Trending News – Page 2

Jon Coupal: By All Means, Let’s Talk About ‘Junk Fees’

March 13, 2023 By Jon Coupal 1 Comment

In last month’s State of the Union address, President Joe Biden chose to spend an inordinate amount of time on matters that most Americans don’t care about. Not much was said about the important issues of border security, inflation, crime, or China’s surveillance balloon that traversed over the entire U.S. before – belatedly – our Commander in Chief decided that it should be shot down.

Among the more trivial topics that Biden focused on is so-called “junk fees.” He urged Congress to pass a new “Junk Fee Prevention Act” which would curtail extra fees on the sale of online entertainment tickets; certain airline fees; early termination fees for TV, phone, and internet service; and resort and destination fees.

To be sure, these add-on charges can be annoying, but there is a huge difference between whether such fees should be disclosed in advance (they should) or whether banning such fees is government overreach at its worst. As noted by the Wall Street Journal in a February 13, 2023, editorial (The Junk Economics of “Junk Fee” Politics), prohibitions of additional services at higher costs actually reduces consumer choice. Even worse, it “will result in higher prices or fewer services for lower income Americans.”

Not to be outdone, California’s progressive politicians quickly jumped on the Biden “junk fee” bandwagon, introducing several bills targeting what they claim are either deceptive or excessive charges imposed by private businesses. For example, SB 611 (Senator Caroline Menjivar, D – Panorama City/San Fernando Valley) would require landlords to clearly state to potential renters what their up-front and monthly payments will be, including all required fees, to rent the apartment. But, under current law, this information is already required to be disclosed by the landlord.

Another, AB 1222 (Tina McKinnor, D -Inglewood) purports to provide greater transparency by ensuring that rental car companies quote rental rates that contain the entire amount, including all applicable taxes and additional fees or charges, necessary to rent the vehicle. But, like SB 611, this bill is more posturing than substantive. As anyone who has booked a rental car knows, the amount of the charge is clearly disclosed prior to the rental.

More insidious is SB 680 (Senator Nancy Skinner, D – Berkeley) which would prohibit auto dealers from charging above the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price for electric vehicles. All this bill would accomplish would be to ensure that highly popular vehicles that are in limited supply would be shipped to other states where a market-based sales price could be negotiated. If the goal was to put more EV’s on the road in California, this bill could easily have the opposite effect.

Even a cursory review of the half dozen or so bills targeting “junk fees” exposes that most are simply posing as solutions without any real impact or substance. Those that are substantive are more likely to produce unintended consequences at best or, at worse, outcomes that are the exact opposite of what they claim.

But, if the California legislature is serious about “junk fees,” we have an idea. Let’s go after all the extraneous fees, charges and assessments imposed by government that frequently do no good nor provide any benefit to taxpayers or ratepayers. The list is endless.

Fees imposed by the state include lumber “fees” imposed on all retail sales of most wood products, Electronic Waste Recycling Fee, Energy Resources Surcharges, California Tire Fee, Natural Gas Surcharges (because the price of natural gas apparently isn’t high enough), Marine Invasive Species Fee, Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Fee (imposed on businesses that don’t produce products containing lead), and literally hundreds of additional fees.

Local governments are notorious for imposing a myriad of miscellaneous fees usually disconnected from any benefits conferred on taxpayers. For example, some local governments are imposing “vacant lot” fees based on the theory that vacant properties need to be “inspected” periodically. These fees are imposed whether any inspections ever occur. The same is true of other “inspection fees” such as rental housing fees and fire inspection fees.

California homeowners are all too familiar with “junk fees” every year when they receive their property tax bills. On top of the regular property tax, limited to 1% thanks to Proposition 13, homeowners see a list of “below the line” items that include flood control assessments, lighting and landscaping assessments, Mello-Roos taxes (in many neighborhoods) and a litany of other miscellaneous fees, charges, taxes, and assessments.

