Zero Coin Bah Humbug - Why Not Just Have Negative Money?

If you are interested in Bitcoin and have not heard of Zerocoin, you should check it out.  www.zerocoin.org "Zerocoin is a proposed extension to the Bitcoin payment network that adds anonymity to Bitcoin payments"  Go read it for yourself.  Evolutionary/revolutionary it seems; there's much to comment on, but that will have to wait.

For the moment the name "Zerocoin" got me thinking.  Some coin is much to be preferred to zero coin, and zero coin is much to be preferred to owing coin.  Or so many people think.  Some coin is positive, debt is negative, and zero is that infinitesimally small nothingness through which something positive passes on its way to becoming less than worthless.

Zero is also indicative of perfect balance.  To create debt, the principal that is owed must first be lent to the debtor.  The principal balance of the debt can never exceed the positive amount that is lent, minus any subsequent repayments of principal.  If the principal balance exceeds this difference, any excess is no longer debt.  Absent credit expansion through devices such as fractional reserve banking, the creation of debt cannot increase the amount of money in existence, because debt must balance with the money lent to zero.

Credit expansion is just a fancy name for deceiving borrowers into thinking they are being given money in exchange for a promise to repay it, when all that is being lent is worthless, or at least partially worthless, vouchers for money.  The only saving grace of the debt so incurred is that it can be repaid with equally worthless vouchers.  But the hell of it is that the borrower is unable to create these vouchers as easily as the banks do, essentially out of thin air.  Instead, the borrower must go out and trade actual goods and services to obtain these vouchers.

Suppose, for example, the borrower uses the loan proceeds to build a home or business.  What is actually happening is that the borrower trades the vouchers with various members of society for the goods and services making up the home or business.  Subsequently the borrower trades goods or services to obtain vouchers to repay the principal balance of the loan plus interest.  So the bank earns interest from the exchange of goods and services between the borrower and other members of society, contributing little but the illusion of money.  Meanwhile, the expansion of credit often (but not invariably, depending on surrounding circumstances) causes a rise in prices in a sector of the market, or generally.

If banking and money were allowed to operate in a competitive free market, the rate of interest would be determined primarily by public desire to save money as opposed to spending it.  The currency of a bank that expanded credit would lose value at a rate commensurate to the degree of expansion and the bank's power to deceive the general public into believing that the expansion did not exist, or that its rate is trivial.  A free and competitive market tends to eliminate the power to deceive.  Because many people want money as a durable store of money, and being fully informed by competitors of the inflationary bank, savers would disfavor inflationary currencies and favor stable or better yet deflationary currencies.  Demand for inflationary money and hence interest rates for such dross would be reduced (in real terms) relative to stable or deflationary money.  These pressures would make inflationary banking less profitable (banks have expenses, too) and drive it to the periphery or out of the market altogether.  But I digress.

The "negative money" referred to in the title of this post is like debt cut free from the bounds of money, but without the requirement to have a banking license to create it.  It is like debt divorced from any requirement to lend principal.  Sort of like a "medium of disapproval" or a trade-able "dislike" button.  If carbon allowances can be traded, why not trade registers of annoyance? 

Here's how it would work.  Call it "Negcoin."  Digital certificates are created in a process similar Bitcoin.  Miners mine them, and start distributing them.  They do so by sending Negcoins to people who annoy them, in proportion to the degree of their unilateral annoyance or displeasure.  Each person to whom a Negcoin is sent could refuse to receive it, but would then lose out on the possibility of receiving a Bitcoin from somebody else who wants to acquire the Negcoin. The Negcoin could be held in trust by a reputation agency, if the recipient refuses to receive.  A person who receives a Negcoin without paying for it with a Bitcoin, getting the Negcoin back in a redemption transaction, or mining the Negcoin into existence is not allowed to spend it.

Each Negcoin could be redeemed by payment of a Bitcoin to the payer of the Negcoin.  If that happens, ownership of the Negcoin as well as the Bitcoin automatically passes back to the first payer, who gets to spend the Bitcoin and send the Negcoin again.  Such redemption might be somewhat rare, but might happen sometimes when people who receive Negcoin wish to make good with the people who sent them.

Conversely, a third party could buy the Negcoin from the receiver of it by sending a Bitcoin.  In this transaction, because the payer of the Bitcoin is not the person who received the Negcoin, the Negcoin passes to the payer of the Bitcoin.  The person who had the Negcoin receives the Bitcoin.

A chain of title for each Negcoin could be maintained by a reputation agency or built into the block chain.  Thus, Negcoin could serve to differentiate consistently bad actors from simple newcomers without established reputations.  Most people could expect to receive a few Negcoins along the way, but only consistently bad actors or infamous people would receive and hold very large amounts of them.  Merely controversial figures may receive lots of Negcoin, but would find it easy to sell them for Bitcoin to their sympathizers.  Anyone sending a Negcoin for merely political reasons would have to consider this possibility!  Sending a Negcoin can help its recipients, as well as hurt.  Therefore, Negcoins would tend to be sent only in cases where actual grievances existed, and less so for political reasons.  They could function much like rock-bottom settlement offers and might obviate the need for much litigation.  It is interesting to think about the possibilities.

Are Negcoin technically feasible?  Perhaps not with Bitcoin as it exists today (more on this later).  Negcoin may have to be built into the infrastructure of the digital coin network, with a Newcoin of some type. But there is nothing especially challenging about it; each Negcoin could have a built in redemption mechanism that distinguishes between a simple purchase and a redemption, and reconfigures itself accordingly.  A skillful systems designer/programmer could probably work out several different ways to do it.  So skillful programmers, get busy!  I want to be first with the Negcoin mining rig!

Bitcoin Is Making My Leg Tingle!

Remember when a certain propaganda pusher on MSNBC stated that Obama made him feel a tingling sensation run up his leg?  Thinking about the meteoric recent rise in Bitcoin exchange rates is causing me to have that sensation right now.  I'm not joking, and don't think I'm having a stroke.  It's just a manifestation of joy.  And I don't even own any Bitcoin, lacking the capital, time and spouse's permission to speculate in this medium.

I'm happy about the rise because it seems that a lot of the early and present holders of Bitcoin share certain of my beliefs about the superiority of voluntary institutions to coercive ones.  Hopefully, peace-loving people are going to be the prime beneficiaries of a speculative boom, instead of the military-industrial complex.  It's exciting to think about what all these peace-loving and creative people are going to do with their speculatively acquired purchasing power.  Some significant portion of them are going to divert economic resources into promoting development of voluntary society, and dis-empowering coercive institutions, even if only by living more independently of the state and spending their lives in more worthy endeavors than being tax slaves.  It's all good.  Hence the tingling.

All of this joy doesn't mean that I can't recognize a speculative bubble when I see one.  And Bitcoin is definitely experiencing a bubble right now.  Or so its price chart is screaming.  How high it will go, when it will crash, and at what price it will stabilize after the inevitable crash, nobody knows.  But holders of Bitcoin would do well not to ignore the classic signs of tulip-mania.

Bitcoin is unlikely to afford its holders the luxury of days or weeks to unload their coin after a top is established.   The market is still too thinly traded for that.  The available time will likely be measured in minutes or hours, and it may be impossible to find any buyers at a price you expect, if the price drops rapidly enough.  It's no fun being a seller trying to unload into a diving market.  To avoid being stuck holding all of the bag, anyone who has already realized significant profits by holding Bitcoin should have a plan to begin taking profits out now.  Not all profits, but some.  If you have already made large gains, take some percentage of your profits.  Say, 20% now.  And an additional percentage at regular intervals, if the price keeps going up.

Let's see how this works with an example:
Initial investment $10,000 to buy 100 Bitcoin at $100 each.
Bitcoin price at $1000: Coins held worth $100,000, sell 20, cashing out $20,000, 80 left.
Bitcoin price at $1300: Coins still held worth $104,000, sell 10, cashing out $13,000, 70 left
Bitcoin price at $1690: Coins still held worth $118,300, sell 8, cashing out $13,520, 62 left
Bitcoin price at $2,200: Coins still held worth $136,400, sell 6, cashing out $$13,200, 56 left.

You get the idea.  Take out a constant dollar amount every time the price rises 30% (more the first time because of the 10,000% price increase already experienced in this example).  You can adjust this strategy to suit your preferences.  The basic idea is that if the price keeps going up, your investment continues to grow in value.  If there is a sudden crash after a period of growth, chances are you will already have recovered your initial investment with a tidy profit. 

After selling your coin, you don't need to hold FRNs.  There are plenty of other assets you can hold instead; I recommend diversifying your holdings. Whatever you do, don't just buy and hold Bitcoin.  The market will likely punish you severely.  Bulls make money, bears make money, but pigs get slaughtered. 

