Chalk up another incremental victory for homeless veterans in Los Angeles.

The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee approved a bill Wednesday that would authorize the Department of Veterans Affairs to spend up to $35.5 million to house homeless vets at the VA Medical Center in West Los Angeles. That money would be used for seismic retrofitting and renovations at Building 209, converting it into a therapeutic housing facility.

The Senate Appropriations Committee followed suit Thursday, adopting an amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to the 2012 VA spending bill that endorses the project. Both bills now move to the full Senate.

"One out of every 10 veterans without a roof over their head lives in Los Angeles. That is completely unacceptable and an absolute tragedy," Feinstein said in a statement.  "This legislation must still be passed by the full Senate and the House of Representatives, and I am firmly committed to seeing this project through to completion."

The renovated Building 209 -- the first of three slated for conversion into housing units -- would have room for only a fraction of the thousands of chronically homeless vets in Los Angeles County. That's why some local advocates are pushing for the VA to move faster. Among other steps, that faction is supporting a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union that would force the VA to provide more permanent, supportive housing at the West Los Angeles campus.

RELATED:

Waxman and Feinstein renew push for homeless vets

Homeless vets deserve more

Helping homeless vets

-- Jon Healey

Photo: Veteran J.J. Asevedo raises a clenched fist at a news conference to announce a lawsuit against the federal government alleging that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs leased much of the property at its West Los Angeles facility to private entities, instead of using it for veterans' permanent supportive housing. Credit: Reed Saxon / AP Photo / June 8, 2011

In recent weeks, The Times' editorial board has been exploring arguments for and against proposed changes to the California initiative process­­, which allows citizens to circumvent the Legislature and get their own measures on the ballot.

On Friday, state Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Silver Lake) spoke with members of the board to discuss six pieces of legislation he’s proposed to fix the process. Gatto said ballot initiatives tie the Legislature’s hands by committing funds to projects lawmakers have no control over -- see the “Three Strikes Law,” for example, a voter initiative that did not name a funding source.

After all of California’s rules, restrictions and fund commitments, there’s just not enough money for legislators to dole out where it’s needed -- voters have already made the decisions for them, but without analyzing the consequences, critics of the current process say. This rigidity is one motivation behind Gatto’s “pay as you go” reform, ACA 6, which would require propositions to name a funding source to pay for its costs when they’re more than $5 million. He hopes changes such as these will reduce “ballot box budgeting,” and the number of poorly thought-out voter initiatives.

Some of the other changes he’s proposed include:

-- Initiatives that would increase the legislative or voter requirement needed to enact future changes would need to pass by that same margin of votes under ACA 9.

The thought behind Gatto's bill is that it should take a supermajority of voters to levy a supermajority requirement on the Legislature or future voters. For example, Proposition 26 passed 2010 with 52.5% of the vote, and requires that some state and local taxes be passed by a two-thirds vote rather than by a simple majority. The proposition would not have passed if Gatto’s amendment had already been adopted, because Prop. 26 got a simple majority of the vote, not the supermajority it would have needed to pass.

-- ACA 10 would allow the Legislature to amend or repeal voter-initiated statutes after they have been in effect for four years.

California statutes voted onto the books through the initiative process can only be amended by another ballot initiative, unless they contain a provision that explicitly says they can be updated by the Legislature. The Political Reform Act of 1974, California’s conflict-of-interest law for public officials, contained this provision, and was most recently amended in 2000. But statutes that lack the same foresight and are, for instance, written based on inflation rates from 20 years ago, could still be on the books. Take Proposition 21 from 2010, which would have levied an annual $18 vehicle license charge to help fund state parks and wildlife. Had it passed, this charge would have been $18 forever, and the money would have always been put toward state parks even if it was desperately needed in another area. The only way to change the law to meet future needs would have been for voters to pass another initiative. Gatto’s proposed legislation would change that to allow legislators to update these laws themselves.

-- AB 65 would require the voter guide to state that any revenue sources created by a ballot initiative will always be allocated to the program for which the funding source was created. Unless it is stated otherwise, the funds cannot be redirected unless the measure is amended by voters.

