A California lawmaker wants to change Proposition 13 to boost funding for public education and other programs.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) said Thursday that he plans to introduce legislation that would remove business property owners from some provisions of the groundbreaking 1978 law, which placed limits on residential and commercial property taxes.

A “split roll” would allow commercial properties to be taxed based on their current market value. Currently, corporations can avoid reassessments when property changes hands, Ammiano said.

“Prop. 13 is not the untouchable third-rail anymore,” Ammiano said in a statement. “It’s more like the bad guy with the mustache who has tied California to the rails with the fiscal train wreck coming.”

The lawmaker said revenue was needed to help government programs that have been slashed in recent years.

While Proposition 13 remains popular with California voters, a new poll found 58% of them favor the “split roll” idea. According to the survey, released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California, most Democrats and independents supported the proposal while Republicans were divided.

The change would have to be approved by voters, and with new supermajorities in both legislative houses, Democrats now have the power to place measures on the ballot without GOP backing.

State Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) has also proposed changing Proposition 13. He introduced a constitutional amendment that would allow local parcel taxes for schools to pass with 55% of the vote, instead of the two-thirds currently required.

Reprinted from The Los Angeles Times (Dec. 6, 2012)

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data

Efforts to encourage Americans to improve their diets and to eat more nutritious foods presume that a wide variety of these foods are accessible to everyone. But for some Americans and in some communities, access to healthy foods may be limited.

That’s the findings of a report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service entitled, “Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data.”

Using population data from the 2010 Census, income and vehicle availability data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey, and a 2010 directory of supermarkets, this report estimates that 9.7 percent of the U.S. population, or 29.7 million people, live in low-income areas more than 1 mile from a supermarket.

However, only 1.8 percent of all households live more than 1 mile from a supermarket and do not have a vehicle. Estimated distance to the nearest three supermarkets is an indicator of the choices available to consumers and the level of competition among stores. Estimates show that half of the U.S. population lives within 2 miles of 3 supermarkets.

How to access the report:

• Report Summary
• Entire Report

How well run are America’s 50 states? The answer depends a lot on where you live.

Every year, 24/7 Wall St. conducts an extensive survey of all fifty states in America. Based on a review of data on financial health, standard of living and government services by state we determine how well each state is managed. For the first time, North Dakota is the best run. California is the worst run for the second year in a row.

The successful management of a state is difficult to measure. Factors that affect its finances and population may be the result of decisions made years ago. A state’s difficulties can be caused by poor governance or by external factors, such as extreme weather.

[More from 24/7 Wall St.: America’s Poorest States]

A state with abundant natural resources should have an easier time balancing its budget than one starved for resources. Regional problems or the national decline of certain industries can destroy local economies. The subprime mortgage crisis, for example, disproportionately affected states with strong construction and real estate markets. Such factors can be easily identified and noted as possible causes for a state’s poverty levels, unemployment, or strained coffers.

Despite this, it is the responsibility of each state to deal with the resources at its disposal. Each government must anticipate economic shifts and diversify its industries and attract new business. A state should be able to raise enough revenue to ensure the safety of its citizens and minimize hardship without spending more than it can prudently afford. Some states have historically done this much better than others.

To determine how well the states are run, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed hundreds of data sets from dozens of sources. We looked at each state’s debt, revenue, expenditure and deficit to determine how well it is managed fiscally. We reviewed taxes, exports, and GDP growth, including a breakdown by sector, to identify how each state is managing its resources. We looked at poverty, income, unemployment, high school graduation, violent crime and foreclosure rates to measure if residents are prospering.

The best-run states have certain characteristics in common, as do the worst run. The high-ranking states all have well-managed budgets. Each of the top ten has a perfect, or near-perfect, credit rating from Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, or both. Of the ten worst-ranked, only three received top scores from one agency, and none from both. California is currently the only state rated A- by S&P, the lowest score given to any state. These poor-ranked states have high debt relative to both income and expenditure.

There is a strong correlation between well-educated populations and generally well-managed states. Of the ten best-scoring states on our list, nine have among the highest percentages of adults with high school diplomas.

[More from 24/7 Wall St.: The 12 Companies Paying Americans the Least]

Employment is also closely correlated to how well a state is managed. The unemployment rates of most of the poorly ranked states are among the highest in the country. Nine of the ten best-ranked states had an unemployment rate of less than 7% in 2011. This includes North Dakota, which had the lowest rate in the country in 2011, at just 3.6%. The average unemployment rate nationwide was 8.9% in 2011.