Be prepared for the beginning of a prolonged downturn at any moment.  Use a technical analysis method to tell you when to sell, such as a crossover of a short-term average over a long-term average.  There are many proven methods; just pick one simple method and stick with it.  The primary benefit of technical analysis  is to take the emotion and mysticism out of trading decisions; there's nothing magically predictive about such methods.  All rational technical analysis methods will require that you endure a significant loss, for example 10-20%, before selling to avoid being "whipsawed" by market "head fakes."   It is impossible to perfectly time any market, except by pure random luck.

Suppose, for example, after reaching $2200 the market drops to $1760 (-20%) with no sign of stopping and your technical sell signal is triggered.  At that point, you must sell all of your remaining coin, receiving $98,560 for the sale.  Do not waver; just tell yourself you'll quickly buy back in if the price goes back above its high of $2200, which would be a strong signal that the downturn is over (or use whatever other technical buy signal you prefer).    Plus the prior sales, at that point you will have realized $158,280, or a profit of $148,280 on the initial investment of $10,000.  A stellar return.

You can then wait until the price stabilizes and starts to head back up before buying back in, if you want to continue to speculate.  A good strategy is to use a technical buy signal and start buying over time once the signal is generated.  For example, buy 10 Bitcoin per week until you own as many as you care to, once the technical signal is generated.  Hold for a while, and repeat as necessary if a second bubble emerges.

If you're out, should you get in now?  It's impossible to know, because no one knows how long the upward market pressure will continue.  But if you do just start getting in now -- and by "getting in" I mean buying more than you need for your normal business needs i.e. speculating -- don't do so without recognizing the risk, and having a trading strategy that will get you out in time.  Just because you believe like many others that Bitcoin has a bright future does not mean the price can't crash.  There are few examples of meteoric price explosions in any market not followed by a crash.  In fact, I can't think of any.  Bubbles are a market phenomenon largely unconnected to the virtues of the commodity being traded.  No one is being forced to buy or sell Bitcoin, so a market certainly exists and will behave as all markets do.

I'm not a licensed or qualified investment adviser, so take the above as just friendly and free talk around the libertarian water cooler for inexperienced traders who already invested in Bitcoin and are wondering what to do next.  The babble is worth no more than what you have paid for it, and all warranties are disclaimed except that it is given with good intentions by an amateur student of trading strategies.  Fare well.

BitCoin: the WWW of the Decade?

To Mark Twain is attributed the saying ""History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme."  Spotting those rhymes is perhaps a meaningless endeavor best reserved for idle poets, but I can't stop myself from noticing.

The central bankers' continued acquiescence and developing regulation of BitCoin, recent media attention, and booming exchange price, are reminiscent of the World Wide Web in the early 1990's.  The Web broke into the public consciousness around 1993 or so, and sparked a stock market boom and bubble that lasted the better part of the decade.  It was going to change everything.  Some thought it would make us all more free and prosperous.

To a certain extent it has.  For the wisest and most motivated, the Internet and related technology can enable a great deal of economic independence and freedom.  But for the average person, arguably it has not lead to greater prosperity, but has enabled corporate and government interests to collect and retain incalculably greater amounts of personal information in ever-expanding areas of life.  Networks have become adept tools for mass surveillance.  On balance, the expansion of communication networks has created a greater threat to personal privacy and freedom than ever seen before.

It appears that a similar scenario is playing out with BitCoin.  I'm not advising anybody to get in or get out, but just be aware of the historical parallel.  It may be that BitCoin or something like it (perhaps a replacement coin that better facilitates credit expansion by banks) may one day become either compulsory, or the only practical currency for most transactions.  If this happens, in an absence of social change on the order of the Second Coming, it will be because the central bankers allow it to happen and are the principle beneficiaries.  For most people, it will not lead to an increase in freedom, but to a surer captivity.  Imagine a world without any generally accepted currency or cash (no paper bills or coins) except for trackable electronic certificates, with every account tied to a personal or corporate identity through a coercive registration system backed by tireless robots sniffing through computer networks.  The wisest may (or may not) escape slavery in this sort of system, but the vast majority of ordinary people will be unable to escape to any meaningful degree.

The remainder of this post after the present paragraph is lifted word-for-word from an anonymous comment at Robert Wenzel's Economic Policy Journal blog.  I'm repeating it here in this much more obscure journal "for the record," so to speak, without endorsement or criticism.  DARPA is publicly acknowledged as the developer of the Internet; so far as I know nobody has publicly taken credit for BitCoin.  Nonetheless speculation that the origins of BitCoin are shrouded in secrecy not because BitCoin is too subversive of the current order, but because it is being promoted by that order, are not totally implausible. 

"NSA/DARPA created bitcoin under the guidance of the IMF. The IMF has been openly calling for a digital, one-world, deflationary currency for 2 decades. OPENLY. It has been discussed and promoted OPENLY at G8 and G20 summits.from the early 90s-96 the NSA was OPENLY investigating cryptographic money networks.

One of their researchers and investigators is a man named Tatsuaki Okamoto. When they actively started writing the code they chose the pseudonym "Satoshi Nakamura" to ultimately promote the idea that Tatsuaki Okamoto to any and all who investigated the source of bitcoin long enough. But Tatsuaki Okamoto is just a cog. He's not some rogue savoir out to topple centralized banks. Not at all. He is a crypto scientist who was paid by government and intelligence agencies to do research.

Bitcoin is an NSA/DARPA lab set into the wild. Scientific technology grants issued by government and intelligence agencies are how these labs are funded and promoted. The regulation and control of bitcoin has been actively developed alongside the development of the network. In fact, the controls, policy and regulation are WAY WAY more mature than the bitcoin protocol itself. That's why we see things like Greenlist written into law without a mention of bitcoin until recently.

This is not tinfoil hattish. This is just reality. No one forced ANYONE to believe the Satoshi fairytale.. The libertarian Satoshi myth has been promoted in stealth to specifically promote ADOPTION and DEVELOPMENT. It's no different than the internet and WWW itself. EXACTLY the same. That is why you see many www early adopters saying bitcoin "feels" the same as the early internet. I am one of those people.

In 94-96 the public internet was ALL about freedom of information. FREE COMMUNICATION. It was ALL about liberty and freedom. I wish i could transport some of you back in time so you could see for yourselves. The promise of free phonecalls with the freeworlddialup, free media with IUMA and the MBONE. All this freedom and liberty had people pouring their heart and soul into developing it. Now look at it. Facebook, google.. it is a GIANT SURVEILLANCE grid. And if you look for and read DARPA/NSA docs from the 80s and early 90s that was what it was always meant to be. I am not discounting all the socially great things that happen online.. But from the perspective of DARPA/NSA and control freaks.. it was created for the express purpose of control. A military purpose. A strategic purpose.

What is bitcoin? Bitcoin IS the one world digital currency. We all have a deterministic UUID that has been generated from our biometric data. This UUID will be related to all your datastores. This UUID is your mark. This UUID is what is used to buy and sell online and in the real world. This UUID is the primary key in your Greenlist identity."

Part III: The Aggressor-Owner Duality and Restraints On Property

PART 3: MORAL LIMITS ON PROPERTY

The non-aggression principle limits coercion to what is necessary for defense of person and property.  The limits of "person" are relatively clear, although not without controversy, compared to the limits of "property."  The duality model suggests that, to achieve social balance, some complementary limits on property should also be recognized.

Property may be understood as exclusive rights pertaining to some tangible or intangible object.   Without exclusive rights, property does not exist.  Therefore, limiting property rights (as opposed to eliminating such rights altogether) can not consist of removing exclusivity as a feature of property rights.  Instead, limits must consist of rejecting property claims to objects of certain types, or under certain circumstances.  For example, rejecting property claims made on other persons (i.e., slavery) is an example of a moral limit.

A simple approach to moral limits on property rights might include just holding that any property not gained by improper aggression is proper and moral.  While it is true that property claims gained by immoral aggression are illegitimate, the converse is not necessarily true.  More to the point, a statement that all property rights gained without improper aggression are proper is merely a truism based on circular logic.  Defense of property is a justified use of aggression.  Since the definition of proper aggression relies on property, the definition of property cannot depend on aggression without making both definitions circular.  The definition of aggression cannot be used to discern moral limits on property rights.

Similarly, moral theorists have traditionally looked for moral justification for property rights in a labor theory, by which unowned matter is converted to morally justified property by application of productive labor.  Such theories are useful for explaining how property might be justly acquired, but say nothing whatsoever about whether or not property claims to otherwise justly acquired property are moral.  Labor-based justifications for property rights boil down into the position that any property not gained by improper aggression is proper and moral.  That such a position places no actual limits on property, and is merely circular, is pointed out in the preceding paragraph.  Again, justifications based in non-aggression, and by extension labor-based justifications, are logically incapable of providing moral limits to property rights.  Placing limits on how property can justly be acquired does not provide any limiting constraints on what can morally be acquired and owned.