This would have required that the voter guide for Proposition 21 state that the money generated by the $18 vehicle license charge would “irrevocably and forever be dedicated” to state parks and wildlife programs, because the proposed text did not specify that those funds could go elsewhere.

-- ACA 11 would require constitutional amendments to pass with 55% of the vote, but could be repealed with the requirements that existed when they were passed.

California’s Constitution is one of the longest in the nation, and has become akin to a compilation of “superstatutes,” rather than a guiding document. There aren’t a whole lot of differences between a constitutional amendment and a statute anymore, and they’re nearly equally easy for voters to pass; so, it is argued that the Constitution is amended often and often without sufficient thought. The proposed legislation would make it more difficult to pass amendments, which could help return the Constitution to what it should be: a guiding document rather than a lengthy book of laws. This legislation would have prevented Proposition 26 from passing in 2010 –- it only got 52.5% of the vote, not 55%. On the other hand, Proposition 25, which changed the vote needed to pass a budget from two-thirds to a simple majority, would have barely scraped by with 55.1%.

-- ACA 12 would allow the Legislature to hold hearings to propose amendments to initiatives prior to their passage. Any changes proposed by lawmakers would have to be accepted by the initiative’s proponents in order to actually change the initiative going on the ballot.

Hearings such as the ones proposed could have helped to clean up last year’s proposition to legalize marijuana, which many people opposed because they believed it was poorly thought out. Opponents say a bill such as Gatto’s creates a lot of room for mischief and could be misleading to voters, who might end up seeing a different initiative on the ballot than the one they signed to support.

Two weeks ago the board met with consumer activist Harvey Rosenfield and Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., both of whom stand against California initiative reform. They think now is not the time to weaken a citizen-driven process, especially with such a low Legislature approval rate. Voters are smarter than we give them credit for, they said, and can spot special interests when they’re on the ballot.

Robert M. Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, and Tracy Weston, the center's vice chairman and chief executive, came in to argue for amending the process, like Gatto. Stern and Weston said the initiative process shouldn’t be eliminated, but it should be improved.

RELATED:

Ban the circumcision ban

San Francisco's latest silly idea: No more pets

Democrats pass austerity budget for California

Is it time to reform California's initiative system?

-- Samantha Schaefer

Photo: Voters cast their ballots in voting booths at the Venice United Methodist Church in Venice on June 8, 2010. Credit: Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times

California has a budget, but it's not a realistic one. It banks on $4 billion in revenue coming in to prevent even deeper cuts to state services, including education. The Times' editorial board says there are better alternatives to such deep cuts: a bipartisan bargain. However, the board praised the timeliness of the budget, which was passed before the beginning of the new fiscal year on July 1, and the effort put in to craft it. Because Proposition 25 allows the budget to be passed with a simple majority, the plan was crafted almost entirely by Democrats, but without the tax increases they have been pushing for. Here's an excerpt from the editorial:

The Republicans' main accomplishment was to force Brown to abandon -- at least for now -- his plan to ask voters to extend a temporary increase in sales, income and vehicle taxes. But unlike past years, when Republicans used their leverage to extract a variety of concessions on policy, this year's deal left them utterly empty-handed.

That's mystifying. A number of the Republicans' proposals for pension limits, regulatory reform and spending restraints would have helped the state's long-term fiscal situation and improved the business climate in California. And top Democrats seemed willing to sign off on them if a handful of Republicans agreed to vote for a ballot measure to let voters decide whether to extend the tax increases. But what seemed like an obvious deal didn't materialize in March, when it would have been easy for the GOP, or earlier this month, when Brown was also demanding that lawmakers keep sales and vehicle taxes elevated until voters could weigh in later in the year.

[…]

Rather than allowing such disruptive cuts to go into effect, lawmakers would be wise to try again to reach a grand bipartisan bargain.

Readers agree the budget isn't a good solution, but they're split on who is to blame for this mess.

The state should come before party ideologies

They missed their chance because of the stupid no tax hike cult that's taken over the party.  The state has cut and cut and cut but still it's not enough for the ideologues now running the Republican party.