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: budget, California Politics, Gavin Newsom, Legislature

Carney on ‘Kudlow’: Silicon Valley Bank’s Failure Signals the End of the ‘Cheap Money Ecosystem’ Fueling CA Tech Start-Ups

March 12, 2023 By Rebecca Mansour 2 Comments

The “cheap money ecosystem” that fed the tech start-up culture has come to an end with the Federal Reserve raising interest rates to curb inflation, and the failure of Silicon Valley Bank might be the first domino to fall among California-based financial institutions, Breitbart Economics Editor John Carney said in an interview Friday with Fox Business host Larry Kudlow.

“The sudden implosion of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) is sending shock waves through the financial system and the technology sector,” Carney wrote in Friday’s Breitbart Business Digest. “SVB plays a central role in the start-up economy of San Francisco. According to Bloomberg, it does business with about half of venture capital backed start-up firms in the U.S.”

“One of the problems [for SVB] was when money was so freely available to all these start-ups, they didn’t borrow a lot,” Carney told Kudlow. “So, they had a ton of deposits coming in and not a lot of opportunity to make loans out to people. I mean, yeah, you can lend money so people can buy a yacht or a fancy mortgage on some tech start-up billionaire’s fancy mansion, but they really had way too much money. So, they invested it in bonds. Bank of America I think has 25 percent of its assets in bonds, but this bank had over 50 percent of its assets in bonds.”

Kudlow noted that when the yield curve inverted, these bonds incurred a negative return.

“They’re losing money,” Carney agreed. “And at the same time, all these start-ups who are depositing so much money there are now withdrawing it because they don’t have access to free money anymore. So, they’re withdrawing it just to pay their bills. So, you’re having the deposits go down. They have to sell into a market where they are actually producing real losses, not just mark to market losses.”

“That is what sparked the panic basically,” he continued. “Earlier this week, [SVB] announced something like a $2 billion loss on their assets. And people said, ‘I better get my money out quickly.’”

“Now the FDIC stepped in to avoid an old-fashioned run on the bank,” Kudlow said.

The bank went into receivership on Friday when the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation shuttered it, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a statement guaranteeing the accounts of all insured depositors. However, as Carney told Kudlow, this will not be reassuring to the depositors of the reportedly 93 percent of SVB deposits that are uninsured.

“There are people who are at risk of losing their deposits at least on paper,” Carney said.

All of this has been exacerbated by the Federal Reserves’ rate-hiking fight against inflation, which has signaled the end of the cheap lending low interest rate monetary policy that fostered Silicon Valley start-ups, Carney explained.

“I think we’re going to see a lot of the California-based financial institutions get into trouble because they were so dependent on this very cheap money ecosystem that was feeding start-up culture and is no longer there,” he said.

“What happens to the start-up culture now that there’s no cheap money or there’s no cheap, cheap money?” Kudlow asked. “[Are] they’re going to have trouble getting loans?”

“Absolutely,” Carney said. “They’ll have trouble getting loans and have trouble raising money because if you can get five percent on a treasury bond, why are you trying to get 10 percent on a very risky start-up? You’re not going to do that. You might as well just double down on leverage and get a treasury. So, I think that they’re going to have a lot of trouble being able to continue to raise money. And we’re going to see a lot of the start-ups start to tilt over.”

Kudlow asked Carney about the risk that this bank failure will spread beyond SVB.

“I think there’s a high risk that it spreads,” he said. “People are right now looking at every other bank, not the big banks—the JP Morgans, Citigroups, Wells Fargos, they’ll be fine.”

“The banking system is extremely well capitalized,” he added. “And so, I don’t think we’re on the verge of a financial crisis. But I do think we’ll probably have a couple more bank failures ahead of us.”

Click here to read the full article at BreitbartCA

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: banking, economy, FDIC

Helping the ‘Unbanked’: California Mulls Entering Banking Business to Serve Disadvantaged Consumers

March 11, 2023 By Wendy Fry 6 Comments

Anneisha Williams figures she has paid several hundred dollars in overdraft fees over the years, so when her last bank recently refused to refund about $500 a hacker stole from her checking account, Williams decided she was done with banks.

Williams, 38, works full-time at a Jack-in-the-box in the Los Angeles area and is an in-home care provider. She also is raising six children; she doesn’t have time to hassle with a bank she no longer trusts, she said.

“They told me they couldn’t refund my money, basically, that it was just a loss,” she said. “It was just highway robbery.”