Best-Run States:

1. North Dakota

> Debt per capita: $3,282 (22nd lowest)
> Budget deficit: None
> Unemployment: 3.5% (the lowest)
> Median household income: $51,704 (20th highest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 12.2% (13th lowest)

For the first time, North Dakota ranks as the best run state in the country. In recent years, North Dakota’s oil boom has transformed its economy. Last year, crude oil production rose 35%. As of August, 2012, it was the second-largest oil producer in the country. This was due to the use of hydraulic fracturing in the state’s Bakken shale formation. The oil and gas boom brought jobs to North Dakota, which had the nation’s lowest unemployment rate in 2011 at 3.5%, and economic growth. Between 2010 and 2011, North Dakota’s GDP jumped 7.6%, by far the largest increase in the nation. This growth has also increased home values, which rose a nation-leading 29% between 2006 and 2011. North Dakota and Montana are the only two states that have not reported a budget shortfall since fiscal 2009.

2. Wyoming

> Debt per capita: $2,694 (18th lowest)
> Budget deficit: 10.3% (32nd largest)
> Unemployment: 6.0% (7th lowest)
> Median household income: $56,322 (13th highest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 11.3% (6th lowest)

Wyoming is not the best-run state in the nation this year. The drop is largely due to the state’s contracting economy. In 2011, GDP shrunk by 1.2%, more than any other state. As a whole, however, the state is a model of good management and a prospering population. The state is particularly efficient at managing its debt, owing the equivalent of just 20.4% of annual revenue in fiscal 2010. Wyoming also has a tax structure that, according to the Tax Foundation, is the nation’s most-favorable for businesses — it does not have any corporate income taxes. The state has experienced an energy boom in recent years. The mining industry, which includes oil and gas extracting, accounted for 29.4% of the state’s GDP in 2011 alone, more than in any other state. As of last year, Wyoming’s poverty, home foreclosure, and unemployment rates were all among the lowest in the nation.

3. Nebraska

> Debt per capita: $1,279 (2nd lowest)
> Budget deficit: 9.7% (34th largest)
> Unemployment: 4.4% (2nd lowest)
> Median household income: $50,296 (22nd highest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 13.1% (tied-15th lowest)

Last year, Nebraska had the second-lowest unemployment rate in the nation at 4.4%. In Lincoln, the state capital, the unemployment rate was 4%, lower than all metropolitan areas in the country, except Bismarck and Fargo in North Dakota. Although far from the nation’s wealthiest state — median income was slightly lower than the U.S. median of $50,502 — Nebraska’s economy is strong relative to the rest of the U.S. The state is one of the leading agricultural producers, with the sector accounting for 8.3% of the state’s GDP last year. The state also had the second-lowest debt per capita in the country in fiscal 2010, at $1,279, compared to an average of $3,614 for states nationwide.

4. Utah

> Debt per capita: $2,356 (15th lowest)
> Budget deficit: 14.7% (25th largest)
> Unemployment: 6.7% (tied-11th lowest)
> Median household income: $55,869 (14th highest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 13.5% (tied-17th lowest)

In fiscal 2011, Utah had a budget deficit of $700 million, equal to 14.7% of the state’s GDP. This debt-to-GDP ratio is worse than half the states in the U.S. Despite these problems, Utah has committed to reducing expenses in place of raising taxes or increasing debt. The state has also limited its borrowing. Its total debt was just under $6.5 billion in fiscal 2010, or $2,356 per capita — less than most states — and 40.4% of 2010 tax revenue. Both Moody’s and S&P gave Utah their highest credit ratings because of the state’s strong fiscal management. Moody’s commented that Utah has a “tradition of conservative fiscal management; rebuilding of budgetary reserves after their use in the recession; [and] a closely managed debt portfolio.”

5. Iowa

> Debt per capita: $1,690 (7th lowest)
> Budget deficit: 20.3% (18th largest)
> Unemployment: 5.9% (6th lowest)
> Median household income: $49,427 (24th highest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 12.8% (14th lowest)

Like many of the other well-run states, Iowa is one of the nation’s top agricultural centers — the industry accounted for 6.6% of the state’s GDP in 2011. The farm economy has contributed significantly to growth, with farm earnings rising rapidly and land values skyrocketing. State GDP rose by 1.9% between 2010 and 2011 — the 12th-highest increase in the country. Iowa’s unemployment rate fell from 6.3% in 2010 to just 5.9% in 2011, the nation’s sixth-lowest rate. The state has carried a low debt burden in recent years, averaging just $1,690 per capita in fiscal 2010, among the nation’s lowest. The state currently has the best possible credit ratings both from Moody’s and S&P.

