CapitolWeek
Transcript Program # 536
((Jack))
Just ahead,
a clear picture of what the energy crisis has done to the state’s budget.
The
Governor releases his a revised plan…
An uncertain economy shrinks his projections…
Begin Soundbite
((Governor Gray Davis))
Well,
that’s what reserves are for. Reserves
are for rainy days. It’s starting to
rain; we’re getting out our umbrella.
End Soundbite
((Melissa))
And where
does education fit in the budget pie . . .
Like plans for a longer middle school year?
Begin Soundbites
((Kerry Mazzoni, Secretary of
Education))
A longer
school year will provide them additional time to learn a very rigorous
curriculum.
((Terry Pearson, Middle School Math
Teacher))
My first
reaction was, when he said about extending the school year, was “There’s
another thing our kids won’t be able to access.”
End Soundbites
((Melissa))
Hello I’m
Melissa Crowley.
((Jack))
And I’m
Jack Kavanagh. Those stories and more
next.
((Jack))
Thanks for
joining us.
A lot of
“firsts” this week . . .
The
Governor has put the state in the power business.
A new state
power authority will buy, own, and operate power facilities.
And for the
first time in years, the governor and
legislature have to cut back on state
spending.
Later,
Melissa Crowley will look at the impact on the Governor’s top priority,
education.
But we
begin with a look at what’s being said behind the scenes about the budget
forecast and the energy crisis.
BEGIN @ ISSUE
((Jack))
The
Governor boosted spending on education and public safety,
but across
the board cuts in other areas are necessary because of an uncertain economy and
the expense of keeping electricity flowing.
Bonds still
must be passed by this summer to cover energy costs for the state to make ends
meet…
Begin Soundbites
((Governor Gray Davis))
I’m holding
the Republicans accountable for putting the state at great risk. We are running out of room.
((Dave Cox, Assembly GOP Leader))
Frankly, the Governor needs to look in the mirror. If the Governor had spent as much time
trying to solve this energy crisis as he has spent time raising money, this
state wouldn’t be in the difficulty that it’s in.
End Soundbites
((Jack))
Here are
some of the major cuts:
The
governor has abandoned several proposed tax cuts.
There is no
money set aside for new transportation projects.
And more
than 137 million dollars are cut out of social services.
The
Governor’s plan does set aside a reserve of one billion dollars.
Joining me
this week:
Democratic
political consultant Gale Kaufman.
And
Republican political consultant, Dan Schnur.
First off,
Dan, pretty smart for Gray Davis in the last two budgets to set aside money and
to budget the way he did with one time expenditures. Otherwise, we would be in really deep yogurt as some people would
say. Although the situation is not good
right now, good thing he did it the way he did.
((Dan Schnur, Republican Political
Consultant))
Now, give
Gray Davis credit for two things.
Number one, even in a lousy budget situation, he did maintain a funding
commitment to education and public safety, which he has stated appropriately as
his top public policy priorities, and, second, as you mentioned, give him
credit because for the last two years with the Democratic caucuses and
legislature trying to tug him to the left, he has spent a large portion of the
budget, as you mentioned, on one time expenditures, which means that the cuts
that are necessary this year aren’t going to have to be as deep, but here’s the
one place that Gray Davis falls short, and I think this is a problem, not just
for the state, but for Gray himself politically. Gray Davis assumed in this year’s budget that there will be no
additional budget impact for the energy crisis. Now, we know that’s not true.
There’s another four, five, six billion if not more coming, and Davis
and his financial advisors simply wished it away, which means one of two things
is going to happen. Either the
legislators are going to have to step up and make budget cuts that Gray Davis
wasn’t willing to make himself, or, better for Gray in the short run, but worse
for him in the long run, by not making those cuts this year, as we remember
from the early 1990’s, when you let this stuff fester, it comes back even worse
the next year, and the last thing that Gray Davis wants politically is to have
to be making really, really nasty budget cuts in an election year, and that’s
where he’s headed.
((Jack))
So, does
that mean that Gray Davis is just handing the ball over the legislature and letting
them do the dirty work to clear the way for him in reelection mode next year?
