s version of the national Medicaid program. As a result, the number of people without health coverage in the state has dropped to a historic low: from 17.6 percent in the 1980s to 7.6 percent in 2016. Today, one in three Californians is covered by Medi-Cal.

Public schools too have greatly benefited since the recession, with much of the extra spending on schools going to improve teachers’ salaries.

However, if the federal government doesn’t reauthorize the Children’s Health Insurance Program for 1.3 million children, that could add more than $850 million in costs to the state over two years.

Worse, if Republicans in Washington slash Medicaid funding in 2018, the state could lose between $25 billion and $50 billion, said Chris Hoene, executive director of the California Budget and Policy Center, a progressive think tank in Sacramento.

“The reality is California could not afford the scale of the cuts the GOP has been proposing,” Hoene said. “That’s going to put state leaders in a position of deciding who gets state services and how do they fund that.”

Other factors are straining the budget. For example, pension costs for public workers continue to be one of the fastest-growing liabilities—driven by lower investment-rate assumptions, higher health care costs and longer life spans.

Voters, too, could turn on Brown and lawmakers. Early polling suggests Republicans have a decent shot at repealing a gas tax hike that went into effect late last year. Brown said at a press conference Wednesday that he believes a repeal initiative could be defeated.

The Legislature’s nonpartisan budget analyst is also urging lawmakers not to commit to too many new spending programs.

“As it crafts the 2018-19 budget and future budgets, we encourage the Legislature to consider all of the uncertainty faced by the budget in future years and continue its recent practice of building its reserve levels,” the analyst wrote.

On the flipside, Republicans are calling for a tax refund, if not an outright repeal of state income taxes. They argue that California’s high taxes chase residents out of state.

“This surplus is a direct result of Capitol Democrats overtaxing hard-working Californians,” said Assemblyman Matthew Harper, R-Huntington Beach. “Rather than expanding an ever-growing list of government programs, our leaders should figure out a way to return that money to the people who earned it in the first place.”

Assemblyman Vince Fong, R-Bakersfield, said he plans to introduce tax cuts aimed at helping families and small businesses stay in California.

“As we see all too often now, we are losing families and small businesses to neighboring states that have tax burdens much lower than California’s high-priced tax code,” Fong said on Twitter. “We have an opportunity to change that.”

Brown dismissed the refund idea, saying it would only prompt service cuts to public schools and universities later. “If you want to budget responsibly, you need big surpluses in years that are good,” he said.

Still, there’s a growing sentiment that California may have to respond to recent changes in the federal tax plan, specifically a $10,000 cap on state and local deductions that will hit millions of households.

According to the state Finance Department, the average deduction for state and local income taxes alone is nearly $16,000 per return, while state and local property taxes average less than $6,000 per return. Because a portion of those taxes will no longer be deductible, it acts as double taxation for California taxpayers.

Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, who is running for U.S. Senate, introduced legislation Thursday to shield Californians from bearing the costs of the tax overhaul. The bill, dubbed Protect California Taxpayers Act, would allow taxpayers to make charitable deductions to the state and receive a dollar-for-dollar tax credit on the full amount of their contribution. By having residents donate to the state government as a charitable contribution, the contribution remains deductible on federal taxes.

“The Republican tax plan gives corporations and hedge-fund managers a trillion-dollar tax cut and expects California taxpayers to foot the bill,” de León said in announcing his legislation. “We won’t allow California residents to be the casualty of this disastrous tax scheme.”

Brown was particularly vocal against the GOP tax proposal, calling it a “tax monstrosity,” but the governor expressed reservations about whether the state could sidestep federal law.

“It looks interesting,” Brown said. “But two questions: Can it work? If it does work, can the Internal Revenue Service issue a regulation and completely subvert it?”

De León responded that he was confident it would work, because similar charitable deductions have already been given out for education-based contributions.

For now, state Democrats are in agreement about a common threat.

Whether it’s federal tax changes or entitlement cuts, the leader of the Assembly, Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, said he’s most concerned Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration will take another swipe at liberal California in 2018. “We’re worried about the next shoe to drop.”

CALmatters is a nonpartisan, nonprofit media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Published in Politics

In the waning hours of the legislative session, Democrats pushed through new labor requirements widely viewed as retaliation against Tesla, the electric car maker embroiled in a union-organizing campaign at its Fremont plant.