Worst-Run States:

50. California

> Debt per capita: $4,008 (18th highest)
> Budget deficit: 20.7% (17th largest)
> Unemployment: 11.7% (2nd highest)
> Median household income: $57,287 (10th highest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 16.6% (18th highest)

California is 24/7 Wall St.’s “Worst Run State” for the second year in a row. Due to high levels of debt, the state’s S&P credit rating is the worst of all states, while its Moody’s credit rating is the second-worst. Much of California’s fiscal woes involve the economic downturn. Home prices plunged by 33.6% between 2006 and 2011, worse than all states except for three. The state’s foreclosure rate and unemployment rate were the third- and second-highest in the country, respectively. But efforts to get finances on track are moving forward. State voters passed a ballot initiative to raise sales taxes as well as income taxes for people who make at least $250,000 a year. While median income is the 10th-highest in the country, the state also has one of the highest tax burdens on income. According to the Tax Foundation, the state also has the third-worst business tax climate in the country.

49. Rhode Island

> Debt per capita: $9,018 (3rd highest)
> Budget deficit: 13.4% (28th largest)
> Unemployment: 11.3% (3rd highest)
> Median household income: $53,636 (17th highest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 14.7% (24th lowest)

Rhode Island’s finances were a mess in fiscal 2010. The state had $9.5 billion in unpaid debts, which came to 107.2% of that year’s revenues.At more than $9,000 per person, it’s one of the largest debt burdens in the country. The state also funded less than half of its pension obligations, worse than all states except for Illinois. In 2010, in a spectacular example of fiscal mismanagement, the state guaranteed a $75 million loan to a video game company, which has since defaulted. With one of the nation’s slowest growth rates and the third-highest unemployment rate in the U.S., at 11.3%, Rhode Island’s economy performed poorly overall.

48. Illinois

> Debt per capita: $4,790 (11th highest)
> Budget deficit: 40.2% (2nd largest)
> Unemployment: 9.8% (tied-10th highest)
> Median household income: $53,234 (18th highest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 15.0% (25th highest)

Although many states have budget issues, Illinois’ faces among the biggest problems. In 2010, the state’s budget shortfall was more than 40% of its general fund, the second-highest of any state. Both S&P and Moody’s gave Illinois credit ratings that were the second-worst of all states. In addition, the state only funded 45% of its pension liability in 2010, the lowest percentage of any state. Governor Patrick Quinn has made the now-$85 billion pension gap a top priority for the new legislative session beginning in January.

47. Arizona

> Debt per capita: $2,188 (12th lowest)
> Budget deficit: 39.0% (3rd largest)
> Unemployment: 9.5% (tied-13th highest)
> Median household income: $46,709 (21st lowest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 19.0% (tied-8th highest)

Between 2006 and 2011, the value of homes in Arizona tumbled by 35%, more than every state except for Nevada. The state also had the nation’s second-highest foreclosure rate in 2011, with one in every 24 homes in foreclosure. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, Arizona had some of the nation’s largest budget shortfalls. In fiscal 2010, the state had a shortfall of $5.1 billion, equal to 65% of its general fund. In fiscal 2011, Arizona’s budget deficit was 39.0% of its general fund, the third-highest in the nation. In the recent state elections, residents voted on several measures intended to shore up the state’s finances. Voters rejected the continuation of a sales tax hike, while approving the restructuring of the state’s property tax assessment system.

46. New Jersey

> Debt per capita: $6,944 (5th highest)
> Budget deficit: 38.2% (4th largest)
> Unemployment: 9.3% (14th highest)
> Median household income: $67,458 (3rd highest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 10.4% (3rd lowest)

Between 2010 and 2011, New Jersey’s GDP contracted by 0.5%, more than all but three other states. The state’s median household income and poverty rate were both third best in the nation. On the other hand, the state’s tax burden on its residents was second highest in the U.S. in 2010. Residents paid 12.4% of their income in state and local taxes, higher than any other state except New York. The state has many budget problems, as well. New Jersey’s debt as a percentage of revenue was 91.6%, the fifth-highest of all states.

How did your state do? View the full list of the best- and worst-run states.

Methodology:

24/7 Wall St. considered data from a number of sources, including Standard & Poor’s, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the U.S. Census Bureau, the Tax Foundation, RealtyTrac, The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Conference of State Legislators.

Unemployment data was taken from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Credit ratings were from ratings agencies S&P and Moody’s. We relied on the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report for violent crime rate by state and large metropolitan areas. RealtyTrac provided foreclosure rates.

A significant amount of the data we used came from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. Data from ACS included percentage of residents below the poverty line, high school completion for those 25 and older, median household income, percentage of the population without health insurance and the change in median home values from 2006 to 2011. These are the values we used in our ranking.

