Feds gone wild?

No, this is no joke. Forbes.com, CNN and others are reporting today that Larry Flint of Hustler fame and Joe Francis, chief executive officer of the "Girls Gone Wild" video series, plan to ask Congress for a $5 billion piece of the government's $700 billion bailout funds.They contend that the porn industry needs a little help.

Click here to see the Forbes item titled "Mr. Smut goes to Washington." Click here for the CNN story. According to the CNN account, Owen Moogan, spokesman for Flynt, said, "The porn industry has been hurt by the downturn like everyone else and they are going to ask for the $5 billion. Is it the most serious thing in the world? Is it going to make the lives of Americans better if it happens? It is not for them to determine."

One is left to wonder how Henry Paulson will respond to that. They argue, like the auto industry, they create jobs. But said Flint, "Americans can do without cars and such but they cannot do without sex."

Well, if that's true - and the nation's sex future depends on Hustler magazine - forget the bailout. Maybe it's time for a Fannie-and-Freddie-like takeover of the porn industry?

Talk about a stimulus plan . . .

- Paul Gullixson 

We may be edging closer to mail-only elections, at least in the North Bay.

Sonoma and Marin county election officials have aggressively promoted mail balloting for many years, saying it boosts turnout and could save money.

An analysis of the November election released Tuesday by the Field Institute reaches the same conclusion, at least with regard to turnout.

California's voter turnout increased for the third straight presidential election, after 32 years of declining participation, and Field attributed the trend to an increase in vote-by-mail ballots, the new name for absentee ballots. Of the record 13.7 million votes cast in the November election, 5.7 million were mail ballots. That's up 1.6 million since 2004 and more than double the 2.7 million cast in 2000.

In addition, 84.9 percent of the 6.7 million mail ballots distributed were returned, compared to an overall turnout of 75.9 percent.

As we've already reported, Sonoma had the largest turnout of any county, with 93.4 percent of registered voters casting ballots. And 59.4 percent voted by mail. Only six counties had larger proportions, including tiny Alpine and Sierra counties, which only have mail ballots.

Sonoma and Marin counties would like to go the all-mail route, and election officials have volunteered several times to be test sites for the state. Gloria Colter, the assistant registrar of voters in Sonoma County, said the offer stands for a special election this spring that's likely to be required by any state budget deal.  "We're still ready, willing and able," she told me Wednesday.

She thinks there would be enough savings from not setting up 300-plus polling stations, each with four paid workers, to more than offset postage costs. And she thinks the data proves that more people would participate.

The hold ups include tradition (many people like to go to the polls) and politics (legislators aren't so sure that an all-mail election offers the best chance of approval for spending cuts and tax hikes likely to be on the ballot). Also, Los Angeles County isn't enthusiastic about mail voting. So Colter and other advocates are hoping lawmakers might give county supervisors the option of holding mail-only elections.

I'll admit that I'm one of those who likes going to the polls. What would you think?

-- Jim Sweeney

You may recall that the chambers of commerce in Santa Rosa, Cloverdale and Sebastopol hired a company to create slogans and logos for them. I'm afraid I couldn't have remembered one of the slogans if someone offered me $1,000 until I got a letter to the editor today asking about Santa Rosa's slogan, "California Cornucopia." Thanks for the reminder go to Ned and Jane Alpert of Santa Rosa. Your letter will be in the paper in the next few days.

But what really got me started on this subject was a column from the Marin Independent-Journal by Dick Spotswood. Marin County has come up with its own new slogan ("Marin - Just a little out there"), and Dick offered some suggestions for Marin's cities and towns. Among them:

-- Corte Madera: "Mall of Marin."

-- Fairfax: "Where the '60s still live." (This one might get a protest from Cotati.)

-- Nicasio: "Home of Skywalker Ranch, but we can't tell you where."

-- Mill Valley: "Come for the lattes, stay for the pilates."

-- Point Reyes Station: "Don't even think of building here."

-- Ross: "Where $10 million doesn't go as far as it used to."