Labor unions got lawmakers to insert two sentences into a cap-and-trade funding bill requiring automakers to be certified “as fair and responsible in the treatment of their workers” before their customers can obtain up to $2,500 from California’s clean vehicle rebate program.

At the time, Democrats openly wrestled with the concern that the United Automobile Workers—which is trying to maintain its major role in the auto industry as the companies make big bets on electric vehicles—was expanding its unionization campaign from the factory floor to the Senate floor. Sen. Steve Glazer of Orinda said the state should not “hold our environmental projects hostage to a fight with one progressive employer,” while Sen. Connie Leyva of Chino countered that California shouldn’t want companies to succeed at the expense of workers.

With regulators starting to draft the new rules, a lingering question remains: How far will California—the first state in the nation to approve a $15 minimum wage and a state that has set an ambitious goal to put 1.5 million zero-emissions vehicles on the road by 2025—go in order to graft its blue values onto the green sector?

“In politics, your oldest friends are your best friends,” said Dan Schnur, former head of California’s campaign watchdog agency and now a professor at the University of Southern California. “The tech people may have come to Sacramento with a lot of money and with an agenda that dovetails with the governor and legislators’ policy priorities, but they’re still the new guys on the block. Labor’s been there for a long, long time.”

Now state regulators—at both the state Air Resources Board and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency—will hold public hearings and draft rules for certifying automakers who want their vehicles to qualify for California rebates. The Legislature will then need to approve those.

Among the points of contention:

• What is “fair and responsible” to auto workers?

• How will the state weigh wage and benefit standards, or training and safety requirements, against manufacturing costs?

• How will the state certify vehicles made outside of California, or even out of the country—in places such as in Mexico and China—where wages are lower and labor regulations are less stringent? Or will automakers self-police by adhering to a code of conduct?

Dean Florez, a former Democratic state lawmaker and a member of the air board, said California can have both labor protections and environmental leadership as the state charts new territory.

“We shouldn’t be using public money to fund or support companies that do not meet basic worker protections,” Florez said. “We shouldn’t undercut the labor protections that we have fought for, for so many years. And I think that there is a danger in doing so; I think we would lose the confidence of the public for environmental leadership in the end.”

California’s new requirement will apply to all automakers, but it couldn’t have come at a worse time for Tesla, a company that prides itself on innovation and disrupting the status quo. When plant workers went public with complaints about low pay, long hours and unsafe conditions, Tesla co-founder and CEO Elon Musk labeled labor’s tactics “disingenuous or outright false.”

While making $17 to $21 an hour is above minimum wage, Tesla employee Jose Moran noted that a living wage in the San Francisco Bay Area is a lot higher—around $28. Musk responded that Tesla’s compensation package is higher than those at General Motors, Ford and Fiat when including Tesla’s employee stock program.

The company wouldn’t comment now, beyond referring back to what its policy director Sanjay Ranchod told lawmakers at a September hearing: “The company is committed to protecting the health and safety of its workers, and we are committed to continue and to make progress towards our goal of becoming the safest auto factory in the world.”

The nation’s newest automaker is also on track to be the first to max out on a federal tax credit of up to $7,500 per vehicle. And with its Model 3 sedans pitched as its affordable electric car at $35,000, Tesla will need California’s rebate more than ever to compete against other electric cars such as the Nissan Leaf or Chevrolet Bolt.

Business boosters wonder why the state would single out clean-energy vehicles over gasoline cars for greater scrutiny when 40 percent of the state’s greenhouse gases come from tailpipe emissions. They worry Sacramento’s pro-labor stance will dissuade companies from locating or expanding in California. Already, Tesla located its first battery factory just outside the state line in Sparks, Nev.

Politicians say they want good-paying jobs, and to grow manufacturing and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, “and yet, we’re in the ironic place where Tesla is being attacked by some elected officials relative to whether or not their workers are unionized,” said Carl Guardino, head of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a trade association representing nearly 400 Silicon Valley employers, including Tesla.

California is home to about 10,000 auto industry workers, virtually all from Tesla. That’s compared to 38,000 in Michigan, 24,000 in Kentucky and 20,000 in Ohio, according to the U.S. Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Union representatives say the goal is not to slow the production of clean-energy vehicles. Rather, they maintain that if taxpayer money is being used to help sell cars, then it’s up to the state to make sure it results in good-paying jobs.

