Hannah-Beth Jackson Breaks Down Jerry Brown

Praises Governor on Some Points, Disagrees With Him on Others

Thursday, June 13, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

When State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson last served in the statehouse, budgets invariably missed their deadlines as Republicans and Democrats found themselves locked in perpetual partisan paralysis. That was 2004. This year, Democrats enjoy a veto-proof majority, and Governor Jerry Brown’s budget passed on time with a surplus — unheard of in 10 years — of $500 million. The last governor the Democratic Jackson worked with was Arnold Schwarzenegger, whom she described as “clueless” in terms of what he wanted to accomplish and how he intended to accomplish it. By contrast, Jackson praised Brown as a politically seasoned visionary with a keen grasp of what can be achieved.

While Jackson disagreed with Brown’s plan to redistribute school funding to the advantage of underserved districts — she argued funding for all districts should be increased — she said Brown was “coming from a very solid, positive place.” Ultimately, she noted, Brown struck a compromise to increase per-pupil funding by $537 a year, bringing it to 2007 spending levels. After that, she added, funding increases will target poorer schools.

Jackson, a liberal Democrat, noted the budget restores funding to adult dental services, which had been totally eliminated for the past five years. That lack of service gave rise, she said, “to the kind of stuff that goes on in Rwanda.” Likewise, she voiced satisfaction that the governor’s budget adds $275 million in onetime funding to mental-health services. Jackson, however, expressed concern that Brown was “too conservative” in his estimates of future revenues, noting that the state’s Legislative Analyst thought he underestimated future growth to the tune of $2 billion.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

"Jackson, a liberal Democrat, noted the budget restores funding to adult dental services, which had been totally eliminated for the past five years. That lack of service gave rise, she said, 'to the kind of stuff that goes on in Rwanda.' ”

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 13, 2013 at 3:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm glad about the funding but doubt better oral health would have salved hostilities that date back centuries and have been exacerbated by colonial meddling.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 13, 2013 at 3:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Earth to Jackson: this is not Rwanda.

This state could be a healthy, functioning economy absent the unsustainable nanny-state demands and petty regulations you, Ms Jackson and your ilk, have inflicted on this state for too long.

Please show you know something about governing this state instead of resorting to the inflammatory false dichotomy. Thank you.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 13, 2013 at 7:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms Jackson needs to familiarize herself with African chew sticks (free) which have long produced better dental health in these countries, than found in the slothful US. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Jackson again goes for the cute hyperbole, proving yet again she has another agenda. Dental workers (or fill in the blank) only add to the numbers of union members this state subsidizes, which in turn ensures future Democrat Party victories. And there you have it, folks.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 13, 2013 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Apart from a being a career candidate for whatever elected office has an opening, and a very limited success rate of legislation she has authored, this is the best she can pull off???

BeachFan (anonymous profile)
June 13, 2013 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

while I support Jackson, and she HAS authored some important legislation, she is decidedly wrong in criticizing Brown's "estimates of future revenues". He has been very prudent and assumed a future revenue number over $3 billion LESS than what the Democrats wanted. Nice going, Jerry.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 13, 2013 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And the businesses Jackson has run, and the payrolls Jackson has met producing revenues for value are ............................ ????

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 13, 2013 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hannah-Beth's true business acumen is clearly seen in her argument regarding her Sente Bill 770-- so who pays the Bill Hannah? They money does not grow on trees ...

.. to strengthen California's Paid Family Leave Program by allowing workers to receive partial pay to care for seriously ill grandparents, grandchildren, siblings and in-laws... Expanding this program will result in no additional costs to employees or employers, and will prevent families from having to make the terrible choice between caring for a loved one or putting food on the table.

loneranger (anonymous profile)
June 13, 2013 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, isn't that a graphic dichotomy. File that one under Rwanda dental conditions.

Maybe Hannah-Beth can provide WIC food stamps to "put food on the table" for the absent employee as the better alternative, rather than unilaterally dinging the employer to double cover the employee for double the reasons for their "paid" absence?

If the state wants to expand these types of benefits, then the state pays for them and adjusts the present state budget to cover these increased benefits.