((Gale Kaufman, Democratic Political
Consultant))
No, I don’t
think so at all. I think his budget was
prudent, and I think your description of it was accurate. I think he did a very smart thing. He looked at a difficult situation and a
clearly much worsening economy, and he had tough choices regardless of what he
did, and there were all kinds of predictions that he would be unable to balance
the budget. I don’t think he’s left it
to the legislature at all. They can
pass this budget with this reserve, and they can feel comfortable and confident
that if things change between now and this summer that Gray Davis will take
care of it in his own blue-penciling in the next couple of months, and he’s
doing enough things to solve the energy crisis with the bonds now passing—no
thanks to the Republicans—and other efforts, the public power that we’re going
to be discussing, to handle the energy crisis separately. He made education his top priority, and I
think everybody has to take their hat off to him for that.
((Dan Schnur, Republican Political
Consultant))
Well, I took
half my hat off to him, but you have to look at the reality. Elizabeth Hill, the very decidedly non-Republican,
nonpartisan budget analyst, estimates that there is still four billion dollars
in cuts yet to come, and even that is a relatively optimistic assumption based
on her record of predictions and based on where we’re likely headed with the
electricity crisis. Had Davis wanted
to be prudent, he would have acknowledged that this energy problem is still
going to take a huge, huge bite out of the budget, and he would have acted
accordingly, but rather than taking the unpopular steps of announcing spending
cuts or tax increases, he passed the bill down the road. Gale’s right in one sense; he made tiny, tiny,
little
cuts. There’s billions and billions
that are going to have to come out of this budget. If he doesn’t do it, the legislature is going
to have to, and, you’re right, if the legislature doesn’t do it, all that
means is it rolls over until next year, and as we saw in 1990, when the legislature
doesn’t deal with a small budget deficit, it has a way of turning into a very
large budget deficit, and that’s something we fought all through the early
part of the decade.
((Jack))
What does
that mean to me as a taxpayer? I mean,
this is a very good political discussion, but does it change my lifestyle at
all if the budget goes sour or if this isn’t fixed properly? What does it mean to me?
((Gale Kaufman, Democratic Political
Consultant))
Well, I
don’t know what it means yet. Right
now, I don’t think it does mean anything.
I think the PUC’s actions—
((Jack))
I’ve got kids in school, and I pay taxes.
((Gale Kaufman,
Democratic Political Consultant))
Right.
((Jack))
I pay sales taxes; I pay vehicle fees; I drive in traffic; I
worry about education, so how does it impact me?
((Gale Kaufman, Democratic
Political Consultant))
If I understand what’s going on with this particular budget,
I don’t think it impacts you yet, and I think what Dan’s talking about is
projecting down the line what could have to happen and the possibility of tax
increases or other things in the next couple of years, but, you know, the Republicans
are very good at saying what’s wrong, but I have yet to see any alternative
plan, and certainly, they don’t want to cut education, which is a big ticket
item in this budget. They don’t want to
cut public safety. They’re happy to cut
a number of social programs, but Gray was very good, I thought, in keeping
those cuts to a minimum, and so, if the Republicans want to cut the budget by
four billion dollars, let’s see what that means.
((Jack))
Let’s rewind the tape back to 1990. It was a fourteen billion dollar deficit
that appeared out nowhere almost on Pete Wilson’s first term, and the
resolution to that, from the Governor and in the legislature, was a fourteen
billion dollar change, and it was basically seven billion dollars of cuts in
the budget but also an equal increased amount of taxes. Is the potential out there somewhere?
((Dan Schnur,
Republican Political Consultant))
The potential for that kind of scenario very much exists, but
again, as we saw in the 1990 budget, by not addressing these problems as they
arose, the deficits became greater and greater and greater. The longer you wait to make painful decisions,
as we've learned in this electricity crisis, the more painful they get, and
just as Davis put off the tough calls on electricity, making them more and
more difficult and more and more painful, by putting off the day of reckoning
with the budget, he’s setting himself up for a much greater problem next year.
One other quick thing, Jack. You asked how this affected you as a taxpayer.
Well, there are any number of programs, which over the next twelve
to eighteen months, which may or may not need to be cut, which may or may
not service you and your family, but let me tell you one thing that very much
services you and your family and most California taxpayers and California
families. In order to balance
this budget, Gray Davis rated billions of dollars set aside from a gasoline
tax for future transportation projects for roads, for bridges, for infrastructure.