Now Williams does banking online through a financial tech company. It doesn’t charge her monthly fees and offers her free overdraft protection. But state law says such companies aren’t banks and can’t call themselves that.

Williams has joined California’s “unbanked” — some 7% of Californians who don’t have checking or savings accounts at traditional banks.

Another 18% have bank accounts but end up using higher-fee financial services, such as payday lenders or check-cashing businesses. They are considered the “underbanked,” according to banking experts.

In total, 1 in 4 Californians lacks full access to banks, studies say. Many are low-income and minorities who pay high fees to access their cash.

Lawmakers say they’re preparing to help. The state Legislature passed a law in 2021 creating a commission to explore a public banking option called CalAccount. Its report is due to the Legislature July 1, 2024.

CalAccount would be a state-run public bank, but the state would likely involve another bank or financial partner. It would offer such services as free checking, overdraft protection, ATM cards and savings accounts to people who are underserved by banks, state officials said.

Assemblymember Miguel Santiago, a Democrat from Los Angeles who authored the law, said it would bring back into the economy people pushed out by high financial fees.

Financial options

“We can’t create a stable economy when financially underserved households spend an average of 10% of their take-home pay in fees and interest, just to access their own money and pay bills,” Santiago said. “Creating a public option for banking and closing the racial wealth gap isn’t only a moral imperative, but it also creates greater financial security for all of our communities.”

CalAccounts would offer “a voluntary, zero-fee, zero-penalty, federally insured transaction account,” says the California Public Banking Option Act. People could access their accounts in person at post offices, rather than at bank branches.

California has one of the highest concentrations of unbanked families in the nation, according to the Federal Reserve. Workers earning less than $15 per hour make up 81% of unbanked individuals in the state, a study said.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which regulates banks, says to be unbanked means no one in a household has a checking or savings account at a traditional bank or credit union. Underbanked means they have a bank account but still lack access to many financial services, such as credit cards and loans.

Not enough cash

Critics of CalAccounts say there aren’t enough of the unbanked or underbanked to justify a state-run financial alternative. Many Californians don’t lack access to bank services, they said; they just lack cash.

“This is a critical distinction that must be made; individuals who utilize payday lenders and other high-cost loan products do so because they have inadequate cash flow, not because they lack access to banking services,” a coalition of business and banking groups wrote to legislators.

Other experts voiced misgivings about public banking.

James Hamilton, an economics professor at University of California San Diego, said where a public bank gets its money to lend and how transparent it is will be important. A public banking system could mask lending practices that deserve public oversight, he said.

“Expenditures of taxpayer dollars should be approved by the legislature and open to public review,” he said. “If the bank’s loans were funded entirely with legislatively approved allocations of tax revenue, I would have no problem with it. But if they are funded by borrowing, this can mask the losses and procrastinate handing the ultimate bill to taxpayers.

“That is how the federal student loan program became a trillion-dollar public loss. California should not repeat the same mistake.”

Banking on minorities

Being unbanked greatly impacts people of color and low-income families. Nearly 1 in 2 Black and Latino households in California is unbanked or underbanked, state officials said.

One reason: low-income consumers are often burdened by bank fees that others with higher balances don’t have to pay. Black households are almost 2 times more likely to pay overdraft fees than white households, and Latino households are 1.4 times more likely, says a study by the Roosevelt Institute, a liberal think tank.

In 2021, 11% of U.S. adults with bank accounts paid at least one overdraft fee, but 20% of Black and 14% of Latino account holders paid such fees, according to the Federal Reserve.

Banks charge overdraft fees — typically around $35 — for each transaction. Some banks charge a single customer multiple times for the same error and charge them each day their account remains overdrawn, the Roosevelt Institute said.

Frequent overdrafters generate about half of banking companies’ checking account profits, according to a 2020 study by the global consulting firm Oliver Wyman. Overdraft-related fees generated $17 billion for banks in 2019, and among the 25 largest banks, about 9% of annual pre-tax profits.

Due to public pressure, some banks in 2021 reduced fees. But by third quarter the fees were back up and banks collected $11 billion that year, the Roosevelt Institute said.