Once we reviewed the sources and compiled the final metrics, we ranked each state based on its performance in all the categories. All data are for the full year 2011, with the exception of debt per capita, obtained from the Tax Foundation, and state budgetary data, which came from the U.S. Census Bureau, and is for fiscal year 2010. New to this year’s study was our more detailed review of state industry for 2011, from the the Bureau of Economic Analysis, exports per capita for 2011, from the Census Bureau, and the 2010 tax burden and the current tax business climate, from the Tax Foundation.

Gov. Jerry Brown’s $6-billion-a-year tax initiative to rescue California schools and the state’s finances appeared to squeak by with a victory early Wednesday, and Democrats’ grip on Sacramento tightened as the party crept toward winning a super-majority in both houses of the Legislature.

Tuesday’s election also brought an end to the three-decade-long congressional career of Rep. Howard Berman, who early Wednesday morning conceded defeat in his political slugfest against fellow Democrat Brad Sherman in the San Fernando Valley.

The bitter contest between Sherman and Berman, awash in more than $13 million in campaign spending by the candidates and independent political groups, was triggered when California’s newly drawn political boundaries put the two incumbents in the same district.

“I congratulate Brad. … I will do whatever I can to ensure a cooperative and orderly transition,” Berman said in a concise concession statement early Wednesday.

In a similar high-profile mash-up between Democrats, Rep. Janice Hahn of San Pedro was cruising to an easy win against Rep. Laura Richardson of Long Beach in a newly drawn district that includes many minority, working-class communities, election results showed.

Among other closely watched races for California House seats, Assemblywoman Julia Brownley (D-Oak Park) narrowly defeated state Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Moorpark) in Ventura County, and Rep. Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara) bested former Republican Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado, according to results with all voter precincts reporting in those districts.

California’s senior U.S. senator, Democrat Dianne Feinstein, won an easy reelection victory over nonprofit executive Elizabeth Emken, her underfunded, little-known Republican challenger.

The governor woke up Wednesday as one of the biggest apparent victors in Tuesday’s election, however.

Facing well-funded opposition, Brown campaigned heavily for Proposition 30 as a way to restore fiscal sanity to Sacramento and to stave off deep cuts to public schools and universities. The initiative calls for a quarter-cent increase to sales taxes for four years and a seven-year tax hike on California’s highest earners.

Californians have not approved a statewide tax increase since 2004.

Voters overwhelmingly rejected a competing measure bankrolled by millionaire civil rights lawyer Molly Munger — Proposition 38 – which would have increased income taxes for most Californians to raise funds primarily for schools and early childhood education.

In one of the highest-profile state ballot measures, labor unions appeared to defeat Proposition 32, which would have reduced their political influence by barring unions from using paycheck deductions for political purposes.

Californians also soured on a measure to abolish the death penalty -– Proposition 34 — which was trailing badly with most of the voter precincts reporting Wednesday morning.

Other law-and-order measures were greeting more warmly. Voters favored Proposition 36, which would change the three-strikes sentencing law so offenders whose third strikes were minor, nonviolent crimes could no longer be given 25 years to life in prison.

Voters also supported Proposition 35, which promoted increased punishment for sex trafficking of a minor. Both led by wide margins with most ballots counted.

With most ballots tallied across California, initiatives to label genetically engineered foods and change state law to create a new car insurance discount appeared headed for defeat.

One of the biggest surprises of the election was the Democrats’ strong showing in legislative races. Democrats appear on the verge of winning a two-thirds majority in the state Senate and Assembly, enough to approve tax measures without Republican support.

In Los Angeles County, veteran prosecutor Jackie Lacey became the county’s first female and first African American district attorney after defeating Deputy Dist. Atty. Alan Jackson. Jackson conceded early Wednesday morning.

Lacey, 55, touted herself as the only candidate with the experience to run the office. She had the support of her boss, Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley, who is retiring after three terms.

Los Angeles County voters also approved a local measure requiring adult film actors to wear condoms. With most precincts reporting, a measure to fund transportation projects by extending a countywide sales-tax increase for an additional 30 years remained just shy of the two-thirds vote required for approval.

Some races remained too close to call, including the San Diego congressional race between Rep. Brian P. Bilbray (R-Carlsbad) and Democrat Scott Peters, a San Diego environmental attorney. In the Coachella Valley, Democratic emergency room doctor Raul Ruiz was leading Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-Palm Springs) with just under two-thirds of precincts reporting early Wednesday morning.

Reprinted from The Los Angeles Times (Nov. 7, 2012)

LOS ANGELES—Supporters of a ballot proposal to label cereals, sodas and other products containing genetically modified ingredients say their effort is about empowering consumers who deserve to know what’s in their food. Legal scholars say the right to know contained in Proposition 37 also comes with the right to sue.