No current projects are going to be stopped, to his credit, but that
means that the next generation of road repairs and bridge repairs and mass
transit—
((Jack))
Are on hold.
((Dan Schnur,
Republican Political Consultant))
That’s not going to happen, so as you need to get around in
California, and you’re sitting in traffic, that’s money that Gray Davis is
spending elsewhere.
((Jack))
We are now in the public wholesale power business as of the
other day, and we tape this program on Thursday. As of yesterday, Governor Davis put us in the public power
authority business. Is that a fix? And is it a quick enough fix so that the
rate increases that we’re about to see with our June bills do not continue on?
((Gale Kaufman,
Democratic Political Consultant))
Well, I think that’s part of the fix, and I think it allows
the Governor and the leadership to go in that direction if they feel that need,
and I think it gives them a power that they didn’t have, and I think in all the
discussion that Gray Davis is having now about the federal role and certainly
looking at what Bush is proposing, I think the power authority is one major
element that we didn’t have before, and I think you can see just by the
rhetoric by the generators and a lot of the energy companies right now, they
don’t like it one bit, and that makes me feel like it was a good thing to do.
((Dan Schnur,
Republican Political Consultant))
Jack, three important things happened this week on the electricity
front. First, an independent study
came out saying that, instead of thirty or thirty-four days of blackouts this
summer, there could be as many as eighty or eighty-five days, and I’m no Copernicus,
but if I’m not mistaken, summer is ninety days, which doesn’t sound particularly
happy this year. Second, Gray Davis’
appointees at the Public Utilities Commission imposed a multibillion dollar
energy tax in the form of a rate increase on Californians.
Multibillion dollars.
And Third, Gray Davis signed a bill to create a California Power Authority,
which will do nothing to either eliminate or alleviate those first two problems.
((Jack))
The White House is getting aboard the energy bandwagon
obviously with the President’s energy plan.
You know, as an outsider looking at this, I think of Gray Davis’ plan as
to borrow our way out of it, and I think of President Bush’s plan as to drill
our way out of it. Is that too simple a
way to look at this?
((Gale Kaufman,
Democratic Political Consultant))
No, I think that is a good way to look at it. I think that is what George Bush is saying,
and I think in California in particular.
I’ve now seen him be interviewed a number of times this week. He looks horribly defensive, and he
should. He has thrown a few little
nuggets into his plan that he thinks will buy off the environmentalist
community, and I don’t think he’s done anything real and legitimate to deal
with especially what’s going on here in California. It really is like we’re out here by ourselves, and he’s talking
about drilling and things that maybe help us twelve to fifteen years from now,
but there is nothing in his plan, as I’ve seen it so far, that helps us today
solve the real problems that we’re facing, and, you know, we are part of the
Union, and there are some serious issues that he needs to address—
((Jack))
You know, the other George Bush, George Bush Senior, took a
pledge not to drill off the California
coast and the Florida coast for that matter.
Do you think that that’s going to stand up?
((Dan Schnur,
Republican Political Consultant))
George W. Bush has made that same pledge not to drill off
the California coast. He’s made it
clear that there will be no drilling in California unless Californians say that
they want it. In fact, when the plan
was presented, one of the surprises in it is that is was much more for
conservation, much more in the ways of tax incentives for energy efficiency
than people had previously anticipated.
Now, I know as a Davis supporter, it might strike you as odd that a
politician might put out a long-term plan before it becomes an overriding
crisis, but talking about increasing production is a responsible way of dealing
with these things.
((Jack))
Gale, you get the last word on this.
((Gale Kaufman,
Democratic Political Consultant))
Well, everybody is talking about long-term solutions, but
the problem is now, getting us through this summer, and I think that everybody
has to deal with that problem. We’ve
talked about it in every one of these shows, and I don’t see anything in what
the President has come forth with that handles that.
((Dan Schnur, Republican
Political Consultant))
And Gray Davis said on TV last Sunday that George Bush and
his administration have done almost everything that they’ve asked of him.
((Jack))
What we know is that we will see the sticker shock when the
June bill comes in.
Gale
Kaufman, thank you very much
Dan Schnur,
thank you very much.