Add that to what unbanked customers pay check cashers and payday lenders and Californians are losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fees, Santiago said.

Customer service test

Julia, a 61-year-old McDonald’s employee in Richmond, Calif., said her bank takes a $12 fee from her account every month her balance is below $1,500.

“That $12 is important,’ said Julia, who did not disclose her last name because she fears deportation as an undocumented immigrant. “For a poor person, every single dollar is important. We have to pay for lights, gas, trash service, and buy food. You have to work two or three jobs just to get by.”

Online banking through a financial tech company, like Williams did, is an option. But those companies aren’t registered banks. They often partner with banks to offer their services. And some have attracted hundreds of complaints.

If the state operates a public bank, people could get their paychecks, public assistance benefits and tax returns directly deposited, proponents say.

This option may be years away, however. After bank industry lobbying, lawmakers amended the public banking bill. Instead of creating a bank, the bill created a Blue Ribbon commission to conduct a market analysis to determine if it’s feasible.

So far that commission has held few meetings. It is just beginning the process of hiring a market analysis consultant.

Meanwhile state and federal governments should more actively regulate banking and protect consumers, wrote Emily DiVito, author of The Roosevelt Institute’s report.

To back that up, her study includes research purporting to show how staff at some California banks treat minority or low-income customers.

Researchers posed as potential customers and went to 80 bank branches, requesting information about opening accounts. Bank staff turned away minority canvassers nearly a third of the time, DeVito wrote, but turned away white canvassers once out of 23 visits.

The staff gave various reasons: customers needed to make appointments, staff was too busy or at lunch, or relevant information about bank accounts was on the bank’s website.

Click here to read the full article CalMatters

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: banking, California Politics

California to End Walgreens Contract After Abortion Dispute

March 10, 2023 By Adam Beam 6 Comments

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday withdrew a $54 million contract with Walgreens after the pharmacy giant indicated it would not sell an abortion pill by mail in some conservative-led states.

Newsom on Wednesday ordered state officials to not renew a contract with Walgreens to purchase specialty pharmacy prescription drugs for California’s prison health care system, including antiviral and antifungal drugs and medication used for congestive heart failure. Walgreens has gotten about $54 million from the contract, which expires April 30.

Newsom’s office said the state will buy the drugs somewhere else.

“California will not stand by as corporations cave to extremists and cut off critical access to reproductive care and freedom,” Newsom said in a news release. “California is on track to be the fourth largest economy in the world and we will leverage our market power to defend the right to choose.”

Walgreens representative Fraser Engerman said the company was “deeply disappointed by the decision by the state of California not to renew our longstanding contract due to false and misleading information.”

“Walgreens is facing the same circumstances as all retail pharmacies, and no other pharmacies have said that they would approach this situation differently, so it’s unclear where this contract would not be moved,” Engerman said. “Our position has always been that, once we are certified by the FDA, Walgreens plans to dispense Mifepristone in any jurisdiction where it is legally permissible to do so, including the state of California.”

Mifepristone is a pill that when combined with another pill will end a pregnancy. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the pill in 2000 for use in up to the 10th week of pregnancy. Today, more than half of all abortions in the U.S. are done by pills, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

After the U.S. Supreme Court last year overturned the federal right to an abortion, more than a dozen states have restricted the use of abortion pills. But those restrictions are being challenged in court.

Attorneys general in 20 states, mostly with Republican governors, have warned Walgreens and CVS they could face legal consequences if they sell abortion pills in their states. Last week, Walgreens confirmed it sent a response to each attorney general saying it would not dispense the drug in their states.

Newsom responded to that news on Monday, posting in a message on Twitter that California won’t be doing business with Walgreens “or any company that cowers to the extremists and puts women’s lives at risk.”

“We’re done,” Newsom said.

Losing the California contract will have a small impact on Walgreens’ revenues, as the company reported $132.7 billion in sales for the fiscal year that ended Aug. 31.

But for Newsom, the move is more about solidifying California’s role as a leader in what he has called “reproductive freedom.”

Click here to read the full article in AP News

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: California Politics, Gavin Newsom, walgreens

Will New California Law Curb Pay-To-Play in Local Governments?