The initiative on Tuesday’s ballot is worded in such a way that it could invite lawsuits against food producers and grocery stores, experts say. Plaintiffs, including individual consumers, could sue for an injunction to halt mislabeled goods without having to show they were somehow harmed or deceived. In class-action lawsuits, the prevailing side could win damage awards and recoup attorney’s fees and other costs.

If Proposition 37 passes and survives on appeal, “you’re looking at full employment for lawyers without a doubt,” said law professor David Levine at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, and who is not affiliated with either campaign.

The initiative’s backers, which include consumer advocates and the organic food industry, have countered the notion that passage would lead to endless litigation and devoted a section on their website to this point. Supporters say there will be no reason for lawyers to act if companies follow the labeling rules and that any class-action claim would be dismissed if the defendants fixed the labels.

“There’s not much in it for the trial lawyers,” said Joe Sandler, legal advisor for the California Right to Know campaign. Foods from genetically modified crops have been a staple of the American diet for more than a decade. Most processed foods sold in supermarkets such as cookies and snack bars contain ingredients derived from plants whose genes were tweaked in the laboratory.

The federal government has not mandated special labels on GMO foods because there’s no chemical difference between them and non-modified versions. Major science and health groups have said such foods are safe to eat.

Despite the assurances, some shoppers remain wary. Under Proposition 37, processed food and produce that was genetically engineered would have to be marked. Organic products, restaurant meals and alcohol are excluded. Meat and dairy also are exempt even if the animals were fed grains enhanced through biotechnology.

Monsanto Co. and other international conglomerates have raised $44.4 million to prevent California from being the first state to enact GMO food labels. In part, they contend that grocery bills will be more expensive if the measure wins.

The nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office, which deciphers the impacts of ballot propositions, said state courts would see an increase in cases because Proposition 37 allows individuals to take legal action.

Consumers could sue for violations under a state statue “designed to encourage litigation,” said Derek Muller, an associate law professor at Pepperdine University who is not part of either side. “That will encourage more lawsuits.”

The primary targets, Muller said, would be the giant food makers, but retail grocers also might find themselves in the crosshairs.

“It’s easier to win,” Muller said. “It’s easier to convince the mom-and-pop stores to settle than to convince Monsanto.”

That worries grocers such as Ray Martinez, owner of La Playa Market, which caters to lower-income families. For every unmarked item at his Inglewood store, Martinez would need to get a sworn statement from suppliers or get independent certification confirming products are GMO-free.

“It makes no sense to me as a businessman and as a consumer,” he said.

Sandler, of the California Right to Know group, said supermarkets would be responsible only for labeling their shelves and would not be penalized for mistakes by manufacturers.

Marsha Cohen, who teaches law at UC Hastings, said the initiative’s language on enforcement is very broad and allows anyone to sue for violations. “I would not have chosen to write it in this way,” she said.

Cohen, who has no role in either campaign, noted this is a common problem with ballot initiatives, which are not subjected to the same scrutiny as bills passed by the Legislature. There’s always some uncertainty about how initiatives that become law should be interpreted, she said.

Cohen would have preferred that Proposition 37 contain a clause spelling out fines for violations that would go to the state’s coffers. She also would have limited consumer action to people who have suffered harm from eating mislabeled foods.

San Francisco Bay Area environmental attorney James Wheaton filed the labeling initiative language with the state attorney general’s office last year. He also drafted Proposition 65, which requires businesses to post warnings about chemicals, and his firm has won judgments from litigating claims under that initiative, which was passed by voters in 1986.

A message left with Wheaton seeking comment was not returned.

Reprinted from San Jose Mercury News (11/03/2012)

Its requirement that genetically engineered food be labeled before being sold in California is problematic on a number of levels.

There’s a growing gap between what grocery shoppers think they know about their food and the reality. Those tomatoes with the evenly rich red color that look ripened to perfection? They were bred to avoid showing streaks of green, a result of genetic prodding that also stole away most of their flavor. Unless the carton says otherwise, the eggs didn’t come from chickens that scratched around in barnyards but rather spent their lives in cramped battery cages that offered no room to move around. There’s a good chance the meat came from animals that were given antibiotics from their youngest days, both to promote growth and to prevent disease from sweeping through their crowded pens. Pesticides were almost certainly used on the fruits and vegetables. And the sweetener in the soda, or the golden corn on the cob, probably was a product of genetic engineering.