It's frighteningly similar to the old Soviet Union, deviate from the party line no matter how stupid it is or how much it hurts everyone and we're going to come after you in the primaries.

It's sad and it's sick.  Nothing but obstruction and destruction.  They're ignored because they won't compromise and compromise it what politics is about.

Putting party ideology over the good of the state is just plain wrong and at the national level, it's un-American as hell.

--affableman

The Democrats are protecting the unions

Brown refused to confront the overpaid and protected government unions. Face it liberals. And the ironic thing is those outrageous government pensions and perks that Brown and his union buddies are so protective of aren't sustainable. Read it again. THEY ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. Why they don't try and get something in return now for what needs to be scaled back eventually is the height of stubbornness. UNSUSTAINABLE. Go and look it up if you still don't understand.   

--buzalg

The cuts will show what the Republicans were doing

It's pretty clear that the Republicans were never interested in making a deal.  They were going to keep raising the bar, playing Lucy to Charlie Brown.  They really have no right to make any comments because they are not serious about governing.  I almost wish Democrats had gone all the way with cuts so that people could truly understand what Republicans were doing. 

Is it really worth 1% in sales taxes to see severe educational cuts in higher education and K-12?  Do you have so much more money that it's going to make a huge difference in your lives vs. that of our future generation.  What are you going to buy with that extra $10/week?

--rajivparikh

Republicans can't get past their narrow ideology

Regrettably, on both the state and national level, the GOP's thinking extends no further than "No New Taxes."  The party leaders wouldn't know policy if it bit them in the rear end.  This may make their base happy.  However, they can kiss goodbye their chances of gaining political dominance, particularly in California.  They simply don't know how to lead.  They only know how to obstruct.  

--ROSJAN

Democrats can't get past their ideology, in response to ROSJAN

And regrettably, on both the state and national level, the Democrat's thinking extends no further than "More taxes." 

--edwardskizer

This budget clearly isn't balanced

How can they say "Balance budget" when the 4B dollars that may or may not come? It's like I am creating my budget and go to the bank and tell them to lend me money because "In July of this year, I will hit the mega lotto."

In case if you, all legislators, wonder there is a book called "Budget for Dummies" and I am sure you can deduct from your general funds to buy this book.

One of the most powerful thing about this beautiful country is that we have the freedom and with this freedom, even the most stupid and idiots can run for the office. But I didn't mention about the idiots who voted for these idiots years after years and that is another major topic by itself.

--amonitor123

*Spelling errors in the above comments were corrected.

RELATED:

California's morons in the Legislature

California's grand budget bargain that wasn't

Putting a lid on California lobbyists' gift bags

California's budget: Yikes! The state takes a lesson from its people

--Samantha Schaefer

Gov. Jerry Brown. Credit: Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times

Tracy Morgan either doesn't know the difference between pushing boundaries and hate speech, or he doesn't care. Despite repeated apologies for his homophobic rant in Tennessee on June 3, including an in-person mea culpa with the audience he offended, Morgan doesn't seem to have taken anything away from the experience. In New York City on Sunday, TMZ reports another line-crossing rant:

Tracy warned his audience at a performance in New York City this weekend, "Don't ever mess with women who have retarded kids."  The audience groaned, but Tracy didn't stop:  "Them young retarded males is strong. They're strong like chimps."

First time around, our editorial board weighed in on Morgan's insensitive "humor," acknowledging that "comedy has long been accepted as a medium in which performers can push the boundaries of taste" but that what Morgan was doing was reverting to old boundaries.

In the process, Morgan revealed that he's capable of frightening (and unfunny) invective, and left his audience wondering whether he is a garden-variety homophobe.

The board also hoped this would be a teachable moment for Morgan, and for us all:

But when artists slip from funny to hateful, it's time to stop laughing and call them out on it. We all learn something from doing that.

Apparently Morgan has yet to learn.

Update: A previous version of this post said Morgan's June 3 statements took place in Texas. The event was in Tennessee.

RELATED:

Tracy Morgan's line-crossing rant

Tracy Morgan's rant: Offensive or forgivable?