March 9, 2023 By Dan Walters 1 Comment

A wave of corruption scandals has washed over California’s local governments in recent years, particularly in Southern California.

Bribery and self-dealing is so common among small cities in Los Angeles County that the speaker of the state Assembly, Anthony Rendon, has described the area he represents as a “corridor of corruption.”

Last month, Jose Huizar, a member of the Los Angeles City Council for 15 years, pleaded guilty to federal charges of racketeering and tax evasion for extorting at least $1.5 million in bribes from developers of real estate projects.

This week, another former Los Angeles councilman, Mark Ridley-Thomas, went on trial in federal court for allegedly, as a county supervisor, routing contracts to the University of Southern California in return for benefits for his son, former assemblyman Sebastian Ridley-Thomas, including a $100,000 grant to the son’s nonprofit corporation.

Out-and-out bribery violates both state and federal law and quite a few local officials, both elected and appointed, and some state legislators have been prosecuted.

Just below blatant tit-for-tat bribery, legally speaking, is another layer known colloquially as “pay-to-play.” Those seeking beneficial acts from political figures, such as trash hauling contracts or development permits, understand that they need to make campaign contributions to increase their chances of success.

In the 1980s, the Legislature enacted laws to curb campaign contributions to elected officials who sit on state boards. They were inspired by allegations that local government officials sitting on the California Coastal Commission were being showered with campaign money from property developers.

Last year, state Sen. Steve Glazer, an Orinda Democrat who once was the city’s mayor, carried a bill to expand the 1980s laws to local governments. Senate Bill 1439 was backed by political reform groups and sailed through the Legislature without a single negative vote or formal opposition.

The new law went into effect on Jan. 1, essentially prohibiting contributions of more than $250 to any local elected official from anyone seeking contracts, permits or licenses from the board or council on which the official serves. It would be retroactive, requiring the official who received such contributions in the past to give the money back.

Last month, a coalition of business groups and a few elected officials sued to overturn the law, saying it “is overbroad and violates the constitutional rights of thousands of contributors and local elected officials.”

“We have become numb to the legal corruption that has enveloped our democracy,” Glazer said this week in response. “Pay-to-play is antithetical to an honest and ethical government, and it should be rooted out and killed like a cancer that has affected the body politic.”

While the situation Glazer seeks to address is a real one, his new law could ensnare an official who innocently accepted a campaign contribution, and perhaps spent it to get elected, only to learn months later that his vote would affect a contributor.

That said, one obvious flaw is that it applies to a very narrow set of official acts. It would not, for example, affect a local government’s contract with its workers’ union, due to specific exemption in the original 1980s laws. Yet, unions are among the most active favor-seeking interest groups.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: California Politics, Legislature, pay to play

Corruption Trial of Former L.A. Deputy Mayor is on Hold After Defense Lawyer Falls Ill

March 8, 2023 By David Zahnister Leave a Comment

A federal judge called Monday for a three-week delay in the corruption trial of former Los Angeles Deputy Mayor Raymond Chan, after learning that Chan’s main lawyer was still in the hospital after an unexpected surgery.

U.S. District Judge John F. Walter said he will seek to resume witness testimony March 27, giving time for Harland Braun, Chan’s lawyer, to recover from what has been described in court as an infection.

Chan, a onetime aide to Mayor Eric Garcetti and former head of the Department of Building and Safety, is accused of participating in a bribery and racketeering scheme led by former Councilmember Jose Huizar and involving downtown high-rise development projects. Braun, who has been leading the defense team, went to the hospital last week, prompting the cancellation of testimony Friday.

Braun’s abrupt absence has created a new atmosphere of uncertainty around the trial, which has been underway since Feb. 21.

Braun, 80, is a seasoned attorney who has represented many high-profile defendants, including actor Robert Blake, director Roman Polanski and Theodore J. Briseno, a former LAPD officer who was twice acquitted of criminal charges in the Rodney King beating case.

The other attorney on Chan’s defense team, Brendan Pratt, earned his law degree in 2021. Also seated at the defense table is Even Chan, the defendant’s daughter-in-law, who described herself as an assistant when approached by The Times.

