The City of Los Angeles settles millions in lawsuits, state lawmakers fast-tracking immigrant protections, car companies team up for green energy options.
City approves $1.5 million settlement with family of man killed by LAPD officers
Will Donald Trump transform the nation the way Pete Wilson transformed California?
Most of us think of California as a long-time bastion of Democratic politics.
Sure, the Democrats control both state houses and the governor's mansion now. But until the end of the 20th century, the state was, in fact, consistently red. It gave us Earl Warren, and later Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.
Why did California turn so true blue?
Many political historians point to Gov. Pete Wilson's anti-immigrant campaign, encapsulated in Proposition 187. The groundswell of opposition brought out new voters, many of them Latino. The Democratic party capitalized on the controversy by registering new voters and engaging them in the process. And they successfully branding the California GOP as the anti-immigrant party.
Sociologist John D. Skrentny has been thinking about how the California experience with Pete Wilson might be replicated nationwide under Donald Trump. He wrote about this in a op-ed for The Hill. And he shared his theory with us on Take Two.
Listen to the entire conversation. Click on the blue bar above.
With all this rain, why were emergency drought regulations extended?
The Sierra snowpack is, well, packed.
The concrete spillway of the state's second-largest reservoir has undergone so much wear in January it's actually eroding
We're getting a lot of rain.
And yet...the State Water Resources Control Board voted unanimously on Wednesday to extend its emergency drought regulations until May.
Max Gomberg is the water conservation and climate change manager at the State Water Resources Control Board. He spoke to A Martinez to break it down.
To hear the full segment, click the blue play button above.
The Ride: Proposed import tax could add $$$ to cost of new car
President Trump thinks of it this way: Every car built in Mexico and sold in the United States means fewer jobs for Americans.
So he proposed a tax on cars built in Mexico that are sold here.
That hasn't gotten anywhere so far, but there is a Republican proposal on Capitol Hill that would impose a tax on all imported goods.
If that plan is approved by Congress, the price of a vehicle from Jaguar Land Rover might jump by as much as $17,000 and a Volvo by $7,600, according to a “thought exercise” released this week from Michigan-based auto industry analysis firm Baum & Associates.
The firm estimates nearly every auto maker would need to increase prices to recoup their costs if an import tax is imposed. Most affected are auto makers that sell cars in the U.S. but do not produce them here. American car companies would fare best. Tesla, which builds all of its cars in the U.S., is expected to be unaffected by the import tax. Ford vehicles would increase by about $282, GM’s by $995, according to Baum.
Overall, average price increases under an import tax would be about $2,500 per vehicle, or eight percent higher than they are currently.
Click on the blue bar to listen to the full conversation.
State of Affairs: Democratic lawmakers prepare to take on Trump in the courts
There was a rare Eric Holder sighting in Sacramento this week.
The state has contracted the former US Attorney General to the tune of about $25,000 a month. His mission, should he choose to accept it: help lawmakers with legal challenges against the Trump Administration.
But what he came to talk about isn't exactly clear.
So, what is California getting for its money?
Take Two put that question to KQED's Katie Orr and Capital Public Radio's Ben Bradford.
Press the blue play button above to hear the interview.
Mandatory retirement accounts for California's low-wage workers faces uncertain future
The folks in Washington have been bumping heads with California a lot lately. One of those sore points is a state initiative called "Secure Choice". The program came about as a way to create retirement savings accounts for low wage workers.
Now, the word from Capitol Hill is that it and similar programs across the country may be cut short before ever taking effect. Take Two's A Martinez spoke with Evan Halper who's covered the current status of Secure Choice for the L.A. Times.
Highlights
How does "Secure Choice" work?
The idea is to take the share of the workforce that is working right now but is not enrolled in any kind of retirement program. No 401K. No IRA. That's about half the workforce across the country. It's close to 7 million people in California. And it would just automatically put people in kind of like a state-sponsor program that would be similar to the 529 programs for college savings, that'd be managed by some financial company. They'd take a share of your salary, probably 3-5 % and invest it in a retirement plan so you'd start saving.
Why make access to retirement plans mandatory?
Basically, states are starting to deal with the burden of all these people retiring in poverty. Even though they're "working poor"— they're working but they have nothing set aside. They're trying to live on just Social Security, that's not enough. It winds up taxing all these state resources. So, they're looking for a solution to this problem so less people need to go on Medicaid, use food stamps, rely on the safety net. That motivated states to start looking at these kinds of creative programs.
What's in the foreseeable future for "Secure Choice"?
Congress has this obscure authority that they've been using a lot of where, if it's a relatively new regulation passed within the last few months, they can use this authority to repeal it.
If Congress actually goes ahead and repeals this Department of Labor regulation that all of the state programs hinge on, it's very likely that President Trump will approve it. These states will have to go back to the drawing board. It doesn't mean that the programs all die or can't go forward. But in some cases, new legislation may have to be passed. It certainly makes the programs more legally vulnerable if they try to sidestep the Department of Labor and just implement them without federal approval.
*Quotes edited for clarity.