We would
like your thoughts on this issue. Do
you think the state should be in the wholesale power business? Please, send us your comments to
capitolweek.org…
Also, for
more on money matters, check out the May edition of our partners, The California Journal. It’s a critical look at political
contributions from energy donors.
Melissa?
END @ ISSUE
((Melissa))
As
discussed, the Governor preserved education spending, but he had to make some
adjustments…
Like
abandoning an increase in school performance incentives.
One of the
most controversial items in his education package, extending the middle school
year, is still in, but shortened to 200 days…
And not all
parents and educators favor a longer year to begin with.
MIDDLE SCHOOL REFORM PACKAGE
((Jennifer Fischer, California Capitolweek))
Are California middle school kids making
the grade when it comes to basic skills?
Many aren’t. That’s according to
Governor Gray Davis, so to fix the problem, he’s proposing an initiative to
lengthen the school year.
((Kerry Mazzoni, Secretary of Education))
A longer school year will provide them
with additional time to learn our very rigorous curriculum that we’re expecting
of them.
Kerry
Mazzoni is the State Secretary of Education.
She says Governor Davis’ proposal to lengthen the middle school year by
a month would benefit many students…
((Kerry Mazzoni, Secretary of Education))
It’s a voluntary program that will
provide seven hundred and seventy dollars per middle school student in
California, and we are ready to provide funding for all middle school students
for three grades.
Mazzoni
says that scores are down. Especially
in science, reading, and math…
Something
that thirteen year old Justin Alves can relate to, although he doesn’t want the
longer school year…
((Justin Alves, 8th Grader))
I wouldn’t like it all because, well, it
cuts out on my summer, and I would miss all my friends.
He
says it would help raise his test scores…
((Justin Alves, 8th Grader))
It would help out my grades, but I’d just
miss lots of the summer, that’s the only reason why.
And
it’s not just time in the classroom that could help student performance, but
who is at the head of the class…
((Kerry Mazzoni, Secretary of Education))
We’ve had a crisis in California as it
relates to Mathematics teachers as it relates to not having enough of them, not
having enough of them trained in mathematics.
Governor Davis has proposed a very comprehensive teacher training
program to make sure that all teachers in California are trained to our high
standards.
While
extending the school year appears to be the best solution from the Governor’s
standpoint, math teacher says it’s not a answer for her year round school
students…
((Terry Pearson, Middle School Math Teacher))
My
first reaction was, when he said about extending the school year, was there’s
another thing that our kids won’t be able to access. You know, we’re already twenty-five days shorter than a
traditional school year, and if we couldn’t take advantage of the other thirty
days, that could put our kids fifty day behind a traditional school year.
Pearson
teaches at Pearson W. Nimitz middle school in Los Angeles, where size and
numbers raise different issues…
((Terry Pearson, Middle School Math Teacher))
We have about thirty-six hundred kids on
a campus built for fifteen hundred. We
are the second largest middle school in the United States. About forty percent of our teachers are on
emergency credentials. The math
turnover is typically about four or five people every year out of a department
of thirty.
Pearson
says that there are other areas that need more attention, like building more
schools…
((Terry Pearson, Middle School Math Teacher))
I just wish that everybody would think
about year round schools and find a way to get rid of year round schools
because it’s not good for kids; it’s not good for education in general. We really need more schools, and get them
built more quickly. I mean, twenty
years is a long, long time to have let the situation continue.
((Kerry Mazzoni, Secretary of Education))
We do have a facility issue and crisis in
this state, but the way that is funded in California is through bonds, state
bonds, and local bonds, and it’s a different method of funding. This program will be provided through
Proposition 98, our education dollars, and, yes, we do need schools, but we
also need to look at our middle school students and make sure that they are
receiving the quality and the time that they need to succeed.
I’m
Jennifer Fischer for California Capitolweek.
END MIDDLE SCHOOL REFORM PACKAGE
EDUCATION
DISCUSSION
((Melissa))
So is it a
good idea and can we afford it?
Joining us
now for more on education spending…
Elaine
Johnson from the California Federation of Teachers Association,
And
Secretary of Education Kerry Mazzoni.
Thank you
both for being with us, and, Kerry, we’ll start with you. With all the uncertainty in the budget
picture and the energy cloud that’s hanging over us, do you think that setting
funds aside to extend the middle school year is still a good idea?