Tracy Morgan's apology: Takes two, three and four

-- Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: Comedian and actor Tracy Morgan listens as Kevin Rogers, left, speaks at a news conference June 21 in Nashville, Tenn. Morgan apologized for anti-gay remarks he made during a performance in Nashville on June 3. Rogers attended the June 3 show and first reported the incident via Facebook. Credit: Mark Humphrey / Associated Press

Catholics for the Common Good recently cited  an April 8 editorial in its dissent of SB 48, a bill that would allow politicians permission to change textbooks so that they include information about members from the gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual community. However, the reasons for its opposition to the bill comes from a different perspective than that of the editorial board.

Catholics for the Common Good is against the bill ideologically, fearing the sexualization of education, and also because of the fiscal burden it could impose on the state.

In addition to its corrupting consequences for children about love, human sexuality, marriage, and family, it will cost California taxpayers millions to implement and have a disrupting effect on local school districts struggling with reduced budgets and burdened by state mandates that undermine their critical mission of educating our children. […]

Imagine the cost of California requiring new textbooks that no other states would use. Imagine the cost of developing new curricula and associated materials and the time every school district and teacher will have to devote to reviewing materials for compliance to avoid law suits. Even though additional expenditures will be required, legislative leaders have determined, based on a technicality, that the bill will have no fiscal impact, and have avoided any budgetary scrutiny at all.

Although the editorial board also opposes the bill, it's not because these additions would shatter a child's image of marriage. It's because the board doesn't want to see education politicized. In other words: Politicians shouldn't be in the business of writing textbooks.

The bill, SB 48, adds to an overly long list of requirements, some more reasonable than others, that have been pressed upon the state's textbooks over the years. Minority groups, the elderly and the disabled must be represented proportionally and never portrayed in a bad light. People in poor countries aren't supposed to be shown as poor, lest they be stereotyped, and information on AIDS in Africa must not reflect negatively on the continent. So poor people aren't poor and the elderly are physically fit and financially sound, according to the textbooks -- and we complain that students are poorly educated.

Fables don't make for solid instruction. History is the great story of people, groups and movements -- their faults as well as their accomplishments -- shaping the world up through the events of today. It is a story best told by historians, not by politicians.

The bill was passed by the California Senate on April 14; the hearing before the Assembly takes place Wednesday. What do you think of the bill?  Do you fear, as Catholics for the Common Good does, that this bill will sexualize textbooks? Or do you align more with our editorial board: that politicians ought not be in the position to politicize students' education?

RELATED:

Gays in textbooks: Best told by historians, not by politicians

Gays in textbooks? There's a better way than 'sanitized truth'

Catholic Charities should get out of adoption business if it can't accept gay marriage

--Samantha Schaefer

Cartoon: Ted Rall / For the Times. Click on cartoon for full-size image.

HumaneWatch.org published a response to last week's Times editorial about its advertising campaign against the Humane Society of the United States. The editorial critiqued a series of recent ads that feature wide-eyed dogs with the caption: "SURPRISED to hear the Humane Society of the United States shares only 1 percent of your donations with local pet shelters?"

The editorial board took the position that although the ad is true, the Humane Society never claimed to donate to animal shelters and thus HumaneWatch.org is misguided in its ad campaign. Here's an excerpt from the editorial:

The ad is true on both counts. But it's also misleading. The Humane Society has never claimed that its mission is to fund local animal shelters. Among the projects it does fund are legislative campaigns to pass animal protection laws in various states, investigations into animal cruelty (including dogfighting, puppy mills and factory farms), three wildlife rehabilitation centers and two horse sanctuaries, emergency shelter operations in areas hit by disasters and veterinary services in rural areas. In some communities it also has supported low-cost spay and neuter facilities. While some people may mistakenly believe that the Humane Society of the United States does the same job local humane societies do, it should not surprise anyone who has looked at the organization's website that only a small percentage of its money goes to local shelters.

Both sides of the argument are on the same page about where the majority of the Humane Society's donations go ­-- namely, not to local shelters. But HumaneWatch.org, which is part of the Center for Consumer Freedom, contends that the public perception of where donations to the Humane Society go is more important than what it technically advertises. Here's an excerpt:

There's a Grand Canyon-sized gap between what HSUS does (promote a PETA-like animal rights agenda) and what the public thinks HSUS does. And HSUS continues to rake in the donations based on that mistaken identity.