“This is all part of our work at the labor movement to make sure there’s accountability for public investments,” said Angie Wei, an influential lobbyist for the California Labor Federation, the umbrella group for unions including the UAW. “If we’re going to put taxpayer money into it, then we’d sure better be getting something out of it for jobs.”

The union also is trying to maintain its role as the auto industry makes big bets on electric vehicles. Just this year, Volvo and GM announced plans to phase out conventional engines. The union can also use a win in labor-friendly California after losing an organizing effort at a Nissan plant in Mississippi, a right-to-work state.

It’s worth noting the Nummi plant that Tesla took over in Fremont was represented by the union before the joint venture between GM and Toyota closed in 2010.

“It is about Tesla, and it isn’t about Tesla,” Wei said. “We had a gas-and-combustion industry that for decades created good middle-class jobs. They’re now being replaced by electric vehicles. This is our new economy, and with major public investment. The question is: Are we going to allow the auto industry to create and maintain middle class jobs? Or are they going to become the next Walmartization of the economy?”

Sacramento has placed itself at the forefront of cleaning up the environment. Gov. Jerry Brown and fellow Democratic lawmakers have pitched California as a model to the world for reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change, in direct response to the Trump administration’s anti-regulatory philosophy.

But California has also had a longstanding relationship with labor unions, boosting the minimum wage and offering access to paid sick and family leave. In recent years, the California Labor Federation has successfully pushed legislation to protect immigrant workers from threats of deportation and expanded authority for the state to go after employers who skirt overtime or minimum-wage laws.

Lobbying reports show Tesla spent $189,237 on lobbying in the three-month cycle during which the bill was debated, compared to $103,351 for the labor federation. But labor’s might comes also from being able to mobilize its members on issues and during elections.

Democratic lawmakers who struggled to prioritize the interests of two political allies will have more to soul-searching to do next year. Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco, who has a record of advancing the green economy and supporting prevailing wage to maintain union pay on public works projects, said he was unhappy that the so called “Tesla rule” had been inserted at the last minute. “This is significant and important enough that it should be vetted through a normal legislative process with public scrutiny. That, to me, is the best way to come to the right solution,” he said.

His fellow Democratic lawmaker and San Franciscan Phil Ting, who chairs the Assembly Budget Committee and authored the measure, insisted it strikes “a good middle ground.”

“We could have said, ‘You’re not going to get any money unless your workforce is unionized.’ That could have been something we inserted. We didn’t,” Ting said in an interview. “Having said that, we also could have done nothing. So if you look at the two extremes where we could done nothing or we could have dictated the type of workforce, I think this is the middle of those extremes.”

Ultimately, the decision to unionize remains up to workers. Michael Catura, 33, a battery-pack line worker who has been at Tesla for nearly four years, said he supports joining the union, because it would mean a higher wage and seniority for him. As the son of a postal worker, Catura said he has been disappointed that he has been passed over for promotions because supervisors can play favorites. He said he started at $17 an hour and now makes $21 an hour.

Catura has one message for Elon Musk: “I would tell him, ‘Hey man, scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours. Give us more than just a bone.”

CALmatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Published in Politics

The “protest pit” outside of the Republican Presidential Debate at Saint Anselm College in Goffstown, N.H., on Saturday evening was a fenced-in area in a field about a quarter mile down the road from the main entrance to the campus.

Bumper to bumper traffic ran in front of the pit—odd, given that NH State Police were letting few cars on the campus. Most were told to turn around. No one that Republican leadership didn’t want in was getting anywhere near the Carr Center, where the debate was taking place.

Powerful lights shone down on the scene from one side—lending it an eerie cast. Behind the fence facing the road were a couple hundred supporters for a few of the Republican candidates. But that was just the first layer: Behind them were about 500 activists with the Fight for 15 campaign—organized and bankrolled with $30 million as of last August by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Union leaders had bused in SEIU staff and members; student activists; and allies from other unions and immigrant organizations from around the region—at least 13 busloads from southern New England overall, according to the campaign’s registration form for the event. It was a respectable showing, if not the “massive crowd of underpaid workers” that SEIU’s press release had promised.