((Kerry Mazzoni, Secretary of Education))
Yes, I
do. We really need to focus on our
middle school children. The bill has
passed out of committee, it has been amended, and it’s a very good bill. It will be focused on our lowest performing
schools and our lowest performing children.
It will provide for professional development, and there is additional
flexibility in the bill so that schools on multi-track year round will be able
to access the funds and provide for those children.
((Melissa))
That was a
teacher concern that we heard in our story, and, Elaine, you spent more than
twenty years in the classroom. From a
teacher’s perspective, is this a good priority given that we have a limited
amount of funds? Is this a smart move
to put some of the money towards extending the middle school year?
((Elaine Johnson, California
Federation of Teachers))
Oh, the
California Federation of Teachers applauds the Governor’s willingness to scale
back his proposal to plunge into such an extended middle school year. We’re interested in doing what works, and
so, pairing the extension, the lesser extension, with professional development
and an emphasis on really making good use of those days rather than just doing
more of the same, is really, in our view, the way to go.
((Melissa))
Because the
tough reality is the Governor has done a good job of making education a
priority, but the funds are limited, and we can only stretch the pie so far. Where do we need to prioritize those
funds? What do you see as the most
urgent needs?
((Elaine Johnson, California
Federation of Teachers))
Where they’re most needed: In the lowest
performing schools, where it’s clear that the poorer you are and the more brown
you are in this state, the more likely you are to have an unprepared or
underprepared teacher, and we applaud all the efforts that have gone in the
last few years to bringing those schools up through various means, through
accountability, but we think there’s a lot to be done to put fully prepared
teachers, and give our neediest kids the fair chance that they need to reach
the standards that we’ve worked so hard to establish in this state.
((Melissa))
Kerry, the
good news is education is the bright note of the budget. It’s still fully funded, but are there funds
in there that will some problems that we heard including overcrowded classrooms
and especially teacher retention?
((Kerry Mazzoni, Secretary of
Education))
We’re very
concerned about teacher retention and attracting the nearly three hundred
thousand teachers that we’re going to need in the next ten years. Teacher retention is a huge issue. We are doing a lot to support quality in the
classrooms with professional development for all teachers in this state in
English language, arts, and mathematics.
It’s the boldest initiative in the country as it relates to professional
development for teachers. We know that
conditions make a big difference in trying to retain our teachers, and we’re
doing a lot to try to improve conditions.
One of the elements of good conditions is a good site leader, a good
principle. We have a proposal to
provide training or additional training for all principles and vice principles
in this state. We are trying to tackle
this problem on a variety of fronts.
((Melissa))
How many
teachers do we actually need as California’s population continues to grow? The number is really staggering.
((Kerry Mazzoni, Secretary of
Education))
It is
staggering, and it’s our biggest challenge, three hundred thousand in ten
years.
((Melissa))
Elaine, are
we meeting those challenges, and our the budget priorities set so that we can
keep attracting the teachers and not have instances where we have schools that
have forty percent of their staff using emergency credentials, especially in
the lower performing schools?
((Elaine Johnson, California Federation
of Teachers))
We’ve done
a lot over the last few years to make California more welcoming to out of state
teachers. Jack Scott has carried a
couple bills that have made it a much friendlier climate here for folks that
have prepared out of state. We have a
new credentialing program in place that will, we hope, reduce the number of
underprepared teachers getting into classrooms through the backdoor, and we do
believe very strongly that leadership, strong school leadership, will make a
huge difference in teacher retention, not only because of the impact of onsite,
but also because of all the things that school districts are asked to do. It need a clear-seeing, effective leader or
set of leaders to administer all of these initiatives: peer assessment and
review, accountability measures, assessment.
All of these things have to be in a context that supports students and
teachers.
((Melissa))
And what’s
at stake if that’s not accomplished?
((Elaine Johnson, California
Federation of Teachers))
The future
of the state.
((Kerry Mazzoni, Secretary of
Education))
That’s
true, and I also think that’s the good news about the budget. We know that a robust economy is dependent
on a good education system, and now is exactly the time not to cut education
because—
((Melissa))
And it’s
tough getting that message out because of energy’s shadow.