In most cases, there is no requirement to inform consumers, via labels, about the use of pesticides,hormones or antibiotics, or about the inhumane conditions in which animals are often kept. But Proposition 37 would make an exception for genetically engineered food, requiring that it be labeled before being sold in California. Although we generally endorse people’s right to know what goes into their food, this initiative is problematic on a number of levels and should be rejected.

Genetic engineering — tinkering with genes in a laboratory to produce desirable qualities — has dominated the production of certain crops for years. Today, somewhere between 85% and 95% of the corn and soybeans grown in this country, for example, have altered genes. Often, the alteration renders the crops “Roundup ready,” which means they’re able to withstand the herbicide glyphosate, marketed by Monsanto under the trade name Roundup. That allows farms to spray against weeds without killing the food plants. And because corn and soy appear in so many products — in the form of high-fructose corn syrup, as just one example — genetically engineered ingredients are common in processed foods.

Unfortunately, the initiative to require labeling of those ingredients is sloppily written. It contains language that, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office,could be construed by the courts to imply that processed foods could not be labeled as “natural” even if they weren’t genetically engineered. Most of the burden for ensuring that foods are properly labeled would fall not on producers but on retailers, which would have to get written statements from their suppliers verifying that there were no bioengineered ingredients — a paperwork mandate that could make it hard for mom-and-pop groceries to stay in business. Enforcement would largely occur through lawsuits brought by members of the public who suspect grocers of selling unlabeled food, a messy and potentially expensive way to bring about compliance.

These are all valid arguments for rejecting Proposition 37, but a more important reason is that there is no rationale for singling out genetic engineering, of all the agricultural practices listed above, as the only one for which labeling should be required. So far, there is little if any evidence that changing a plant’s or animal’s genes through bioengineering, rather than through selective breeding, is dangerous to the people who consume it. In fact, some foods have been engineered specifically to remove allergens from the original version. By contrast, there is obvious reason to be worried about the fact that three-fourths of the antibiotics in this country are used to fatten and prevent disease in livestock,not to treat disease in people. The rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria from overuse of pharmaceuticals poses a real threat to public health. So why label only the bioengineered foods? Because the group that wrote Proposition 37 happened to target them. What’s needed is a consistent, rational food policy, not a piecemeal approach based on individual groups’ pet concerns.

That’s not to belittle consumer doubts about genetically engineered foods. The nation rushed headlong into producing them with lax federal oversight, and although many studies have been conducted over the last couple of decades, a 2009 editorial in Scientific American complained that too much of the research has been controlled by the companies that create the engineered products. The solution, though, is more independent study and, if necessary, stronger federal oversight and legislation, not a label that would almost certainly raise alarm about products that haven’t been shown to cause harm.

The more substantiated issue with genetically engineered foods is their effect on the environment and possibly on other crops. The over-reliance they’ve encouraged on a single herbicide has contributed to the emergence of Roundup-resistant weeds. The industry is now seeking federal permission to grow corn that can withstand a different, more problematic herbicide. The Obama administration should withhold permission until agribusiness comes up with a better long-term solution than creating ever-tougher weeds.

Meanwhile, the marketplace already provides ways to inform consumers about their food. Just as some meats are labeled antibiotic-free or hormone-free, and some eggs are labeled cage-free, food producers are welcome to label their foods as GE-free. The Trader Joe’s grocery chain has helped market itself to concerned consumers by announcing that its private-label foods do not contain genetically engineered ingredients. Organic foods are never genetically engineered. There are no genetically engineered versions of most fruits sold in markets.

Savvy producers of other products are starting to get the message: The label on at least one brand of cornstarch prominently announces that it is made from “non-genetically modified corn.” And, of course, there’s an app for shopping GE-free. If consumers make it clear to the food industry that they don’t want genetically engineered food, the market will respond — but with higher prices as well as less high-tech products.

Reprinted from The Los Angeles Times (October 4, 2012)

All major California newspapers oppose Proposition 37. Read additional newspapers editorials »

A major overhaul of California’s $17-billion workers’ compensation insurance program was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown, who called the bipartisan agreement “unusual in our polarized society.”

The governor made his comments Tuesday at a bill signing ceremony at Walt Disney Studios in Burbank surrounded by some of the legislative, business and labor leaders who helped forge the consensus that led to the legislation. On hand were Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Assembly Speaker John Pérez (D-Los Angeles).

“Whether it’s Washington or Sacramento, there are two sides. Well, today we’re one side, and that one side is helping bring down the cost to businesses while increasing benefits to injured workers. It’s something that’s really important,” the governor said.

Approved by the Legislature on the last night of the legislative session, the package would boost payments to permanently disabled victims of on-the-job accidents by about $740 million a year and hand employers a major break on workers’ compensation insurance premiums.