It's important to distinguish between unequal limits on property rights and those that are uniformly applied.  For example, statist systems  are often eager to limit personal property rights of all kinds, but without limiting property claims by the state.  At the statist extreme, all property claims including the ownership of one's own body are regarded as mere privileges granted by the state, while ownership rights of the state are absolute.  All property is "collective" and therefore subject to the control of whomever rules the collective.  These are not limits at all.  They are instead reallocation of property rights by those who hold political power.

A moral limit on property must apply equally to all persons, regardless of social status.  Such limits define what cannot be owned by anyone, things such as the atmosphere, oceans, and slaves.  Such limits may also define things that can only be owned or used up to some limit, which may be different in different circumstances. 
 
Under the duality model, we might inquire whether moral limits on property can be discerned by looking for limits on property that are complementary to limits on aggression.  If moral aggression is limited to that which is necessary for defense, what are moral property rights limited to?

Before attempting to answer this question, consider what property is used for.  Property can be used for consumption or for production, or for some combination of these uses.  Consumption may be defined as any use that decreases the economic value of the property consumed, on balance.  Production is the transformation of less valuable property into more valuable property, by application of labor, including the accumulation of additional property.  Property may require preservation to prevent it from losing economic value; preservation that requires any activity may be considered a form of production.  Speculative investment may be may be considered a productive use requiring preservation and finding willing buyers, at minimum. 

Property that is completely unused and unpreserved for a sufficiently long time is abandoned.   Once abandoned, it is no longer subject to any claim of exclusivity.  Ownership of property requires both use and exclusivity.  Limits on property may be of two kinds: those that negate any exclusive claim to a class of objects, and those that relate to use, such as defining when abandonment occurs or placing other limitations on use.

So how might inappropriate uses and property claims be discerned in the duality model?  Duality does not explicitly provide guidance to how such limits should operate.  Instead, the concept of duality leads to an expectation that, if morality demands a limit to the exercise of aggression, it similarly demands a limit to the exercise of property claims.  Such limits might be discerned by the same fundamental principle or principles that make limits to aggression apparent.  What such principles are deserves a moment of reflection.

It was posited in Part II that improper aggression is based on the difference between defense and offense, with defense distinguished from offense based on whether or not the aggression is necessary to stop an ongoing or imminent attack and whether it increases the aggressor.  In both cases, the limit on aggression is a manifest aspect of the Golden Rule, which might also be called the fundamental principle of reciprocity.  Aggression satisfies reciprocity if those who claim a moral right to aggress adopt the position that others may claim the same moral right, when reciprocal circumstances exist.  The only logically coherent systems based on reciprocity are those in which (a) defined, reciprocal limits are placed on all exercise of aggression, or (b) every person with the power to aggress must do so until only one person remains.  Anything system in between is not governed by any coherent logical principle, and must include a degree of arbitrary exercise of power.

Reciprocity is the essential fabric of society; without it, there can be no moral limits to aggression or property claims.  In a sense, morality is reciprocity.   Without reciprocity, the only law is that of power: whatever any person has the power to do is lawful, and no moral judgment on any action is possible.  Society cannot exist without moral judgment.  When any action is as permissible and as just as any other, there can exist no ordered relationships or expectations between persons.  Without ordered relationships and expectations among persons, there is no society.  People can certainly exist in the short term without society, but whether the human species can survive in the long term without society and without morality is an empirical question that is beyond the scope of this essay.

Society may not be ordered perfectly in a moral sense, that is, society can exist without perfectly embodying the reciprocity principle.  In other words, morally imperfect societies can and obviously do exist.  Such societies may institutionalize a mixture of moral and amoral conduct.  For example, in hierarchical societies, all "others" possessing reciprocal rights must be of the same social status, and a layered structure of social classes each possessing different rights may exist.  Nonetheless, within each class, perfect reciprocity is the moral standard.  To the extent one class claims superior rights and thereby oppresses a lower class, it does so by an exercise of power, not of morality.  As power is amoral, a perfectly moral society must be classless.

Therefore, the duality model suggests that moral limits to property should be discernible from the reciprocity principle, just as moral limits on aggression are discernible.  Reciprocity leads to the observation that aggression, to be morally justified, must be limited to what is necessary for defense.  It might similarly be posited, therefore, that morally justified property rights are limited to those necessary to secure the right holder's freedom of action, security, and health against competing property claims of others.  Second, reciprocity teaches that proper exercise of aggression requires carefully distinguishing offense from defense, to avoid aggressive encroachment on others.  It is posited, therefore that morally justified property claims must be limited to do those that do not disable any other person from asserting property rights reciprocal in kind to those being asserted.  Very briefly, the basic principle of reciprocity may be divided into the twin subsidiaries of necessity and non-encroachment.  These principles apply equally well to limitations on use or class of property that can be owned.

Consider, for example, slavery.  Slavery takes many forms, but may be generally understood as a state in which a person is coerced into involuntary servitude to another, without just compensation.   Ownership of a productive slave may increase the freedom of action, security or health of the slave holder, and in some limited circumstances may even be considered necessary.  For example, a person with a pressing medical need or disability may be unable to obtain desired medical or nursing care, which may be necessary to preserve the person's life.  In such straits, can the sick or disabled person gain a property interest in a doctor's services, under which the doctor is required to provide services to the sick person involuntarily and without compensation?  That is, can the sick person claim to own a doctor as a slave?

Under the formula of "necessary and non-encroaching," there are at least two reasons the answer is "no."  First, under the "necessity prong," the property claim must be necessary to defend against a competing property claim by another.  It is nonsense to state that slavery is justified by the prospective slaves' claims of ownership over their own bodies.  Self-ownership can never be a competing claim because it is limited to the self, of which there can be only one for each person.  So there is no discernible competing property claim to justify slavery.  Second, under the "non-encroachment prong" a property claim on the doctor's services disables the doctor from self-ownership without granting a reciprocal right of the doctor to own the patient. A slave can have no reciprocal right to own the master.  If some such reciprocal right exists, the relationship is not slavery but something different, likely contract.  Therefore, a claim to a slave violates the second principle as well, by encroaching on reciprocal rights of the slave to own property of like kind.

On the other hand, many claims to real and personal property clearly satisfy both limiting principles.  Competing claims exist, necessitating a property claim in almost all cases wherein a limited physical resource is divided among a group of persons.  For such property, the second prong is what provides discernment of most moral limits.  For example, claims of kings and states tend to be so expansive as to practically or actually extinguish assertion of reciprocal claims by their subjects.  Such claims are therefore immoral.  In comparison, ownership of relatively small bits of real estate or limited collections of personal property seldom, if ever, violates the non-encroachment prong of the reciprocity principle.  Non-encroachment requires further attention, which will be paid in Part IV of this series.

The limits of necessity and non-encroachment are fundamental, but do not preclude other limits on property ownership.  For example, uses of morally held property that trespass on the property rights of others can be forbidden.  Such limits are a function of trespass, not of moral limits on property rights.  Limits based on trespass or tort theory rely on an assumption of legitimate property rights being held by different persons, and do not concern the fundamental question or what can be morally owned.  Also, other limits may apply to ownership of property that are in a sense moral, but irrelevant to reciprocity and thus, socially unenforceable.  For example, a person may develop a self-destructive habit or addiction to acquiring or consuming property of some type.  Self-destructive behavior can be recognized as immoral, but is merely a vice and not subject to the coercive intervention of the law.  

Under the duality model, unnecessary suffering is avoided by balancing the polarities of a duality.  In Part I of this essay, aggression and property rights were conceived as opposite poles of a duality, while Part II argued that under the reciprocity principle, certain limits on aggression should be observed.  Part III points out prospective limits on property claims, inspired by the limits on aggression previously discussed.  These essential limits impose moral duties on property holders, to ensure that their property claims (a) are necessary to secure the rights-holder's prosperity and freedom against competing property claims by others, and (b) do not disable others from claiming reciprocal property rights in kind.

In Part IV, how the posited limits to property rights may play out in various hypothetical situations will be explored in more detail.

Libertarian Guide to Sacramento Law Making: First Half of October 2013

Once upon a time, aided by no more than the equivalent of a double expresso, obsessive-compulsive disorders, unbridled ambition, naivete, and hazy memories of "Economics in One Lesson," Jake endeavored to demystify Sacramento lawmaking for the entire first half of October, 2013.  It proved too much.  California in 2013 is a one-party state with no effective political opposition.  So, laws are passed at a dizzying pace, with only the judgement of an experienced but very socialist politician (Jerry Brown) to restrain the flood.  A part-time blogger cannot keep up with the resulting volume of legislative vomit  spewing forth from Sacramento.  It is doubtful whether the job will ever be finished, so a progress report is being posted now.  If there is enough interest it can always be updated with more reviews later, but Jake needs to move on to other things now.

