Orange County Register

We told you Monday that cities - and other public agencies in California - will soon be paying millions more every year to refill the gaping hole in the  California Public Employees Retirement System (even if they haven’t raised benefits one dime).

Today, our friends at The Wall Street Journal took a big-picture view of the issue that’s a bit terrifying:

“The cost of shoring up Calpers, the troubled $200 billion pension fund for California public employees, will ultimately fall on the state’s 38 million residents, who are already dealing with tax increases and reduced public services,” the Journal’s story reads. “The state and local governments are contractually bound to increase their payments to Calpers to help it make up for its investment losses of more than $50 billionin the fiscal year ended June 30. Officials around the state are calling for more oversight of Calpers, which announced Wednesday it was investigating fees paid by its investment managers.”

The fund’s losses mean “there is less money for parks and recreation, less money for the University of California, less money for health and human services,” an advisor to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said.  

Then WSJ quotes our pal, Fullerton City Manager Chris Meyer (right), talking about that extra $5.5 million the city is going to have to pay every year to refill the pension kitty. 

And then it quotes Brett Barbre (below right), director with the Municipal Water District of Orange County,  saying,“I think the taxpayers are going to be footing the bill for years because of less-than-stellar decisions on investments…. This is going to affect every city, county and special district that is in Calpers. They will have to cover all of the losses, as well as the ancillary issues that are being uncovered.”

For more on how “cities are held hostage by their pension-benefit costs,” read the WSJ story here.  And for the many, many readers who ask why we keep harping on the pension issue - well, this is why.

More Watchdog:

It takes millions and millions of dollars to elect people to the House and Senate. What wasn’t clear until Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Marcus Stern and his colleagues at Pro Publica published their report this week was that for some lawmakers, thousands of dollars of the money they raise goes to pay for such things as lavish golf  games and deep sea fishing excursions.

Stern explains the way lawmakers do this even in the face of new rules tightening up the relationships between lobbyists and lawmakers. They create Leadership PACs, a new way to collect  campaign contributions and evade pesky Federal Election Commission individual contribution limits.

Click here to read Stern’s piece.

The Center for Responsive Politics keeps track of these leadership PACs and I checked to see whether our Orange County and California reps have begun using this method of fundraising.

Of the six house members who represent OC, two have leadership PACS: Reps. Ken Calvert, R-Corona and John Campbell, R-Irvine. But compared to the hundreds of thousands of dollars that have been funneled into these PACs by some, these two lawmakers are dealing in chump change.

Read the rest of this entry »

The contentious Snip-the-Roamers bill (otherwise known as Senate Bill 250, The Pet Responsibility Act), got soooo close to becoming law…. but failed to get enough votes Tuesday to advance beyond the state Assembly.

That was essentially its last big step before landing on the governor’s desk. But Orange County’s Judie Mancuso - architect of the bill - is not giving up the fight. She’s calling on supporters to mount an all-on battle to change the minds of a baker’s dozen state reps - TODAY. (Numbers for Assemblyfolk are below.)

“We have 24 hours to change 13 of the following member’s votes to YES,” Mancuso wrote to supporters. “This is the most critical point ever for this bill, but we can do this…. we have changed minds in the past.

“Many of these members cast their initial vote based on misinformation from the opposition to the bill, and can be changed if we can clarify for them how critical it is to pass SB 250. The members who vote YES on SB 250 understand how important it is that we finally take action at the state level to address the tragic pet overpopulation problem in our state. Thank you for your help.”

Opponents say the bill makes pet sterilization mandatory, and will only make the problem of abandoned pets worse.

Supporters say that’s not true at all. Read the rest of this entry »

The Puppy Mill bill (otherwise known as Assembly Bill 241, The Responsible Breeder Act of 2009, Assemblyman Pedro Nava) cleared the state Senate this week on a 25-to-9 vote - bringing it tantalizingly close to becoming the law of the land.

Puppy mills, which the bill defines as “large-scale breeding facilities that mass-produce puppies for sale,”  ”commonly house animals in overcrowded, filthy, and inhumane conditions with inadequate shelter and care,” the bill’s web site says.

The law would limit the number of “intact” cats or dogs a seller can maintain to 50. Supporters say it won’t impact animal shelters, research facilities, pet stores, veterinarians, groomers or boarding facilities; opponents say it will.

It’s a rather difficult bill to vote against - who wants to say they’re pro-puppy mill? Similar legislation limiting the number of dogs in puppy mills was passed last year in Louisiana and Virginia. Hey, if it can make it there ….

The bill has already gotten the thumbs up in the state Assembly. It heads back there for a concurrence vote, and then on to the governor to be signed into law.

Meanwhile, the much more contentious Snip-the-Roamers bill (otherwise known as Senate Bill 250, The Pet Responsibility Act, Senator Dean Florez), is in a fight for its life. Read the rest of this entry »

The controversial  Snip-the-Roamers bill  - more popularly known as Senate Bill 250,  The Pet Responsibility Act - was approved today by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which means it’s just steps away from becoming law.

If it survives a vote in the full Assembly (by Sept. 11), it’s off to the Senate for a concurrence vote (it’s already been approved there) and then on to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk for signature.

The main thrust behind the law is Orange County’s Judie Mancuso. “THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR CALLS AND SUPPORT LETTERS!” she wrote in an email to supporters. “I cannot stress how vital your participation in this process is.”

Supporters say Snip-the-Roamers is not a mandatory spay-neuter law, but simply targets “irresponsible pet owners” by requiring that animals with a tendency to roam be fixed.

Foes say that’s hogwash, and that SB 250 requires owners of intact dogs to pay a new license fee or have their dogs sterilized, say critics.

Read the rest of this entry »