The legislation “represents a major victory for working people and employers alike in California,” Pérez said.

Brown played a pivotal role in final approval of the bill Aug. 31. After prospects for the bill’s passage began to dim, the governor personally lobbied legislators and came up with an extra $120 million a year to aid victims of catastrophic accidents who can’t return to work.

The bill’s passage was “a real testament to Brown’s capabilities of bringing both sides together,” said Jill Dulich, who heads the workers’ compensation claims division of Marriott International.

Without the new law, businesses faced an almost 18% increase in workers’ comp insurance premiums when they renewed their policies, a fact that helped persuade opponents to eventually support the bill. An agreement was struck with Brown’s help to allow the extra $120 million in benefits and to reduce overall medical and compensation costs 4%.

Steinberg called the bill “a big deal because it dramatically improves the plight of injured workers, while at the same time it ensures cost stability for California’s employers.”

Injured workers would also benefit from the streamlined process, which aims to provide them with medical treatment within 30 days of their injuries, instead of spending months in litigation.

A UC Berkeley Survey Research Center study found that permanent disability benefits dropped from an average of $25,000 per injured worker in 2004 to an average of $12,000 last year.

Reprinted from The Los Angeles Times (September 19, 2012)

With his decisions, the California governor risks alienating unions, business groups and other powerful interests whose support he wants for his November tax initiative.

By Michael J. Mishak, Los Angeles Times

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Jerry Brown has spent months persuading some of California’s most powerful interests to invest millions of dollars in his November tax initiative. Now, that drive for campaign cash looms over the Capitol as he considers bills that could profoundly affect his donors.

In picking winners and losers among those with stakes in the slew of proposals sent to him in the legislative session that ended Friday, Brown risks alienating key allies with big checkbooks. With each signature or veto, he also puts at risk his image as an independent, above-the-fray operator dedicated to restoring public confidence in Sacramento.

“His desk is going to be piled high with dilemmas,” said Jack Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College.

The awkward dance between campaigning and governing comes as Brown ramps up efforts to sell voters on his ballot measure — a proposition crucial to fulfilling the promise he made to repair California’s finances. Moreover, the success of his campaign hinges on the continuing support of opposite interests: business and labor.

Deep-pocketed unions, which spent millions of dollars to help get the tax measure, Proposition 30, on the ballot, are backing bids to expand labor rights for housekeepers and create a state-run retirement plan for private-sector workers. Business interests, which have given millions to Brown’s campaign fund and stand to give more, want a $200-million tax credit for film and television productions to be extended.

Brown spokesman Gil Duran said neither Proposition 30 nor the money Brown needs to campaign is a consideration for the governor.

“Each bill is evaluated on its merits,” Duran said. “There is no other factor that enters into it.”

On his biggest priorities, Brown has sought to placate all parties.

Last week he quickly embraced a proposed overhaul of the state’s overburdened public pension system that fell significantly short of his own plan. It promises to save tens of billions of dollars — but won’t eliminate the impending debt, according to pension experts.

Unions cast the proposal as a punishing rollback, but in fact it spared them from some elements they had decried in Brown’s plan, including a requirement that new employees squirrel away a substantial portion of their retirement money in 401(k)-style accounts. Business groups said the plan the Legislature ultimately passed did not go far enough, but they called it “a good first step” toward getting runaway public retirement costs under control.

A decision not to change benefits for workers already on the payroll still leaves the state hundreds of billions of dollars short of what it needs to pay its retirees in coming decades, analysts said. Brown and other Democratic leaders have said they could not break existing union contracts.

On some issues, Brown, who typically doesn’t signal his position on a bill while it’s in the legislative grinder, took a rare step into policy debates. On Friday he publicly pressured lawmakers to pass a bill that would revamp the state’s workers’ compensation system.

In a statement, he said that proposal, like the pension overhaul, deserved “extra special attention.” Brown said the legislation was necessary to “avert an imminent crisis where workers suffer and rates will skyrocket.”

The workers’ compensation bill passed. The major players in that effort, including Safeway, Disney and Zenith Insurance, have contributed at least $235,000 to the governor’s tax campaign.

In the final hours of the legislative session, Brown and his aides revived a proposal for a new tax on out-of-state lumber and limits on timber companies’ legal liability in wildfires. The measure, backed by timber companies that have contributed to Brown’s campaigns, had been left for dead minutes earlier. Brown’s staff pulled lawmakers into the halls outside the Assembly chambers to pin down their votes.

Earlier, Brown had privately asked for changes in a labor-backed proposal to start a state-run retirement plan for low-income workers. State Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) accommodated him, altering the bill in ways that eliminated fierce opposition from the securities industry and the California Chamber of Commerce.