Pratt told the court Monday that doctors had not determined the source of Chan’s infection. He did not say what type of surgery had been performed, describing it as a “half measure.” Pratt said he has been relying on Braun’s son for medical information on the veteran attorney, but also had also spoken with Braun directly.

“He sounded very weak, and expressed his concern that he does not know when he will be discharged from the hospital,” Pratt said.

“We still don’t have a diagnosis, do we?” the judge asked minutes later.

“No we don’t, your honor,” Pratt said.

Prosecutors have four witnesses left in the case. Jurors have heard from former Planning Commissioner David Ambroz, mayoral aide Kevin Keller and Richelle Rios, Huizar’s estranged wife, among others.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: California Politics, Corruption, Legislature, Los Angeles

Rent Control is a Great Idea If You’re Trying to Destroy a City. Keep It Out of Orange County.

March 6, 2023 By John Seiler 1 Comment

Last year I moved from Orange to Costa Mesa. Nice city. Close to the beach, but cheaper than Huntington Beach. I’m negotiating with the landlord on the rent, which they want to raise if I renew. It’s called the free market.

But the city might impose its own rent control, on top that of existing state laws, most recently Assembly Bill 1482, the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019. In the bill’s language, it limited rent increases to “5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living … or 10%, whichever is lower.”

At the Feb. 23 City Council meeting, local residents complained about the high rents in the City of the Arts.

“This is now the second meeting in a row where we had people from the community come to speak about that issue,” said Councilmember Manuel Chavez, as reported in the VoiceofOC. “I think it’s important that as we look at the housing element, as we look at housing in Costa Mesa, we have every option on the table, including rent stabilization.”

They should just look north to Santa Ana. As the Register reported, last September the City Council voted 4-3 for measures that, among other things, “Cap rents at 3% annually or 80% of inflation, whichever is less, for buildings built in 1995 or earlier and for mobile home parks established in 1990 or earlier,” as well as tougher “just cause eviction” rules.

The action prompted a lawsuit filed in OC Superior Court Feb. 14 by the Apartment Association of Orange County, which represents 1,875 members and 100,000 rental units in OC. I’ve been to the AAOC’s meetings and most of its members are small, Mom & Pop landlords owning a couple of duplexes to supplement income, often for retirement. They also were hit hard by the COVID eviction moratorium.

“The city is picking winners and losers. This is business, free enterprise. We encourage the city to work within the parameters of the market. But if there’s something else to help renters, we’ll talk with them,” said Dave Cordero, AAOC’s executive director.

The market already is alleviating this problem. The Register’s Jonathan Lansner reported Feb. 8, “California big-city rents fell for the fifth consecutive month in January.” Santa Ana was “down 0.6% in a year” to $2,115 a month, with “Costa Mesa off 3.5% to $2,461.”

It’s also worth noting in 2022 the highest rents in America, according to Fortune Builders, are New York City at $3,260, up 30.4%. And San Francisco, at $2,901, up 9.85%. The Big Apple adopted rent control in 1943 as a “temporary” measure during World War II, which ended in 1945, 78 years ago. The City on the Bay adopted it in 1979 during the Jimmy Carter stagflation era. Rent control obliviously has had the opposite of its intended effect.

“Rent control leads to less maintenance and renovation by landlords,” Raymond Sfeir, director of the A. Gary Anderson Center for Economic Research at Chapman University, told me. “This results in dilapidated housing in many cases, and uninhabitable buildings in others. And it leads to the conversion of apartment complexes to condo buildings. It creates disincentives to build apartment complexes. And it leads to higher rents of units not under rent control due to lack of supply.”

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: California Politics, Orange County, Rent control

The Republican Presidential Nomination Could Run Through California. Yes, California

March 5, 2023 By Jeremy B. White 8 Comments

This weekend’s visit from Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis highlights the state’s importance to GOP contenders.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is heading into hostile territory this weekend, making a campaign-like swing through California as he seeks to peel off donors and voters from former President Donald Trump in a deep blue state that could be an unusually powerful factor in next year’s Republican primary.