SCORE as of this posting:  26 "Loses," 11 "Newses," 14 "Snoozes," and 299 unreviewed. More than one fifth (11) of the actions reviewed were rated as "news"; most of these were vetoes of horribly bad bills.  This is surprisingly high.  Nonetheless, the net score so far is -15 out of 51 acts reviewed.  Rather dismal for liberty, but could be worse.  (That phrase pretty much sums up the state of affairs in California now, doesn't it?)

His methodology:  Jake briefly reviewed each bill signed or vetoed by Governor Brown, and prepared a summary no longer than two sentences.  He then scored the act of signing or vetoing, as the case may be, as a "lose," "snooze," or "news," in some cases providing a brief justification for the assigned score.

"Lose" means that, on the whole, the action is deemed destructive to personal or economic freedom.  "Snooze" means the action is, on the whole, deemed of negligible effect on anyone's freedoms. "News" means that, surprise, surprise, something has happened in Sacramento that has a decent chance of increasing some sort of freedom, somewhere; or in the case of a veto, the governor has vetoed a liberty-limiting measure.  "Deemed" means in Jake's sole, lightly informed and possibly mistaken opinion.  Critical feedback is welcome.  Finally, a numeric score of -1, 0, or +1 was assigned based on the scores (+1 for "news," you figure out the rest), and a cumulative numeric score for the sample Jake managed to finish tallied up.



10-13-2013

SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that he has signed the following bills.

• AB 128 by Assemblymember Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) – Peace officers: airport law enforcement.
• AB 494 by Assemblymember V. Manuel Pérez (D-Coachella) – Prisoners: literacy and education.
• AB 537 by Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) – Meyers-Milias-Brown Act: impasse procedures.
• AB 607 by Assemblymember Henry T. Perea (D-Fresno) – Workers' compensation: dependent children.
• AB 651 by Assemblymember Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) – Convictions: expungement.
• AB 986 by Assemblymember Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) – Postrelease community supervision: flash incarceration: city jails.
• AB 1019 by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) – State prisons: correctional, educational and vocational training.
• AB 1217 by Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) – Home Care Services Consumer Protection Act. A signing message can be found here.
• AB 1325 by Assemblymember John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) – Vandalism: punishment.
• AB 1336 by Assemblymember Jim L. Frazier (D-Oakley) – Prevailing wages: payroll records.
• AB 1376 by Assemblymember Roger Hernández (D-West Covina) – Workers' compensation: medical treatment: interpreters.
• SB 7 by Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) – Public works: charter cities.
• SB 54 by Senator Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) – Hazardous materials management: stationary sources: skilled and trained workforce. A signing message can be found here.
• SB 341 by Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) – Redevelopment.
• SB 458 by Senator Roderick D. Wright (D-Los Angeles) – Gangs: statewide database.
• SB 513 by Senator Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) – Diversion programs: sealed records.
• SB 569 by Senator Ted W. Lieu (D-Torrance) – Interrogation: electronic recordation.
• SB 618 by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) – Wrongful convictions.

Governor Brown also announced that he has vetoed the following bills.

• AB 302 by Assemblymember Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park) – Public works: public subsidies. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 454 by Assemblymember Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) – Workers' compensation benefits: prevailing wages. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 564 by Assemblymember Kevin Mullin (D-South San Francisco) – Community redevelopment: successor agencies. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 566 by Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) – Courts: personal services contracting. A veto message can be found here. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 662 by Assemblymember Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego) – Local government: redevelopment: successor agencies to redevelopment agencies. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 855 by Assemblymember Cheryl Brown (D-San Bernardino) – State employees: Absence without leave: reinstatement. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 994 by Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) – Postplea misdemeanor diversion programs. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 1113 by Assemblymember Jim L. Frazier (D-Oakley) – Provisional driver's licenses: restrictions. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 1140 by Assemblymember Tom F. Daly (D-Anaheim) – Public works: prevailing wages. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 1165 by Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) – Occupational safety and health: violations. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 1229 by Assemblymember Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego) – Land use: zoning regulations. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 1263 by Assemblymember John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) – Medi-Cal: CommuniCal. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 1373 by Assemblymember John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) – Workers’ compensation: firefighters and peace officers. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 36 by Senator Ben Hueso (D-San Diego) – Internet Web site: workers' compensation insurers: workers' compensation data. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 258 by Senator Ted W. Lieu (D-Torrance) – Workers' compensation. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 448 by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) – Energy: petroleum supply and pricing. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 615 by Senator Cathleen Galgiani (D-Stockton) – Public works: prevailing wages. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 746 by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) – Health care coverage: premium rates. A veto message can be found here.

10-12-2013

SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that he has signed the following bills.

• AB 16 by Assemblymember John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) – Domestic violence: corporal injury.  Extends special criminal penalties for "corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition" for such inflicted on a finance, former finance, or anyone in a present or former dating relationship with the accused.  More meddling by the state in personal relationships and grandstanding on "domestic violence", will probably result in enhanced sentences for more clueless schmucks and increased costs for imprisoning them.  LOSE -1 
• AB 68 by Assemblymember Brian Maienschein (R-San Diego) – Parole. Requires "the Department of  Corrections and Rehabilitation to give notice of any medical parole hearing and any medical parole release to the county of commitment, and the county of proposed release, at least 30 days, or as soon as feasible, prior to a medical parole hearing or a medical parole release."  Creates more delay, obstacles and opportunities for bureaucratic meddling in prisoner releases for medical reasons.  LOSE -1
• AB 184 by Assemblymember Mike Gatto (D-Los Angeles) – Statute of limitations.  Extends statute of limitations in hit-and-run cases involving serious injury or worse, for up to a year after the defendant is  identified but not exceeding six years from the alleged crime.  A very small part of pernicious trend of gradually increasing the statute of limitations for everything, for no good reason.  LOSE -1
• AB 205 by Assemblymember Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) – Public employees' retirement: pension fund management.  Allows county retirement investment boards "consistent with their fiduciary duties and the standard for prudent investment, to prioritize investment in an in-state infrastructure project over a comparable out-of-state infrastructure project;" certain state retirement boards already have this discretion.  Rearranging the deck chairs.  SNOOZE 0
• AB 325 by Assemblymember Luis Alejo (D-Salinas) – Land use and planning: cause of actions: time limitations.  Somebody was upset about the court’s opinion in Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1561, so they passed this bill to make it easier or harder for developers of affordable housing to challege local zoning and planning decisions.  I can't tell which in 60 seconds and it would take too much research to figure this out, so I'll guess it's just another power squabble over bureacratic procedures.  SNOOZE 0
• AB 373 by Assemblymember Kevin Mullin (D-South San Francisco) – Public Employees' Long-Term Care Act.  Makes domestic partners and adult children of public employees eligible to enroll in long term care insurance plans offered to the public employee.  Assuming the cost of such plans is subsidized or guaranteed by the state somehow (or else why would this law be necessary) this is just another way of increasing the benefits of public employment at the expense of taxpayers.  Passing out more perks to the public employees who largely control California politics.  LOSE -1
• AB 532 by Assemblymember Richard S. Gordon (D-Menlo Park) – Local Housing Trust Fund.  Tweaks how CA hands out cash for "affordable housing" -- another bill where the interests at stake are not clear.  It doesn't increase or decrease the market-distorting slush fund so  SNOOZE 0
• AB 637 by Assemblymember Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego) – Housing assistance.  Diverts funds set aside to subsidize "first time home buyers" down payments for the "construction and development of housing developments."  Puts funds more directly into pockets of the special interests, now that the banks aren't making loans to marginal borrowers anymore.  Distorts housing markets at the expense of middle-class taxpayers.   LOSE -1
• AB 952 by Assemblymember Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego) – Low-income housing tax credits.  Complicated tax stuff.  Impossible for anybody but a tax lawyer to figure out.  My guess is that it is increasing taxes by reducing credits somehow, or perhaps reallocating tax credits to some preferred interest group.  In either case, LOSE -1
• AB 1108 by Assemblymember Henry T. Perea (D-Fresno) – Sex offenders: foster care homes: prohibitions. Criminalizes the act of being a former sex offender and "residing, working, or volunteering in specified foster homes or facilities."  More pointless persecution of the politicians' current pet villains, most of whom are, on average, far less dangerous than the public employees who deign to criminalize everything these poor saps will ever do. We do not need more victimless crimes; that's the last thing we need.  LOSE -1
• AB 1346 by Assemblymember Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) – Postemployment health benefits: Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District: employer contributions.  Apparently this increases employer contributions required for Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District employees hired after 2011, to be eligible for post employment health benefits.  I fail to understand why this is a State matter, not a Municipal matter.  SNOOZE 0
• SB 39 by Senator Kevin De León (D-Los Angeles) – Local agencies: public officers: claims and liability. Requires the forfeiture of a contractual, common law, constitutional, or statutory claims against local public agency employers for retirement or pension rights or benefits, by any local public officer who exercised discretionary authority and who was convicted of a felony for conduct arising out of, or in the performance of, his or her official duties.  Prevents felons from claiming California pensions on the stated bases, at least when acting with "discretionary authority."  NEWS +1
• SB 57 by Senator Ted W. Lieu (D-Torrance) – Electronic monitoring: removing or disabling GPS device: offense.  It was already a violation of parole for a sex offender to remove a tracking device; this makes it a crime with an 180-day minimum sentence.  Just more piling on the politicians favorite villain, creating new victimless crimes, and supplying more inmates for California's already overcrowded prisons.  LOSE -1
• SB 145 by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) – Sex offenders: child pornography.  Tailor made to increase convictions in cases of police stings and entrapment operations, this bill makes it a felony, if providing pornography to anyone, merely to believe that the recipient is a minor, even if the recipient actually is not a minor and the defendant was stupid to believe otherwise.  I pity the poor schmucks who are going to be convicted under this statute, and myself for my tax enslavement to California funding their imprisonment.  To them I say, please never, ever, email anything even slightly prurient to anybody, it's just a very dangerous habit to get into.  LOSE -1
• SB 215 by Senator Jim Beall (D-San Jose) – Public employee benefits.  Makes numerous tweaks to regulations governing Cal-PERS, too many to list.  A couple caught my eye: carving out a specific exception to mandatory retirement at age 60 for a Commisioner of the CHP until 2018, and freeing the board to sell uncovered call options outside of regulated option exchanges.  I detect the foul scent of special-interest lobbying.  LOSE -1.
• SB 313 by Senator Kevin De León (D-Los Angeles) – Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act.  Protects police from discipline for being on the DA's "Brady" list, thereby removing a huge disincentive for the police to share exculpatory information with the DA; police can still be disciplined for proven misconduct.  NEWS +1
• SB 377 by Senator Ted W. Lieu (D-Torrance) – Public works: project determinations: wage and penalty assessments. A signing message can be found here.  Makes it easier for unions to force developers to follow enhanced labor rules required for "public works" by increasing the period of time in which the union must take action; increases uncertainty for developers.  LOSE -1
• SB 496 by Senator Roderick D. Wright (D-Los Angeles) – Improper governmental activity: disclosure: protection. A mixed bag.  Increases some protections for state employee whistle blowers, but also expands the definition of criminal conduct against non-goverment employers for "making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency" basically, ever.  So for example, enforcing a rule that employees can't use a cellphone at work could make the employer subject to criminal prosecution if the employee says the rule prevents them from disclosing information.  On balance, LOSE -1
• SB 543 by Senator Marty Block (D-San Diego) – Petty theft: enhancements for prior convictions. Puts more petty thieves in prison, an immoral and socially self-destructive idea. If you want approval from Jake, you will need to set up a restitutionary system for thieves that enables them to learn new productive skills, repay their victims, and avoid imprisonment.  LOSE -1
• SB 594 by Senator Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) – Use of public resources.  More campaign finance laws designed to protect incumbents by making it more difficult for non-incumbents to get the word out.  Again, a mixed bag but in general, complicates election laws and increases burdens for new candidates and non-profits that support them.  LOSE -1