De Leon’s colleagues in the Democratic-controlled Legislature limited in other ways the number of tough choices Brown would have to make.

They sent fewer “job killer” bills — measures that are anathema to business interests — to the governor than they usually forwarded to his Republican predecessor. According to the California Chamber of Commerce, which tracks such proposals, the Legislature passed six this year, compared with an annual average of 10 during the Schwarzenegger administration.

A controversial bid to overhaul teacher evaluations in California was shelved. The proposal, which had been a priority for the state’s powerful teachers unions, was condemned by education activists, parent groups and other organizations that called it a giveaway to labor. Passage would have placed the thorny measure before Brown as he was asking voters to pay more taxes to avoid steep cuts in school funds.

Legislative leaders also killed a last-minute push by business groups to ease California’s landmark environmental law, which requires developers to study and mitigate their projects’ possible effect on the environment. Opposed by environmentalists and labor unions, the proposal would have forced the governor to take sides.

Despite his repeated calls all year for changes to the law, Brown did not enter the fray.

Some Capitol insiders likened Brown’s situation to that of former Gov. Gray Davis, who in 2003 signed a raft of measures that pleased the liberal wing of his party while he was raising money to fight an expensive recall campaign.

Brown is “encumbered from being able to show leadership,” said Rob Stutzman, a GOP strategist who was a senior advisor to former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. “He’s being consumed by the Sacramento political system instead of redefining it.”

Shoppers have a new compass to help them navigate the American retail jungle — their phone

Big-box retailers are developing indoor navigation tools to help shoppers find what they want. Some, including Target and Walgreens, have stored floor layout plans in smartphone apps. Walmart and Home Depot apps now can display aisle numbers for searched items.

In a store, “I can talk to an associate, but I can’t search for a two-sided tape,” says Gibu Thomas, Walmart head of mobile and digital. “Mobile brings the (online store) to the store.”

Within two weeks of Walmart’s May launch of the “In-Store” mode in its app, about 15% of page views were from shoppers in stores.

Retailers traditionally were reluctant, for competitive reasons, to release detailed merchandising data. But with mobile apps becoming a key sales channel, they’ve begun adding coupons, prices, store hours and bar code scanners.

Now they’re betting that item locators will help customers shop more efficiently and, as a result, buy more. About 20% of retail sales are lost because shoppers can’t find items, estimates Nathan Pettyjohn, CEO of Aisle411, an app with 9,000 store maps. A locator also can attract customers who need only an item or two and would avoid a big-box store, lest they waste time.

Nudging customers to share what they buy also gives retailers data for merchandising, inventory control and personalized deals.

Some efforts underway:

Walgreens. The chain partnered with Aisle411 to list store layouts in the Aisle411 app. Customers can make shopping lists and the items are spotted on their store’s map. Next month, Walgreens will embed the feature in its own app, says Abhi Dhar, chief technology officer.

Walmart. In May, Walmart’s app began showing the aisle number for a majority of items. And this year it is expanding last year’s Black Friday test of paper store maps locating popular items to add digital maps for Black Friday in the app.

Home Depot. With about 40,000 items in its stores, finding them is a common complaint at the home-improvement chain, says Matt Jones, manager of mobile. Last year, it added to its app store maps and aisle numbers of searched items. It hopes to locate items more specifically, but with so many items, accuracy and consistency from store to store is “a big challenge,” he says.

Start-ups. Several start-ups are pursuing item-locator technology to be used independently or licensed by retailers. Aislefinder collects aisle locations by calling stores individually and has about 5,300 stores in its app. Meijer, a retail chain in the Midwest, uses technology from Point Inside that shows the location of items on a map.

Reprinted from USA Today (August 29, 2012)

The price of food items such as beef, pork and dairy products is expected to stay high through the end of the year and into 2013, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture forecast released Friday.

The Midwest drought, the worst in decades, has driven up corn and soybean prices, which, in turn, caused retail food prices to rise.

The July’s food price outlook, compiled monthly by the USDA, was largely unchanged from the month before, forecasting the price of all food to rise between 2.5% and 3.5% through the end of the year.

Next year, the department predicts that food prices will rise by as much as 4% as the effects of the drought become more pronounced on the nation’s food supply.

For many food items, the report was largely unchanged but still elevated.

• Beef and veal will rise between 3.5% and 4.5% in 2012, and by as much as 5% next year.
• Pork will rise between 2% and 3% this year, and up to 3.5% next year.
• Dairy products will rise by 3% this year and 4.5% next year.

Reprinted from The Los Angeles Times (August 24 2012)