Classic example of spending other people's money and playing the fools gold "gilt" card at the same time. Give it a rest, Jackson.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 13, 2013 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Looks like HBJ punked us all. Happens when smart people have facts at their fingerprints and forget the rest of us don't know that Rwanda has one dentist for every 800,000 people. I do it all the time.
Here's some more info and you can even choose your own language, imagine that freedom.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 13, 2013 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Rwanda comment is just plain weird. She may be making some good points--I don't know--but why does she mention Rwanda? (Which as far as I know, has the highest birthrate in the world)

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 13, 2013 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If she has mentioned Macedonian dental coverage under the former Yugoslavian communist state, she might have hit a home run. Instead she maligned a country and continent to get a cheap laugh, which only showed she doesn't get out much and her weak attempt at hyperbole humor badly back-fired. Anything else new?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 13, 2013 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Even worse this shows Jackson still thinks much of the globe still remains in the third world, when it fact most countries now are eating the moribund California economy for lunch. No small part to Jackson's obsession passing business-killing legislation.

Jackson take a vacation, and visit the Pacific Rim. Come back and tell us exactly how we are supposed to compete with this large chunk of real estate that no longer has any use for California's petty wacko vanities?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 13, 2013 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is the worst thing any politician has ever said in the history of California.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 13, 2013 at 5:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am patiently waiting for a list of the "important legislation" that HBJ has authored.
This was a really weird and really funny article; even the jaded Indy editors were unable to make her look good.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
June 14, 2013 at 6:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jackson continues to be a fan of unlimited government spending and a pawn of the SEIU. She will oppose anything even remotely conservative, even "conservative" Jerry Brown's revenue estimates. She's a fool, but she keeps getting elected - what does that say about the voters?

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
June 14, 2013 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John Locke: What does that say about opposing candidates?

14noscams (anonymous profile)
June 14, 2013 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

14noscams scores again.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 14, 2013 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How did Hannah-Beth Jackson get everyone's email addresses to wake up this morning to her email bomb? Never sent her a dime, never listed in any email white pages, never contacted her or revealed email address to anyone around her. What gives with this latest Democrat party home invasion?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 14, 2013 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hilarious. Well it's the least you could do to at least see what "the other side" is saying unless you just want to spew into an empty void all your life.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 14, 2013 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Democrat Party with their cadres of millions union members who have a dog in this fight have created a formidable ground game.

Voters first need to stop being pawns of the highly organized and well-funded public sector union employees whose only goal is to take more of the voter's money; giving nothing in return.

It is not the lack of credible opposition candidates; it is the failure to break through this blatant union-funded public sector misrepresentation of the election process.

This is slowly breaking down with the free forum internet to counter-act the paid union media campaigns and online transparency for public sector wages, salaries and benefits paid with our tax dollars.

LA just turned down a local sales tax initiative because more voters are recognizing we have a spending problem; not a revenue problem. Spending problems now belong 100% to the Democrats and their powerful public sector unions.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 14, 2013 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Voters need to stop being pawns of political parties. You reveal yourself as just a partisan hack when you only attack the Dems.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 14, 2013 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Clue: there are no Republicans in Santa Barbara organized enough to attack.

Democrats are the only visible target, but even they choose to now call themselves "progressives". (aka the party of the public sector unions)

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 14, 2013 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is what we fight for:

1. Stop putting public sector union-friendly candidates on both sides of the bargaining table.

2. Eschew any candidate carrying a partisan endorsement for a non-partisan office.

3. Demand any elected official recuse self from negotiating and voting for any employee contract, if endorsed or received political donations from same public employee union.

4. Repeal all economy-killing "environmental" legislation that cannot be justified by objective metrics.

5. Rescind the present multi-volume California Education Code and get back to basics in education, putting student outcomes first; not employee job protections and benefits.

6. Transition all public pensions to become defined-contribution plans, and phase out defined-benefit plans. Eliminate pension-spiking and cashing out vacation and/or sick pay. Eliminate poste-retirement double-dipping.

7. Pay present dollars to hire and retain high quality public servants.

8. Make no promises to commit ongoing public funds, that come due at some future time-uncertain.

9. Audit all public programs for independent value and measurable success markers; sunset all programs after a time certain to be renewed only after corroborating proof of their continued value.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 14, 2013 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LA voters turned down the sales tax because it's regressive, foo, you know that. I eschew your 9 points.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 14, 2013 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

QUOTE: "Yet, (last week) in Los Angeles, voters turned down a separate sales tax increase. Some analysts see this as mixed messages from voters. I see it as maybe a good sign that people in California are getting tired of an expansive state government. Several hundred businesses have relocated to other states, and the exodus continues."