Governor Brown also announced that he has vetoed the following bills.

• AB 822 by Assemblymember Isadore Hall III (D-Compton) – Local government retirement plans. A veto message can be found here.  Would have imposed requirements on local governments anytime local an "ordinance or measure qualifies for the ballot that proposes to alter, replace, or eliminate the retirement benefit plan of employees of a local government entity."  Just a public employee protection measure that deserved to be vetoed.  NEWS +1
• AB 857 by Assemblymember Paul Fong (D-Cupertino) – Initiatives: petition circulators. A veto message can be found here.  Would have imposed various detailed requirements to make it more difficult, especially for moneyed interests lacking grassroots volunteer support, to gather signatures to place initiatives on the ballot.  Would have make the rules for petitioners more complex.  Brown may have vetoed this for the wrong reasons, but the result is correct.  Jake believes state-sponsored elections are a flawed concept, but making them harder to participate in is moving in the wrong direction.  NEWS +1
• AB 917 by Assemblymember Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) – Charter schools: authorization: petition: signatures. A veto message can be found here.  Terminology is a bit confusing, but apparently this would have made it easier to satisfy petition requirements for converting a regular school to a charter school, without support of at least one-half the teachers at the school.  Schools should be a service offered to parents; since this wouldn't have changed signature requirements for parents of prospective pupils, I'll rate it a SNOOZE 0
• AB 921 by Assemblymember Reginald Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles) – Child welfare services. A veto message can be found here.  Another mixed bag; would have made various procedural reforms to the relationship between State and County institutions for child welfare.  It would have increased protections and freedom for social worker "whistle blowers," which seems positive.  Since it was largely directed to increasing the freedom of speech of social workers, the veto is a LOSE -1
• AB 999 by Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) – Prisoner Protections for Family and Community Health Act. A veto message can be found here.  Three words: condoms for prisoners.  Governor Brown has presided over a reduction in prison population to about 60,000 people (about what it was in 1990), without increasing violent crime.  I'll give him credit for that.  That still leaves about 60,000, mostly men, housed under conditions where the incidence of sodomy, some of which is rape, can foreseeably be expected to be relatively high.  The State has an obligation to protect prisoners from HIV and other STD's; making condoms available to prisoners reduces the spread of disease.  The veto is a LOSE -1
• AB 1127 by Assemblymember Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park) – Legal aid: court interpreters. A veto message can be found here. "This bill would require the Judicial Council, by March 1, 2014, to establish a working group to review, identify, and develop best practices to provide interpreters in civil actions and proceedings, as specified."  The State judicial system is a territorial monopoly and as such, incapable of providing quality customer service under any conditions.  Veto is SNOOZE 0
• AB 1128 by Assemblymember Rudy Salas (D-Bakersfield) – Alcoholic beverages: underage drinking. A veto message can be found here.  Current law states "every person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away an alcoholic beverage to a person under 21 years of age, or who purchases any alcoholic beverage for, or furnishes, gives, or gives away any alcoholic beverage to, a person under 21 years of age who thereafter consumes the alcohol and then causes great bodily injury or death to himself, herself, or any other person, is guilty of a misdemeanor."  This bill would have made essentially the same acts a felony.  We don't need to put more peaceful people in prison.  Veto is NEWS +1
• SB 131 by Senator Jim Beall (D-San Jose) – Damages: childhood sexual abuse: statute of limitations. A veto message can be found here.  Tailor made for predatory trial attorneys, this bill would have extended the already extremely long and open-ended statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse ("within 8 years of the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority or within 3 years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by sexual abuse, whichever occurs later") in specified cases, and done so retroactively for cases already being heard.  Yuck.  Veto is NEWS +1
• SB 467 by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) – Privacy: electronic communications: warrant. A veto message can be found here.  Would have expanded privacy protection by requiring government disclosure of information obtained by warrant, among other things.  The disclosure requirement would have made criminal investigations based on electronic records more difficult and less routine.  That would have been a good thing. Veto is therefore a LOSE -1
• SB 598 by Senator Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) – Biosimilars. A veto message can be found here.  A high-tech law from a high-tech district.  Provides complex rules for pharmacists filling prescriptions with "biosimilars" and therefore intrudes into the patient-pharmacist relationship.  Jake is not leaping for joy and recognizes the veto was for the wrong reason, but nonetheless this law deserved it.  NEWS +1
• SB 649 by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) – Possession of controlled substances: penalties. A veto message can be found here.  Would have reduced penalties for "unlawful possession of certain controlled substances, including, among others, opiates, opium, opium derivatives, mescaline, peyote, tetrahydrocannabinols, and cocaine base" and made a misdemeanor charge possible is such cases.  Veto message implies that a misdemeanor would never be appropriate in cases of heroin or cocaine, and claims this issue should be deferred for consideration with SB 150.  LOSE -1
• SB 744 by Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) – Pupils: involuntary transfer: county community schools and community day schools. A veto message can be found here.  Would have limited and controlled imprisonment of children in certain schools, even if only partially.  Children should never be forced to attend school; this bill would not have prevented that in all cases but would have in some.  Veto is a LOSE -1

10-11-2013
SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that he has signed the following bills.