It’s an awkward stop for the California-bashing DeSantis, made more so by a fresh round of taunting Friday from Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“You’re going to get smoked by Trump,” Newsom said in a statement issued ahead of a planned speech by DeSantis at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

The tenor of Newsom’s statement is likely a preview of what could end up as an ugly fight if, as expected, DeSantis tries to wrest the mantle of the GOP away from Trump — with California and its 5.2 million Republican voters representing a major battleground.

A March 2024 vote and an open GOP field offer California’s beleaguered conservatives a chance to step off the statewide sidelines and into the fray of a national fight.

“I don’t remember the last time we mattered,” said Carl DeMaio, a Republican activist and former San Diego council member. “It’s an immense opportunity.”

The contours are already taking shape. DeSantis will be in California over the weekend to speak at the Reagan Presidential library and then collect cash, both opportunities to make inroads with the state’s GOP base. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former Vice President Mike Pence have both stopped by the Reagan library — an indispensable proving ground for Republican hopefuls — in recent months. None of them have officially entered the 2024 presidential race but all are expected to.

Lanhee Chen, who ran for state controller in 2022 and has worked for multiple GOP presidential candidates, recounted a Republican campaign official recently seeking his input on how to navigate California’s sprawling geography and media markets.

“California is a different beast,” Chen said. “A lot of the campaigns are trying to wrap their heads around how they should think about it.”

It could feel like a sea change for California Republicans, who have been locked out of statewide office for a generation and are outnumbered two-to-one by registered Democrats. National Republicans swing through California’s red precincts to vacuum up dollars but rarely do any actual campaigning. This cycle could be different.

“There are lots of opportunities for each of these candidates to rack up delegates in California,” said California Republican Party Chair Jessica Millan Patterson, “and I think you’re going to see them coming through the state, not just to raise money but to meet people, get the vote out and make their case.”

By the time the 2016 GOP nominating contest rolled into California, former President Donald Trump had already vanquished his rivals. In early 2023, polling gives DeSantis a substantial lead over the former president. Republican candidates seeking an edge could be compelled to campaign and advertise in a solidly blue state, and not just in the typical conservative strongholds: Delegates will be available deep in the belly of the beast.

“I don’t think Republican voters are even cognizant that this is coming, because it’s just never happened before,” said Matt Shupe, a Republican political consultant. “I’ve been pretty fired up talking about this because this is going to affect the party, from the lowest levels to the highest levels, until March.”

Part of the calculus will involve California’s decentralized nominating process. Most of the state’s delegates are allocated by House district, with the top vote-getter in each district receiving three. California Republican Party officials intentionally made the change many cycles ago to open up a statewide formula that had helped catapult favorite son Ronald Reagan into the White House.

“When we were changing the party rules back in the year 2000, hoping that we might someday play a role like this — it’s certainly surreal that day has arrived,” said Jon Fleischman, who was the party’s executive director at the time. “It only took 23 years.”

That means candidates have 52 separate chances — one for each congressional seat — to pick up votes. Winning a solidly red San Diego seat will be just as valuable as carrying a plurality of San Francisco’s 29,000 Republicans.

“It creates a dynamic where a candidate could say ‘you know what, I’m going to campaign in the Central Valley and hire grassroots people in the Central Valley and just do that,’” Fleischman said.

Republican voters in California run the gamut from Orange County denizens with beachfront views to residents of northern rural counties who hope to create their own state. But Chen said the Republicans he interacted with on the trail had similar views to Republicans in other states. He said he observed bigger contrasts within California.

California Republicans have resoundingly supported Trump, voting for him in record numbers. Supporting him was a prerequisite for leadership in the state party.

But that support is wavering. A recent statewide poll found DeSantis bested Trump by double digits in a head-to-head matchup and scored markedly higher favorability ratings. Republicans around the state described a fluid situation in which some voters unflinchingly back Trump, others are ready to move on, and many are still weighing their options as the field develops.

“It varies so widely. Some people still love Trump and he’s the only one, and a lot of other people are like: ‘absolutely not, DeSantis is our person,’” said Fresno County Republican Party Chair Elizabeth Kolstad.

State Sen. Melissa Melendez was a steadfast Trump supporter who traveled to the White House to discuss immigration in 2018 and represents the Republican stronghold of Riverside County. In a recent interview, Melendez declined to commit to Trump. “Some people have their favorites already decided, but a lot of it is going to come down to what their policies are,” Melendez said, citing stances on China and immigration.