Perception, ultimately, is reality. Although HSUS never explicitly claims to support hands-on pet shelters, it does go out of its way to perpetuate the myth that its primary focus is helping homeless dogs and cats. More than 90 percent of the animals appearing in a recent HSUS adare cats and dogs, for example. And visitors to HSUS's website are inundated with pictures of pets. If donors are confused by this massive spin campaign, it's certainly not their fault.

It's all about the animals, but should the Humane Society of the United States do more to make sure the public knows which animals?

ALSO:

L.A. zoo: Protect the animals

U.S. military: The dogs of war

Do we have to choose between clean energy and the animals?

Watching animals on the screen reveals more about ourselves

--Samantha Schaefer

Photo: A kitten looks out of its cage at a shelter in Joplin, Mo., on June 14. Credit: Charlie Riedel / Associated Press

The Obama administration Friday announced changes to Secure Communities, a controversial program that requires state and local law enforcement to submit the fingerprints of everyone arrested to the Department of Homeland Security.

In recent months, the program has faced mounting criticism from immigrant and civil rights group as well as elected officials, who say it has failed to target criminals for deportation, and instead has resulted in the removal of undocumented immigrants with no criminal record.

John Morton, the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency in charge of deportations, said the modifications will ensure the program targets criminals.

The proposed changes look good, at least on paper. Among other things, Morton's memo instructs government’s attorneys to exercise prosecutorial discretion, especially in cases involving victims of and witnesses to crimes. 

Morton also calls for the creation of a committee comprised of law enforcement to deal with complaints that Secure Communities jeopardizes community policing efforts, especially in immigrant communities.

The problem is that Homeland Security has a history of issuing memos and instructions to immigration agents that then go unheeded.

For example, earlier this year Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials were forced to investigate complaints that their agents surrounded a school in Detroit in search of undocumented immigrants. Parents and immigrant-rights groups said the agents created panic among some parents and students, according to published reports. Such a move would be a direct violation of a policy that forbids enforcement operations near schools.

And the agency’s own union has publicly come out against Morton, accusing him of not being tough enough on illegal immigrants. Last June, the head of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Union, comprised of agents and other employees, said its members cast a vote of no confidence in Morton.

Nearly 400,000 immigrants were deported last year by the Obama administration. That far exceeds the number deported in any given year during George W. Bush’s administration. The union’s claims seem to ignore that reality and the limits on the number of immigrants the government has the resources to remove.

Morton's memo does offer specific steps and details to improve Secure Communities.The question now is, will the rank and file follow the rules?

RELATED:

Immigration: Lock 'em up

Immigration: What the U.S. does right

Either scrap or revamp Secure Communities

Secure Communities and California's push to limit its impact

Should California suspend participation in Secure Communities?

-- Sandra Hernandez

Photo: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, part of the Department of Homeland Security, handles customs checks. Credit: Stephen Chernin / Getty Images

Tension between the U.S. and Pakistan escalated after our military killed Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil. Did Pakistani officials know all along where Bin Laden was hiding? Can we trust our ally? If they’re pulling a fast one on us, why are we providing them with so much foreign aid? The board addressed these questions in a May 7 editorial and explained why we needn’t alienate Pakistan.

But alliances aren't the same as friendships. The hard truth is this: Though no one likes doing business with shady regimes, the U.S. needs Pakistan and must preserve the uncomfortable bond, even if that requires more aid. Pakistan is unlikely to become fully trustworthy or to set its policies with a view to anything other than its national interests. But as long as the U.S. remains involved in Afghanistan and at war with the Taliban and Al Qaeda, it will need to move weapons and troops through Pakistan, and it will need actionable intelligence about militant groups. Equally important, the U.S. must not inflame anti-Americanism in such a volatile, strategically situated nation. Pakistan is a Muslim republic, but one in which militant fundamentalist groups threaten the government's stability at every turn.

The board will revisit the issue in the next few days in light of Wednesday's news that Pakistan has detained people suspected of supplying information to the CIA in advance of the Bin Laden killing. In the meantime, here's a chart explaining the core of our relationship with Pakistan.