• AB 48 by Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) – Firearms: large-capacity magazines. "This bill would make it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed 6 months, or by both that fine and imprisonment, to knowingly manufacture, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give, lend, buy, or receive any large capacity magazine conversion kit that is capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a large-capacity magazine."  LOSE -1
• AB 170 by Assemblymember Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) – Assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles. "This bill would limit “person” to an individual for . . permit purposes for assault weapons, .50 BMG rifles, and machineguns, and other purposes related to the regulation of assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles"  Not such a big deal, but LOSE -1
• AB 231 by Assemblymember Philip Y. Ting (D-San Francisco) – Firearms: criminal storage. Establishes "the offense of criminal storage of a firearm in the 3rd degree, when a person keeps a loaded firearm within any premises under his or her custody or control and negligently stores or leaves a loaded firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm . . " The Watertown reactionary bill, as if it would have made a difference.  In practice will just be another excuse to prosecute and criminalize gun ownership.  LOSE -1
• AB 260 by Assemblymember Richard S. Gordon (D-Menlo Park) – Individualized county child care subsidy plans.
• AB 263 by Assemblymember Roger Hernández (D-West Covina) – Employment: retaliation: immigration-related practices.
• AB 274 by Assemblymember Susan Bonilla (D-Concord) – Child care and development services.
• AB 290 by Assemblymember Luis Alejo (D-Salinas) – Child day care: childhood nutrition training.
• AB 442 by Assemblymember Adrin Nazarian (D-Sherman Oaks) – Employees: wages.
• AB 466 by Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Fullerton) – Federal transportation funds.
• AB 500 by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) – Firearms. Requires the state DOJ "to immediately notify the dealer to delay the transfer of a firearm to a purchaser if the records of the department, or if specified records available to the department, indicate that the purchaser has been taken into custody and placed in a facility for mental health treatment or evaluation, that he or she has been arrested for, or charged with, a crime, or that the purchaser is attempting to purchase more than one firearm within a 30-day period."  LOSE -1
• AB 538 by Assemblymember Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) – Firearms.  Among fairly technical tweaks to hand gun carry laws, makes it a misdemeanor omit "any applicable waiting period exemption information" from a firearms transfer record.  LOSE -1
• AB 539 by Assemblymember Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) – Firearm possession: prohibitions: transfer to licensed dealer. Allows anyone who is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm pursuant to certain laws "to transfer any firearm or firearms in his or her possession, or of which he or she is the owner, to a licensed firearms dealer for the duration of the prohibition if the prohibition on owning or possessing the firearm will expire on a date specified in the court order."  Very slight loosening of the manacles. NEWS +1
• AB 562 by Assemblymember Das G. Williams (D-Santa Barbara) – Economic development subsidies: review by local agencies.
• AB 628 by Assemblymember Jeff Gorell (R-Camarillo) – Energy management plans for harbor and port districts. A signing message can be found here.
• AB 711 by Assemblymember Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) – Hunting: nonlead ammunition. A signing message can be found here. Limits all amunition for hunting to specified types of center-fire non-lead ammunition.  Jake is not a hunter, and has no opinion as to whether this is a reasonable restriction or likely to have any discernible public benefit.  Whatever the reasons, this bill limits hunters' freedom of action without any discernible offsetting increase in freedom elesewhere.  LOSE -1
• AB 848 by Assemblymember Jim Patterson (R-Fresno) – Adoption.
• AB 906 by Assemblymember Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) – Personal services contracts.
• AB 1039 by Assemblymember Isadore Hall III (D-Compton) – Local gambling control.
• AB 1042 by Assemblymember Isadore Hall III (D-Compton) – Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund. A signing message can be found here.
• AB 1131 by Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) – Firearms.
• AB 1213 by Assemblymember Richard H. Bloom (D-Santa Monica) – Bobcat Protection Act of 2013. A signing message can be found here.
• AB 1257 by Assemblymember Raul Bocanegra (D-Los Angeles) – Energy: State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission: natural gas.
• AB 1386 by the Committee on Labor and Employment – Employment: employee complaints: final orders.
• AB 1387 by Assemblymember Roger Hernández (D-West Covina) – Car washes.
• SB 109 by Senator Ellen Corbett (D-Hayward) – Charter-party carriers: limousines: emergency exits.
• SB 127 by Senator Ted Gaines (R-Rocklin) – Firearms: mentally disordered persons.
• SB 194 by Senator Cathleen Galgiani (D-Stockton) – Vehicles: electronic wireless communications device: prohibitions.
• SB 277 by Senator Jim Beall (D-San Jose) – State Peace Officers' and Firefighters' Defined Contribution Plan.
• SB 288 by Senator Ted W. Lieu (D-Torrance) – Employment protections: time off.
• SB 335 by Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) – Expenditures: service contracts.
• SB 363 by Senator Roderick D. Wright (D-Los Angeles) – Firearms: criminal storage: unsafe handguns: fees.
• SB 400 by Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) – Employment protections: victims of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking.
• SB 472 by Senator Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) – Gaming: licenses.
• SB 683 by Senator Marty Block (D-San Diego) – Firearms: firearm safety certificate.

Governor Brown also announced that he has vetoed the following bills.

• AB 12 by Assemblymember Ken Cooley (D-Rancho Cordova) – State government: Administrative Procedure Act: standardized regulatory impact analyses. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 169 by Assemblymember Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) – Unsafe handguns. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 180 by Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) – Registration and licensing of firearms: City of Oakland. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 199 by Assemblymember Chris Holden (D-Pasadena) – Institutional purchasers: sale of California produce. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 729 by Assemblymember Roger Hernández (D-West Covina) – Evidentiary privileges: union agent-represented worker privilege. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 1208 by Assemblymember Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) – Insurance affordability. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 1290 by Assemblymember John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) –Transportation planning. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 110 by Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) – East Span, San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Safety Review Task Force. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 299 by Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) – Firearms: lost or stolen: reports. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 338 by Senator Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) – Charter-party carriers of passengers: limousines: fire extinguishers. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 374 by Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) – Firearms: assault weapons. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 475 by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) – Agricultural District 1-A: firearm sales at the Cow Palace. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 516 by Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) – Foreign labor contractors: registration. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 567 by Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) – Firearms: shotguns. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 654 by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) – Ballot measure petitions: recall petitions: translations. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 755 by Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) – Firearms: prohibited persons. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 804 by Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) – Solid waste: energy. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 811 by Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) – State Highway Route 710. A veto message can be found here.

10-10-2013

SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that he has signed the following bills.

• AB 218 by Assemblymember Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) – Employment applications: criminal history.
• AB 256 by Assemblymember Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) – Pupils: grounds for suspension and expulsion: bullying.
• AB 389 by Assemblymember Das G. Williams (D-Santa Barbara) – Private schools: employees: criminal background checks.
• AB 514 by Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) – The Safe Schools for Safe Learning Act of 2013.
• AB 547 by Assemblymember Rudy Salas (D-Bakersfield) – 21st Century High School After School Safety and Enrichment for Teens program.
• AB 595 by Assemblymember Jimmy Gomez (D-Northeast Los Angeles) – Community colleges: priority enrollment.
• AB 610 by Assemblymember Katcho Achadjian (R-San Luis Obispo) – State hospitals: involuntary treatment.
• AB 626 by Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) – School nutrition.
• AB 635 by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) – Drug overdose treatment: liability.
• AB 647 by Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro (D-Arcata) – The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act: beer manufacturers: containers.
• AB 753 by Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) – Cognitively impaired adults: caregiver resource centers.
• AB 899 by Assemblymember Shirley N. Weber (D-San Diego) – Academic content standards: English language development standards.
• AB 955 by Assemblymember Das G. Williams (D-Santa Barbara) – Community colleges: intersession extension programs. A signing message can be found here.
• AB 974 by Assemblymember Isadore Hall III (D-Compton) – Patient transfer: nonmedical reasons: notice to contact person or next of kin.
• AB 1025 by Assemblymember Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) – Public postsecondary education: credit by examination.
• AB 1068 by Assemblymember Richard H. Bloom (D-Santa Monica) – Pupil records.
• AB 1358 by Assemblymember Paul Fong (D-Cupertino) – Student body association: student representation fees.
• SB 168 by William W. Monning (D-Carmel) – Farm labor contractors: successors: wages and penalties.
• SB 236 by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) – School districts: four-day school week: Moorpark Unified School District.
• SB 368 by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) – Teachers: added authorization in special education.
• SB 390 by Senator Roderick D. Wright (D-Los Angeles) – Employee wage withholdings: failure to remit.
• SB 435 by Senator Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) – Compensation: meal and rest or recovery periods.
• SB 440 by Senator Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) – Public postsecondary education: Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act.
• SB 530 by Senator Roderick D. Wright (D-Los Angeles) – Criminal offenders: rehabilitation.
• SB 534 by Senator Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina) – Health and care facilities.
• SB 590 by Senator Kevin De León (D-Los Angeles) – School personnel: professional development for classified school employees.
• SB 651 by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) – Developmental centers and state hospitals.
• SB 669 by Senator Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar) – Emergency medical care: epinephrine auto-injectors.
• SB 681 by Senator Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina) – Community college districts: personal property.

Governor Brown also announced that he has vetoed the following bills.

• AB 300 by Assemblymember Henry T. Perea (D-Fresno) – Telecommunications: prepaid mobile telephony services: state surcharge and fees: local charges collection. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 375 by Assemblymember Joan Buchanan (D-Alamo) – School employees: dismissal or suspension: hearing. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 622 by Assemblymember Nora Campos (D-San Jose) – School districts: charter school petitions: Internet posting. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 704 by Assemblymember Robert Blumenfield (D-Woodland Hills) – Emergency medical services: military experience. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 1287 by Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Fullerton) – Student financial aid: Cal Grant Program eligibility. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 1409 by Assemblymember Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) – Public utilities: voice communications: Moore Universal Telephone Service Act. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 284 by Senator Kevin De León (D-Los Angeles) – Income taxes: credits: contributions to education funds. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 285 by Senator Kevin[url"> De León (D-Los Angeles) – Student financial aid: Cal Grant Program. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 398 by Senator Cathleen Galgiani (D-Stockton) – Horse racing: distribution of proceeds. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 655 by Senator Roderick D. Wright (D-Los Angeles) – Fair Employment and Housing Act: unlawful practices. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 723 by Senator Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) – Veterans. A veto message can be found here.

10-9-2013

SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that he has signed the following bills.

• AB 140 by Assemblymember Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) – Undue influence.
• AB 191 by Assemblymember Raul Bocanegra (D-Los Angeles) – CalFresh: categorical eligibility.
• AB 247 by Assemblymember Donald P. Wagner (R-Irvine) – Personal income taxes: voluntary contribution: California Fund for Senior Citizens.  If they made all taxes voluntary, that would be news.  SNOOZE 0
• AB 394 by Assemblymember Mariko Yamada (D-Davis) – Personal income tax: voluntary contributions: Alzheimer's disease.  Ditto SNOOZE 0
• AB 498 by Assemblymember Rocky Chávez (R-Oceanside) – Medi-Cal.
• AB 602 by Assemblymember Mariko Yamada (D-Davis) – Mentally and developmentally disabled persons: reporting abuse.
• AB 620 by Assemblymember Joan Buchanan (D-Alamo) – Health and care facilities: missing patients and participants.
• AB 663 by Assemblymember Jimmy Gomez (D-Northeast Los Angeles) – Care facilities: training requirements.
• AB 849 by Assemblymember Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) – Protection of victims: address confidentiality.
• AB 1041 by Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro (D-Arcata) – Developmental services: Employment First Policy.
• AB 1202 by Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) – Occupational safety and health standards: hazardous drugs.
• AB 1232 by Assemblymember V. Manuel Pérez (D-Coachella) – Developmental services: quality assessment system.
• SB 126 by Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) – Health care coverage: pervasive developmental disorder or autism.
• SB 345 by Senator Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) – Attorneys: annual membership fees.
• SB 367 by Senator Marty Block (D-San Diego) – Developmental services: regional centers: cultural and linguistic competency.
• SB 468 by Senator Bill Emmerson (R-Redlands) – Developmental services: statewide Self-Determination Program.  Implements "state Self-Determination Program"  "to provide participants and their families, within an individual budget, increased flexibility and choice, and greater control over decisions, resources, and needed and desired services and supports to implement their IPP."  "State self-determination program" -- what irony.  What doublespeak.  SNOOZE 0
• SB 494 by Senator William W. Monning (D-Carmel) – Health care providers.Honestly, Jake doesn't have the time it would take to understand this bill.  But because the Digest includes the sentence "By imposing new requirements on health care service plans, the willful violation of which would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program" it is scored as a LOSE -1
• SB 555 by Senator Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) – Developmental services: regional centers: individual program plans and individualized family service plans.  Requires state agencies providing developmental disability "services" to families that produce certain "planning" documents to do so in the language of the family.  SNOOZE 0

Governor Brown also announced that he has vetoed the following bills.

• AB 50 by Assemblymember Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) – Health care coverage: Medi-Cal: eligibility. A veto message can be found here. Provided "that a woman shall be eligible for full-scope Medi-Cal benefits if her income is less than 100% of the federal poverty level as determined, counted, and valued in accordance with federal law" currently cutoff is 60-100%.  Newsflash: Jerry and the Dems will expand Medi-Cal, but in another set of bills.  This veto merely delays things slightly.  SNOOZE 0
• AB 174 by Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) – Public school health centers. A veto message can be found here.  Requires the State Department of Public Health to establish, within the County of Alameda, a grant pilot program within the Public School Health Center Support Program that would be known as Promoting Resilience: Offering Mental Health Interventions to Support Education (PROMISE).  Anything with such a sick acronym can't be good.  NEWS +1
• AB 477 by Assemblymember Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park) – Elder and dependent adult abuse: mandated reporting. A veto message can be found here.  Extends mandated reporting requirement for elder abuse to notary publics, subject to a civil penalty.  The phrase "mandated reporting" is all you need to know.  NEWS +1
• AB 888 by Assemblymember Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) – State Bar of California: enforcement actions. A veto message can be found here.  Among other things, would have enable the State Bar to bring civil actions for "unlicensed practice of law."  This would have benefited establishment lawyers but not freedom.  NEWS +1
• AB 1231 by Assemblymember V. Manuel Pérez (D-Coachella) – Regional centers: telehealth. A veto message can be found here. Requires the state to "inform all regional centers that any appropriate health care service and dentistry may be provided through the use of telehealth, as defined, to consumers of regional center services."  Bureaucrats controlling Bureaucrats.  SNOOZE 0
• SB 158 by Senator Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) – Autism services: demonstration program. A veto message can be found here.  Would have set up a Regional Center Excellence in Community Autism Partnerships (RE CAP) and centralized what is already being done by other legislation; as such not of great significance.  SNOOZE 0
• SB 582 by Senator Stephen T. Knight (R-Palmdale) – Tax information: administration. A veto message can be found here. Required the Franchise Tax Board, the State Board of Equalization, and the Employment Development Department to collaborate and focus the agencies’ current and future information technology efforts to conduct a feasibility study on the development of a single Internet Web site portal and, upon a joint determination by the agencies that a need exists to improve cost-effective services to taxpayers and an appropriation by the Legislature, to consolidate forms, applications, and other documents to reduce or eliminate the number of multiple submissions of the same information by taxpayers.  Pass or fail, this bill makes no difference in personal liberty, at most just in appearances.  SNOOZE 0
10-8-2013

SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that he has signed the following bills.

• AB 34 by Assemblymember Roger Hernández (D-West Covina) – State historical resources.
• AB 361 by Assemblymember Holly J. Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) – Medi-Cal: Health Homes for Medi-Cal Enrollees and Section 1115 Waiver Demonstration Populations with Chronic and Complex Conditions.
• AB 409 by Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Fullerton) – Political Reform Act of 1974: statements of economic interests: online filing.
• AB 460 by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) – Health care coverage: infertility.
• AB 552 by Assemblymember Paul Fong (D-Cupertino) – Political Reform Act of 1974: collection of fines.
• AB 720 by Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) – Inmates: health care enrollment.
• AB 744 by Assemblymember Brian Dahle (R-Bieber) – Timber harvesting plans: exempt activities.
• AB 904 by Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro (D-Arcata) – Forest practices: working forest management plans.
• AB 1047 by Assemblymember Eric F. Linder (R-Corona) – Commercial driver's licenses.
• AB 1090 by Assemblymember Paul Fong (D-Cupertino) – Public officers: conflicts of interest: contracts.
• AB 1121 by Assemblymember Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego) – Gender identity: petition for change of name.
• AB 1253 by Assemblymember Robert Blumenfield (D-Woodland Hills) – Vehicles: mobile advertising displays.
• AB 1309 by Assemblymember Henry T. Perea (D-Fresno) – Workers' compensation: professional athletes.
• AB 1418 by the Committee on Elections and Redistricting – The Political Reform Act of 1974: omnibus bill.
• SB 142 by Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) – Public transit.
• SB 208 by Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) – Public social services: contracting.
• SB 239 by Senator Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina) – Medi-Cal: hospitals: quality assurance fees: distinct part skilled nursing facilities.
• SB 346 by Senator Jim Beall (D-San Jose) – Public social services: records.
• SB 470 by Senator Roderick D. Wright (D-Los Angeles) – Community development: economic opportunity.
• SB 484 by Senator Mark Wyland (R-Escondido) – Tax preparers.

Governor Brown also announced that he has vetoed the following bills.

• AB 411 by Assemblymember Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) – Medi-Cal: performance measures. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 3 by Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) – Political Reform Act of 1974. A veto message can be found here.  
10-7-2013

SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that he has signed the following bills.