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 14, 2013 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

QUOTE: RE Measure A - 55% of LA voters reject sales tax increase

"Former Los Angeles Daily News Editor Ron Kaye, who blogs about local politics, said City Hall remains fraught with waste. He campaigned against the tax increase, arguing elected officials have refused to make difficult decisions.

“The city council and the mayor have shown no backbone, no political will, no willingness to come to terms with the fact that their payroll benefits and pension costs are out of line with what the city can afford,” Kaye said.

All of the top mayoral candidates opposed Measure A. In addition to Mayor Villaraigosa and Chief Beck, a majority of the city council and labor unions representing city employees supported it."

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 14, 2013 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@14noscams: It says that locals will vote Democrat even if she is demonstrably bad for us. The cycle must be broken.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
June 15, 2013 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ha, the cycle won't be broken, JL, because voters aren't quite as ignorant as you imply.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 15, 2013 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Voters are getting smarter because they are rejecting the extremes of both parties.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 16, 2013 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I disagree Foo. When all is said and done, the electorate runs for whoever the RNC or the DNC (National committees of both major parties for the unknowing) tells them to vote for.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 16, 2013 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Independents and DTS registration is growing. This is an excellent trend. Party affiliation is so yesterday. Union ground game on election day can still be the deal breaker, but better voter education today is at our fingertips for free.

The union vise-grip on voters is finally losing strength - just look at the last city council election. People are catching on, union endorsements are not in their best interests.

Unions win - taxpayers lose. Simple message - easy to get.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 16, 2013 at 10:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well of course they are DrDan. They keep electing financially irresponsible members to various offices. Feinstein, Boxer, Capps, Williams, Jackson, Brown, Carbajal, Murillo, etc. We need, as I have said MANY times, a solid credible Centrist party. Socially tolerant and concerned, but fiscally responsible. Who understand that "tax the rich" may be a great class warfare rallying cry, but does nothing to solve the underlying problems.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
June 17, 2013 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's either tax the rich or resort to eating them.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 17, 2013 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If it were up to me I'd force the Montecito Association to pay for all the delays they've caused. They've got enough to spend on cracked out "alternate plans" why not put their (often times) blood money to use.
BTW, most Montecito residents DO NOT belong to or even agree with the Montecito Assoc., it's not 1910.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 17, 2013 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Brown has been prudent and responsible, JL, what the heck are you talking about?! It isn't "tax the rich" but rather BEAR YOUR FAIR SHARE! How about the hundreds of billions Apple and other corps tax shelter abroad? Gimme a break.
Oh, and you name only Demos ["Feinstein, Boxer, Capps, Williams, Jackson, Brown, Carbajal, Murillo"] so no more of your tripe about being "center left".
I do agree that these increasing revenues from the 1% will not ultimately solve the underlying problems, but it helps in the short run.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 17, 2013 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So now it is the fault of Apple for taking their legal tax deductions?
Sure, and you don't take your deductions on your personal tax...
Change the damn tax laws, Dems and Repubs, and stop blaming legal companies legally doing their taxes according to the code.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
June 18, 2013 at 7:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cutting expenses helps in the short run and the long run. A two-fur. We have a spending problem; not a revenue problem. Hating successful people solves nothing, now does it?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 18, 2013 at 8:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's a revenue problem, when you can't pay for basics of civilization because some individuals wish to monopolize the same. It's not about punishing success, it's about breaking unfair and dishonest monopolies on wealth- not the same. Only a fool equates success purely with wealth.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 18, 2013 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In Mexico they say if you don't work, you don't eat. Good advice. No, it is a spending problem and also a over-regulation problem because businesses are getting killed in this state.

When the state becomes everyone's worst enemy, you can't pay for anything. And you can't eat promises you never intended to keep.

Stop resenting (envy?) successful people, KV. Your issues are not theirs to solve. They monopolize nothing. Name one monopoly you want to break, that will shower coins down upon all of us.

However, you the consumer can starve them to death any time you want.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
June 20, 2013 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Businesses are regulated to death, then they take their tax base to another state.

Stop killing businesses so that the taxes they generate can help the least among us.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 21, 2013 at 12:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One successful small business can spawn at least five more. And more of the money stays in , and circulates within the community instead of just taking the next wire transfer out.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
June 21, 2013 at 12:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree Ken.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2013 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: