We debate a new bill moving through the California legislature that seeks to simplify the state’s penal code. We also discuss a proposal by the EPA allowing states to regulate coal-fired power plants; examine appropriate dress code for students; and more.
Energy policy experts discuss EPA proposal to change how states regulate coal-fired power plants
The U.S. E.P.A. is proposing states decide how much they want to regulate coal-fired power plants.
It’s a reversal of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, designed to move the country off of coal.
The Trump Administration move isn’t a surprise. But that hasn’t tempered outrage from environmentalists. Governor Jerry Brown just release a statement calling the move “a declaration of war against America and all of humanity – it will not stand. Truth and common sense will triumph over Trump’s insanity.”
On the other hand, coal-producing states are delighted. But given the power industry’s move toward natural gas and renewables, how much of a future will coal really have?
We reached out to the EPA for comment but as of the airing of this segment, they have not responded to our request. We will update with any information we receive.
Guests:
Nick Loris, an energy economist at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Washington D.C.
Alex Jackson, senior attorney with the Climate & Clean Energy Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council
Should California limit sentencing enhancements?
A new bill moving through the California legislature seeks to simplify the state’s penal code by limiting felony conviction sentences to double the base term, with certain exceptions.
Currently, the penal code provides three varying terms for each offence, and time served for multiple charges can be stacked or served concurrently, depending on the situation. And then various enhancements also add time to a sentence, sometimes even more than the sentence itself, which is what SB 1279 aims to curb.
According the proponents of the bill, this will prevent unreasonably long confinements due to stacked enhancements. They say there’s no proof that longer sentences act as deterrents and that they especially impact communities of color.
But critics, which have included the California State Sheriffs’ Association and California District Attorneys Association are concerned that this will take sentencing power away from the hands of the judge, and will lead to lighter sentences for people who don’t deserve it.
We debate the bill.
Guests:
Don Specter, executive director of the Berkeley-based Prison Law Office, a non-profit public interest law firm that provides legal services to prisoners
Todd Riebe, district attorney at Amador County; he is the past president of the California District Attorneys, which is opposed to the bill
When specific becomes problematic: What’s an appropriate dress code for K-12 students?
Alameda Unified School District approved a new almost unrestricted dress code for the 2018-2019 school year.
Spaghetti straps, frayed shorts and even pajamas are fair game — as long as it “covers specific body parts (genitals, buttocks, and areolae/nipples) with opaque material,” it’s allowed.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Alameda is part of a larger trend of schools changing dress codes, especially those that students see as targeting girls or as so vague as to be arbitrary.
Alameda’s new dress code follows a model created by the Oregon chapter from the National Organization for Women. The organization has said that it’s trying to counter the message that girls’ bodies must be policed in order to not distract male students.
What do you think is an appropriate dress code for students in elementary, middle and high school? How specific should these rules be, either in targeting clothing or gender? What current policies do you agree or disagree with?
Guest:
Jill Tucker, education reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle; her recent article is “Alameda schools’ new dress code: Tube tops are in, shaming girls is out;” she tweets
Homeowners get to pass on low property taxes to heirs, is it fair?
Since 1978, Proposition 13 has strictly limited property tax increases in California. Under Prop 13, homeowners are allowed to keep their property tax bill low. But that is not all the perks that homeowners in the Golden State enjoy.
Thanks to an additional tax break enacted eight years later, homeowners in California get to pass low property taxes to their kids. That low property tax benefit can beextended to inherited properties, including the ones used for rental income. California is the only state to provide this property tax relief, which reporters Liam Dillon and Ben Poston recently wrote about in the Los Angeles Times.
Supporters of the inherited tax break believe the benefit protects children from losing their family homes to tax hikes. Critics, however, called this benefit an unfair provision that only serves an elite group of people. In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, under the provision, “Two families with equal needs and equal resources are treated differently solely because of their different heritage.” Do you think the inheritance tax break is a fair provision? We debate.
Guests:
David Chiu (D-San Francisco), California assemblyman representing the 17th district, which encompasses the eastern half of San Francisco; he leads the Assembly’s housing committee
Karl Swaidan, managing partner at the Pasadena law firm Hahn & Hahn, where he practices in the firm's business and trust and estates practice groups; he is also a certified public accountant
Sources say ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen is negotiating a plea deal in fraud case
Two people familiar with the financial fraud investigation of Donald Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, say his lawyers are in negotiations with prosecutors that could result in a plea deal, possibly within hours.
The people say Cohen could plead guilty as early as Tuesday afternoon if a deal is struck requiring him to cooperate with the government. The people spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to publicly discuss the case.
We discuss the latest and analyze the legal impact of such a deal.
With files from the Associated Press.
Guests:
Daniel Lippman, reporter at POLITICO and co-author of POLITICO Playbook
Jens David Ohlin, vice dean and law professor at Cornell University where he focuses on criminal and international law; he tweets