((Kerry Mazzoni, Secretary of Education))
Yes,
absolutely.
((Melissa))
How does
this budget bring us to par in terms of the national spending average for
students? California has been hit
pretty hard for being below the average.
Are we closer?
((Kerry Mazzoni, Secretary of
Education))
We are at
the average, or we might be a little bit above. Since Governor Davis has been in office, education spending has
increased by forty-three percent, and this year we’re increasing per pupil
expenditures by seven percent.
((Melissa))
And we know that
there was mostly good news in terms of education funding. There were a couple things that we should
touch on that were a concern, including some of the teacher rewards. They’re still increased, but that they’re
not at a level that teachers would like in terms of the extra demands and
accountability measures. Also, when we
talk about higher education, the UCs and CSUs, they had hoped to have a budget
increase, and that, in fact, will not happen.
What kind of concern is that for our commuter teachers and for higher
education?
((Kerry Mazzoni, Secretary of
Education))
Well, higher
education is really treated well in the budget. We really did try to keep all of education
whole because we know that it’s a priority for this state, and in the long-term,
it's what will keep this state vibrant. It’s also the priority of the Governor. K-12 education is an area where we’ve had serious issues. Probably greater issues than there is in higher
education—
((Melissa))
And that’s
why more priority was geared to K-12?
((Kerry Mazzoni, Secretary of
Education))
Right.
((Melissa))
And UC
Merced we should mention, that money for the development of a new campus is
still in, but there are still some funding issue for our existing campuses,
and, Elaine, is that a concern if you’re at a community college? And should students there be taking classes
there be worried about what might be offered there in the next fear years?
((Elaine Johnson, California
Federation of Teachers))
Well,
students taking classes at community colleges should be really happy and really
grateful because the Governor has left money in the budget to support part-time
teachers, so with effective distribution of that money, we’ll be able to reduce
the number of freeway flyers, the number of teachers not available to their
students in community colleges for office hours and extra help outside of
class, and so we’re really, really happy about that money. As far as the UC system is concerned,
somehow it manages to trundle along.
We’re concerned that the professional development programs issued
through and administered by the UC system continue, and I think they will, but
will roll out a little more slowly, which is fine, though we regret any
deference of professional development dollars, we know the institutes will
remain, and they will be effective.
((Melissa))
And we
should mention that, obviously, the budget is not a done deal. It has to be signed off, and we have a lot
of unknowns in terms of the expense of what it will cost to keep our lights on. Kerry, what do people need to know about the
importance of this budget? And if this
is as high as we can aim right now with funds, there’s probably not a lot of
wiggle room.
((Kerry Mazzoni, Secretary of
State))
There’s not
a lot of wiggle room, but we have kept education whole. We have provided five hundred and forty-one
million dollars in the budget for energy conservation in schools as well as to
help deflect some of the costs based on the energy crisis, and we are putting
more money into school safety, and we are also putting money into school
readiness, which is also a very wonderful project.
((Melissa))
Wonderful,
and in our final few seconds, Elaine, is California a good place to be a
teacher right now?
((Elaine Johnson, California Federation
of Teachers))
It depends
where you land. I think most teachers
can make a good place for themselves because once a teacher is in a classroom,
that person can usually create a positive environment. We would like to see a more level playing
field for all students and teachers in California, but we hope that through
what’s been done, more teachers will come to California while we continue to
prepare our own through a range of programs.
((Melissa))
And with
that, we are out of time.
Kerry
Mazzoni and Elaine Johnson, we appreciate your time…
Here’s Jack
with some of your feedback from recent shows…
END EDUCATION DISCUSSION
((Jack))
Melissa we
have received a lot of mail on the Governor’s performance during the energy
crisis…
A. Evans
writes:
“Gray Davis
is no more responsible for utility problems than I am. Davis continues to
maintain my trust.”
But
George from Woodbridge writes:
“Governor
Davis is facing his own political Armageddon. He is void of vision and focus”.
Thank you
for your feedback.
((Mel))
Next week,
we gather the major players for another energy summit.
Can the
state make it through the growing number of scheduled blackouts, and how bad
will our economy turn?
Until then,
I’m Melissa Crowley.
((Jack))
And I’m
Jack Kavanagh. See you next time.