ALSO:

Legalizing the Libya mission

Should the U.S. brace for European-style riots?

A sensible way forward for the U.S. in Afghanistan

Doyle McManus: The West is still waiting for its Libya gamble to pay off

-- Alexandra Le Tellier

Tracy Morgan crossed the line during a recent comedy gig in Nashville, when his jokes went from funny to hateful. He released an apology, and his "30 Rock" boss, Tina Fey, released a strongly worded statement condemning Morgan's homophobic remarks and pointed to all of the gay and lesbian people on the "30 Rock" crew who have made Morgan's success possible. And it would seem Morgan has learned from his mistake. On Monday, he called GLAAD to apologize, but rather than a standard-issue statement, he showed his vulnerability. CNN released part of the transcript from that call, in which Morgan talks about being bullied as a kid and struggling in a family with a disabled brother and a father who died from AIDS in 1987.  "My dad wasn't gay, but I also learned about homophobia then because of how people treated people who were sick with that," Morgan said. Next week, Morgan plans to return to the scene of his comedy crime and personally apologize to the audience he offended. And he’ll also record a public service announcement for GLAAD's upcoming "Amplify Your Voice" campaign.

In an editorial from Tuesday’s Opinion pages, the board addresses when artists and performers such as Morgan cross "a line that seems fuzzy -- until the minute you step over it." Maybe Morgan thought he was pushing boundaries, but he "left his audience wondering whether he is a garden-variety homophobe." And, though the board is glad that Morgan's been taken to task, writing that...

When artists slip from funny to hateful, it's time to stop laughing and call them out on it. We all learn something from doing that.

...the question remains whether Morgan's mea culpa is enough, or whether the GLBT community as well as his fans and co-workers will or should want more.  

RELATED:

Revenge of the geeks

Prop. 8: Double-edged diversity

Pixar to gay teens: 'It gets better'

Kobe Bryant's apology not good enough

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: Actor and comedian Tracy Morgan. Credit: Charles Sykes / AP Photo, file

The California Fish and Game Commission decided at its meeting Thursday in Ontario not to increase the quota of bears that can be hunted in the state each year. Currently, hunters are allowed to kill 1,700 bears. State  Department of Fish and Game officials had contended the bear population was robust enough to sustain a quota of 2,000 each annual hunting season, which lasts roughly from October through December.

An editorial in The Times on Saturday had urged the commissioners not to increase the hunting quota without first getting a better sense of regional bear populations within the state. The commissioners, who set policy for the Department of Fish and Game, also directed its officials to move toward managing bears regionally.

Bear hunting is not a popular sport, and the commissioners -- appointed by the governor to steward the wilderness for both hunters and non-hunters alike -- know that.

"We are being asked to do something today that more than 99% of Californians don't like and don't want, and that is to increase the bear hunting quota," Commissioner Michael Sutton said later. "The science says yes we could increase the bear hunt. In addition to paying attention to the science, we need to be mindful of the politics… We weigh the science, we weigh the various stakeholders and we weigh the opinions of the majority of Californians."

Technically this issue could be revisited and voted on at the commission's meeting next month. Department of Fish and Game officials asked for more time to present more detailed environmental documents on the quota issue. Could the commissioners increase the quota then? Possibly. But  "the political winds are blowing in the other direction -- leaving it where it is," said Sutton.

This is the third year in a row that the issue of raising the bear quota has come before the commission, prompting outcries from animal welfare advocates.

"My sincere hope is that this is three strikes and it's done," said Jennifer Fearing, the California state director of the Humane Society of the U.S., which led the opposition this year once again.  "All we're saying is leave it alone," she said of the bear hunt quota, noting that a poll commissioned by her organization found substantial numbers against increasing it. "We're reflecting the overwhelming sentiment of Californians."

Update: A previous version of this post said the California Fish and Game Commission met Wednesday, May 4. They met the following day.

RELATED:

Bull's-eye on bears

--Carla Hall

Photo: Black bear roams through a neighborhood in Monrovia. Credit: Rudy Libra