The donor class is also unlikely to unite behind the former president. Gerald Marcil, a fixture of the California Republican donor circuit, said he admired Trump’s record and voted for his re-election. But he is not backing Trump this time around. He likes DeSantis, an impression that was solidified after dining together.

“I think we have to go with Ron DeSantis on this one,” Marcil said, adding he feared a crowded field would hand the nomination to Trump because he begins with an unwavering base. “We’ve got to coalesce and get down to one or two other possibilities.”

Similarly, Orrin Heatlie — a core organizer of the failed 2021 effort to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom — said the grassroots Republicans he speaks with are “swinging heavily towards Ron DeSantis.”

“He has a clear message and basically aligns with their beliefs and their politics,” Heatlie said. “I think Donald Trump is a distraction.”

Some Republicans are balancing genuine admiration for Trump with other political considerations. Republican Assemblymember Devon Mathis, who is vociferously advocating for former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, said he believed Trump had done a good job but wanted someone who could serve out two terms. Mathis also warned of the down-ballot ripples.

“A lot of people want to stay loyal to the former president, and there’s a lot of people who feel like he got robbed,” Mathis said, but “as much as some people don’t like to admit it, Trump was pretty toxic for our delegation. Every single ad was tying Republicans to Trump, in every target seat in California.”

Click here to read the full article in Politico

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: California Politics, desantis, Donald Trump

Despite Union Opposition, Many Teachers Support Dyslexia Screening for all Students

March 4, 2023 By Joe Hong Leave a Comment

For years, the California Teachers Association has opposed universal dyslexia screening for students, helping to defeat legislation that would have mandated it. And yet, many classroom teachers are advocating for all students to be tested.

As another possible legislative battle looms, the statewide teachers union’s opposition to mandatory screening continues to frustrate many educators. According to classroom teachers across the state, the California Teachers Association’s position will perpetuate a “wait-to-fail” approach to reading instruction that forces educators to sit by while students fall further and further behind.

Dyslexia is a neurological condition that causes difficulties with reading and affects 1 in 5 people in the United States. But early screening and support can mitigate or even prevent illiteracy stemming from the learning disability.

Officials at Decoding Dyslexia CA, a grassroots advocacy group, say hundreds, if not thousands, of teachers working with students who struggle with reading support universal screening. The California Teachers Association doesn’t understand the benefits of screening all students for dyslexia, said Megan Potente, one of the co-directors of Decoding Dyselxia CA.

“I think there’s some misinformation,” Potente said. “Some of the reasons for their opposition aren’t supported by the research.”

Doug Rich, a veteran teacher and reading specialist at San Francisco Unified, said he’s “gone rogue” and started screening all of his students for signs of dyslexia. He said testing is relatively quick — taking less than 10 minutes — but the results are crucial.

The test results can tell him where his students are struggling, whether it be sounding out letters or recognizing words. If all students were screened in kindergarten, Rich says, fewer would end up working with him.

“We know so much about dyslexia,” he said. “We know the underlying causes. We have these simple tools that are efficient and accurate.”

Reading instructors, education experts and neuroscientists all agree: early screening is one of the best ways to mitigate or even prevent the illiteracy that can be caused by dyslexia. Despite having some of the best experts in the field of dyslexia research, California remains one of 10 states that doesn’t require universal screening.

That’s not for lack of trying. State Sen. Anthony Portantino, a Democrat from Glendale who’s dyslexic, tried and failed twice in the past three years to pass legislation that would have mandated universal screening for students in kindergarten through second grade. In February, he said he is trying a third time.

Although it has not taken a position on the latest bill, the California Teachers Association opposed Portantino’s last two bills. Claudia Briggs, a spokesperson for the union, said the association’s leadership team believed that bills would have caused “unintended harmful consequences.” The association’s position is that universal screening will take valuable time away from instruction and may misidentify English learners as dyslexic by mistaking their lack of fluency in English for a learning disability. Briggs said the union would decide its position on the new bill in March.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: California Politics, education, Legislature

Recent Posts

Connect With CPR On Twitter