So there they were. Supporters of a $15 an hour federal minimum wage, a fairly diverse group, standing in a snowy field on a back road, enthusiastically waving banners—some quite creative, cylindrical and glowing from within like Japanese lanterns—and periodically trading chants with the mostly white right-wing activists in front of them.

Their presence was part of the tactic to raise the profile of the Fight for $15 campaign by protesting presidential debates and other high-profile events like the Super Bowl in recent months. That makes sense.

What doesn’t make sense is why SEIU pulled out 500 people onto a chilly windswept hill in suburban New Hampshire to protest for a laudable reform that their chosen presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, absolutely does not support.

Clinton, like Barack Obama, has come out in favor of a $12 an hour minimum wage. Bernie Sanders, the only candidate whose politics are in line with labor unions like SEIU, is also the only candidate who publicly supports the Fight for $15 campaign’s main goal—a $15 an hour minimum wage. That’s barely a living wage at all in many parts of the country, and hardly the huge ask that opponents make it out to be, especially given the wage freeze imposed on most Americans by corporations and our political duopoly since the 1970s.

Yet the leaders of the 1.9 million member SEIU backed Clinton last November, joining the heads of a number of other large American unions in supporting the candidate with a proven record of pushing policies completely antithetical to union demands. They have already pumped millions to Clinton super PACs over the heads of their largely voiceless members.

In response, a coalition of progressive unions and activist union members has formed Labor for Bernie to win as many union endorsements for Sanders as possible, even as Sanders has amassed a $75 million warchest from mostly small donations—without the truckloads of cash that labor unions have traditionally lavished on Democratic candidates over the past few decades.

With Sanders doing very well in the NH polls and possibly capable of staying in the race all the way to this summer’s Democratic National Convention, it appears SEIU leadership made a serious miscalculation this election. The fallout from that miscalculation is already playing out in the very state where they organized the standout for their Fight for $15 campaign over the weekend, and where a key primary is taking place today.

Two New Hampshire SEIU locals—560 (Dartmouth College workers) and 1984 (NH State Employees’ Association)—broke ranks with SEIU leadership last fall and backed Sanders for president. Both locals were present in Goffstown on Saturday.

Whether Bernie Sanders wins the nomination and election or not, current SEIU leadership—and the leadership of every union marching in lockstep with the worst elements of the Democratic Party—is going to face increasing pressure from its rank-and-file members to stop supporting pro-corporate anti-labor candidates like Clinton. Likely culminating in major grassroots insurgent campaigns aimed at removing union leaders perceived as sellouts—as has happened on many occasions in labor history. It remains to be seen whether such internal reforms will happen before the major unions collapse under the death of a thousand cuts being inflicted on them by their traditional political enemies and their erstwhile allies alike.

SEIU and less democratic unions like it could forestall the looming civil war in their own ranks—and increase the American labor movement’s chance of survival—by learning from the more democratic practices of the 700,000 member Communication Workers of America (CWA)—whose leadership stepped aside last year and let their members directly decide: a) If they should endorse any candidates for POTUS, and b) Which candidate they should endorse.

CWA members, some 30 percent of whom are Republicans, voted to back Sanders in December.

Jason Pramas is the Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism’s network director. He has been a member of three SEIU locals (925, 285 and 888) over the past 18 years, and helped lead a successful union drive with SEIU Local 509 last year—at the cost of his job.

Copyright 2016 Jason Pramas. Licensed for use by the Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism and media outlets in its network.

This report was produced by the Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism and is part of their “Manchester Divided” coverage of the madness leading up to the 100th New Hampshire presidential primary.

Published in Politics

On this week's sunny Independent comics page: This Modern World looks at a confederacy of denial; Jen Sorenson listens to captains of industry; The K Chronicles hums a tune while the flag goes down; and Red Meat enjoys an animated feature.

ca

Published in Comics

On this week's deceptive Independent comics page: This Modern World checks in with Glox News and wonders whether the Supreme Leader really loves this land mass; Jen Sorenson looks at "right to work" states; The K Chronicles meets Black Rob Lowe; and Red Meat enjoys some animal bloopers.

Published in Comics

On this week's hygenic Independent comics page: Jen Sorenson bemoans the spread of high-interest loans; The K Chronicles honors great radio deejays; This Modern World preps for a deadly disease; and Red Meat makes good use of some pipe-cleaners.

Published in Comics