-- San Quentin Village: "Marin's largest gated community."

-- Bolinas: A series of signs along southbound Shoreline Highway, starting in Stinson Beach, beginning with: "Bolinas does not exist." Heading around the lagoon: "Bolinas - 20 miles." At the intersection leading to Bolinas: "The AAA road map is wrong." Halfway down the road toward the village: "Warning! Last  chance to turn around. Proceed at your own risk."

-- Jim Sweeney

A year ago, Press Democrat letter writers were voicing outrage over a Schwarzenegger proposal to close 48 state parks including Armstrong Woods and Austin Creek state parks near Guerneville.|
At the time the state's budget problem looked pretty grim - $14.4 billion over 18 months.

Well, that problem has now swollen to $41.5 billion over 18 months, and the governor, is desperately trying to get the Legislature to agree on a number of budget-balancing steps, most of them more dramatic than closing state parks.

One is to shut down schools at least five days early with the next school year.

How would just a plan impact you?

For example, for my children's school in Rincon Valley, if they lost five days of instruction this year, they would be getting out on Thursday, May 28. For students in Santa Rosa City Schools, it would mean getting out on Thursday, May 21, four days before Memorial Day.

I'm still getting used to starting the school year in August. Don't ask me to get used to ending barely a month after Easter.

- Paul Gullixson

Some aspects of a state budget deal, should one ever emerge, are likely to require voter approval, meaning a special election is a good possibility in 2009. And various interests already are trying to get their own proposals on the ballot.

An initiative submitted by the California Teachers Association would raise the state sales tax by a penny, raising about $5 billion a year, which would be earmarked for education. Public schools would take a hit of up to about $10 billion if any of the proposals now pending in Sacramento are adopted. The initiative still is being reviewed by the attorney general, but petitions could be circulating soon.

Meanwhile, two initiatives surfaced last week to rewrite the two-thirds rule. Both were submitted by a law firm that frequently represents Democrats in political cases. One would effectively eliminate it for the state budget, the other would eliminate it for raising taxes other than property taxes.

Presumably, both sponsors have the resources (i.e., cash for signature gathering) to get their measures on the ballot. Between them, they could set up an interesting fight over California's rules for raising and spending public money.

-- Jim Sweeney

Here's a chilling thought for Christmas week: A survey by HCD Research says 62 percent of Americans say they would pay off their state's governor for a job with a salary topping $100,000 a year if they knew they could get away with it. Perhaps Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich had an advance look at the data - or just a distressingly prescient sense of the public. The same poll found that 58 percent would pay off the governor to get out from under a drunken driving charge, and, by varying majorities, to obtain the same health insurance as legislators and the governor, an all-access relationship with the governor and a state ruling that would ensure that a business becomes profitable. Fewer than half of respondents would pay for a letter of recommendation for their child for a state university or military academy or guarantees that their trash would be picked up or pot holes fixed on their neighborhood streets.

I wonder if people took this survey seriously ... and I wonder what else they might be willing to buy from an obliging politician. Who knows, maybe this could be a budget-balancing option for the state of California.

-- Jim Sweeney

With gas prices topping $4 a gallon last summer, a 27-year-old federal ban on new offshore oil drilling was washed away in an election-year wave. The most effective line of the 2008 campaign may well have been, "Drill, baby drill."

The Interior Department is working on new leases, and there's no hint that the Obama administration plans to reverse the policy.

Meanwhile, oil prices have collapsed. After peaking at more than $145 a barrel in July, oil for January delivery has fallen below $40 a barrel. Prices at the pump are at levels not seen in several years.

Obviously, they'll go back up. And the primary argument for new offshore drilling - reducing our reliance on imported oil - hasn't changed.

Meanwhile, Americans are driving less, which is unprecedented and one of the reasons for falling prices.

All of which is a long-winded way of getting at this question: Should we raise the tax on gasoline to discourage people from returning to old driving habits? The idea surfaces regularly in letters to the editor, not to mention Tom Friedman's column.

How much would be reasonable?

If nothing, do you think people will stick to driving less despite lower prices? Or that we'll find enough oil to keep prices down?

As for a gas tax hike, I'd favor one, but given the realities of unemployment and a shrinking economy, I'd suggest ratcheting it up slowly (maybe 25 cents a gallon now, another 50-75 cents spread over two to three years). I'm mostly torn over whether all the revenue ought to go to developing alternative fuel sources, as many propose. Having thumped along the potholes on I-5 recently, I've got no doubt that it's time for some major road repairs, which are funded by gas taxes.

What do you think?

-- Jim Sweeney

There could be votes on income, sales and gas tax increases in the state Senate and Assembly as early as tonight, and the Los Angeles Times is reporting that legislative Democrats will use a complicated legal maneuver to pass them with majority votes.

Tax increases typically take a two-thirds majority, which has held up proposals to raise revenue and cut spending to address the state's whopping budget deficit, now estimated at $41 billion over 18 months.

A little-known and seldom-used provision of the two-thirds rule allows legislators to pass tax measures that are revenue neutral by a simple majority vote. Legislative Democrats say their plan meets that requirement, even as it pumps about $9 billion into the general fund.

How?

By taking revenue from a quarter-cent sales tax now given to local government, they trigger a quarter-cent increase for the same purpose (evidently this is a provision of the budget-balancing plan submitted to voters after the recall). Next, comes a bill to eliminate the excise and sales taxes on gasoline, which feed a special fund for transportation. But don't look for prices to fall at the pumps. A new 39-cent per gallon user fee will be created for transportation projects. User fees aren't subject to the two-thirds rule. A half-cent sales tax and a 2.5 percent income tax surcharge will raise about the same amount as the former gas taxes, making them revenue neutral and, thus, eligible to pass by a simple majority. At least that's the plan.

The plan also contains about $7 billion in spending cuts, most of it from public schools and higher education.

No word yet if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will go for it.

If the taxes pass, bet on an almost immediate legal challenge.

-- Jim Sweeney

Does this scenario sound familiar? A Republican chief executive negotiates a deal with legislative branch Democrats - the majority party - to address a major fiscal issue. The plan is shot down by the chief executive's fellow Republicans, using rules that allow the minority to thwart the will of the majority.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature on the state's budget, right?

Yes, as a matter of fact, that's one example.

But the scenario is the same in Washington, where Senate Democrats blocked a bailout plan for the Big Three automakers despite an agreement between President Bush and congressional Democrats.

This seems like a good time for a segue to make an observation about all the commentary we've heard about majority rule since the election and Proposition 8.

But I'll leave that one alone for now, in part because (as I've already stated on this blog) I think it makes more political sense for opponents of Proposition 8 to try to overturn it at the ballot box rather than in court.

U.S. Senate Republicans have given us their alternative: Let the automakers file for bankruptcy and see if they can reorganize themselves. You may not agree, but it's a clearly articulated position. I wonder when Republicans in Sacramento will produce a no-new-taxes budget proposal that identifies $40-plus billion in spending cuts over the next 18 months. Until they do, they're just intransigent.

(One aspect of the Schwarzenegger/legislative Democrats' plan is a sales tax increase. You can vote on that in our instant poll on this page.)

-- Jim Sweeney

How many times have you heard someone say that?

If you've said it yourself, you may be in luck. Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, is sponsoring a "there oughta be a law" contest, and he says he may introduce the winning entries as legislation in Sacramento.

A similar contest sponsored by a different legislator resulted in a state law several years ago requiring motorists to turn on their headlights when it rains hard enough to require windshield wipers.

Perhaps we can help get Huffman started. Post your ideas here for new laws - or those that ought to be repealed. Maybe we'll find a winner.

I, for one, would like to outlaw the New York Yankees. Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen. So, perhaps I'd settle for a law requiring a public vote before granting retroactive benefit increases for public employees, such as the 3 percent at 50 public safety retirement that was made available (in many agencies) to people closing on retirement who had been paying in at a lesser rate for their entire careers.

-- Jim Sweeney