• AB 32 by Assemblymember John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) – Insurance taxes: income taxes: credits: community development financial institution investments.
• AB 217 by Assemblymember Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) – Electricity: solar electricity: low-income households.
• AB 270 by Assemblymember Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) – Public utilities: ratepayer-funded energy efficiency assistance.
• AB 327 by Assemblymember Henry T. Perea (D-Fresno) – Electricity: natural gas: rates: net energy metering: California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. A signing message can be found here.
• AB 415 by Assemblymember Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) – Solar energy: water heating.
• AB 417 by Assemblymember Jim L. Frazier (D-Oakley) – Environmental quality: California Environmental Quality Act: bicycle transportation plan.
• AB 576 by Assemblymember V. Manuel Pérez (D-Coachella) – Revenue Recovery and Collaborative Enforcement Team Act: pilot program. A signing message can be found here.
• AB 650 by Assemblymember Adrin Nazarian (D-Sherman Oaks) – State government: general services: Natural Gas Services Program.
• AB 719 by Assemblymember Roger Hernández (D-West Covina) – Energy: energy efficiency: street light pole.
• AB 796 by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) – Advanced electrical distributed generation technology.
• AB 924 by Assemblymember Frank Bigelow (R-O’Neals) – Grand theft.
• AB 979 by Assemblymember Shirley N. Weber (D-San Diego) – Peace officers: Maritime Peace Officer Standards Training Act of 2013.
• AB 1000 by Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) – Physical therapists: direct access to services: professional corporations.
• AB 1060 by Assemblymember Steve Fox (D-Palmdale) – Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission.
• AB 1132 by Assemblymember Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-Stockton) – Agriculture: livestock drugs and commercial feed.
• AB 1319 by Assemblymember Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-Stockton) – Agriculture.
• SB 298 by Senator Mark Wyland (R-Escondido) – Local government: supplemental law enforcement services.
• SB 365 by Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) – Jail construction: funding.
• SB 562 by Senator Cathleen Galgiani (D-Stockton) – Dentists: mobile or portable dental units.
• SB 667 by Senator Richard D. Roth (D-Riverside) – Retail sale of shelled eggs.

Governor Brown also announced that he has vetoed the following bills.

• AB 571 by Assemblymember Mike Gatto (D-Los Angeles) – Agricultural pest control: citrus disease prevention. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 1200 by Assemblymember Marc B. Levine (D-San Rafael) – Recycled water: agricultural irrigation impoundments: pilot project. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 1235 by Assemblymember Richard S. Gordon (D-Menlo Park) – Local agencies: financial management training. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 1401 by the Committee on Judiciary – Jury duty: eligibility. A veto message can be found here. 

10-5-2013

SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that he has signed the following bills.

• AB 66 by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) – Electricity: system reliability.
• AB 127 by Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) – Fire safety: fire retardants: building insulation.
• AB 149 by Assemblymember Shirley N. Weber (D-San Diego) – Voting rights: county probation departments.
• AB 227 by Assemblymember Mike Gatto (D-Los Angeles) – Proposition 65: enforcement.
• AB 272 by Assemblymember Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles) – Rabies: vaccinations.
• AB 297 by Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro (D-Arcata) – Primary care clinics.
• AB 304 by Assemblymember Das G. Williams (D-Santa Barbara) – Pesticides: toxic air contaminant: control measures.
• AB 341 by Assemblymember Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) – Green building standards.
• AB 401 by Assemblymember Tom F. Daly (D-Anaheim) – Transportation: design-build: highways.
• AB 425 by Assemblymember Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego) – Pesticides: copper-based antifouling paint: leach rate determination; mitigation measure recommendations.
• AB 440 by Assemblymember Mike Gatto (D-Los Angeles) – Hazardous materials: releases: local agency cleanup.
• AB 446 by Assemblymember Holly J. Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) – HIV testing.
• AB 482 by Assemblymember Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego) – California Cultural and Historical Endowment.
• AB 633 by Assemblymember Rudy Salas (D-Bakersfield) – Emergency medical services: civil liability.
• AB 691 by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) – State lands: granted trust lands: sea level rise.
• AB 755 by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) – Suicide barriers.
• AB 1097 by Assemblymember Brian Nestande (R- Palm Desert) – Fish and Game Commission: Mirage Trail.
• AB 1112 by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) – Transportation transactions and use taxes: Bay Area.
• AB 1177 by Assemblymember Raul Bocanegra (D-Los Angeles) – Structural fumigation.
• AB 1274 by Assemblymember Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) – Privacy: customer electrical or natural gas usage data.
• AB 1329 by Assemblymember V. Manuel Pérez (D-Coachella) – Hazardous waste.
• AB 1382 by the Committee on Health - Reporting.
• SB 191 by Senator Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) – Emergency medical services.
• SB 291 by Senator Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) – Public Utilities Commission: safety enforcement: gas and electrical corporations.
• SB 360 by Senator Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) – Certification of voting systems.
• SB 613 by Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) – Bay Area Toll Authority.
• SB 656 by Senator Roderick D. Wright (D-Los Angeles) – Electrical restructuring: natural gas restructuring: information practices.
• SB 752 by Senator Richard D. Roth (D-Riverside) – Commercial and industrial common interest developments.
• SB 758 by Senator Marty Block (D-San Diego) – General plans: City of Coronado.
• SB 825 by the Committee on Governance and Finance – Government finance.

Governor Brown also announced that he has vetoed the following bills.

• AB 340 by Assemblymember Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) – Public utilities: Electric Program Investment Charge: contracting. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 683 by Assemblymember Kevin Mullin (D-South San Francisco) – Local government: fines and penalties: assessments. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 714 by Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) – Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Fund. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 912 by Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Fullerton) – Health care coverage: fertility preservation. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 695 by Senator Roderick D. Wright (D-Los Angeles) – California Science Center: parking facilities. A veto message can be found here.   
10-4-2013

SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that he has signed the following bills.

• AB 58 by Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) – Medical experiments: human subjects.
• AB 64 by Assemblymember Tim M. Donnelly (R-Twin Peaks) – Vehicles: fifth-wheel travel trailers.
• AB 359 by Assemblymember Chris Holden (D-Pasadena) – Vehicle rental agreements: customer facility charge.
• AB 402 by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) – Disability income insurance: mental illness.
• AB 410 by Assemblymember Reginald Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles) – Public employee health benefits: enrollment.
• AB 451 by Assemblymember Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-Stockton) – Healing arts: therapists and counselors: licensing.
• AB 483 by Assemblymember Philip Y. Ting (D-San Francisco) – Local government: taxes, fees, assessments, and charges: definitions.
• AB 908 by Assemblymember Susan Bonilla (D-Concord) – Unemployment insurance: use of information.
• AB 1094 by Assemblymember Cheryl Brown (D-San Bernardino) – CalWORKs: eligibility.
• AB 1168 by Assemblymember Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) – Safe body art.
• AB 1252 by the Committee on Health – Retail food safety.
• AB 1280 by Assemblymember John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) – Public assistance payments and unemployment compensation benefits: electronic fund transfer: qualifying accounts.
• AB 1379 by the Committee on Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security – Teachers' Retirement Law.
• AB 1381 by the Committee on Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security – State Teachers’ Retirement Law: pension reform.
• AB 1417 by the Committee on Elections and Redistricting – Elections.
• AB 1428 by Assemblymember Connie Conway (R-Tulare) – California Health Benefit Exchange: employees and contractors.
• SB 13 by Senator Jim Beall (D-San Jose) – Public employees’ retirement benefits.
• SB 118 by Senator Ted W. Lieu (D-Torrance) – Unemployment insurance: education and workforce investment systems.
• SB 220 by Senator Jim Beall (D-San Jose) – California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013: administration.
• SB 252 by Senator Carol Liu (D-La Canada Flintridge) – CalWORKs: welfare-to-work requirements.
• SB 274 by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) – Family law: parentage: child custody and support.
• SB 294 by Senator Bill Emmerson (R-Redlands) – Sterile drug products.
• SB 362 by Senator Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) – Voting procedures: natural disasters.
• SB 364 by Senator Steinberg (D-Sacramento) – Mental health.
• SB 672 by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) – CalFresh: eligibility: guidelines.
• SB 806 by Senator Ben Hueso (D-San Diego) – Department of Motor Vehicles: license plate alternatives pilot program.

Governor Brown also announced that he has vetoed the following bills.

• AB 53 by Assemblymember John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) – Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development: biennial California Economic Development Strategic Plan. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 285 by Assemblymember Cheryl Brown (D-San Bernardino) – Microenterprises: economic development. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 205 by Senator Ellen Corbett (D-Hayward) – Prescription drugs: labeling. A veto message can be found here.
   
10-3-2013

SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that he has signed the following bills.

• AB 214 by Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) – Voting: state of emergency.
• AB 513 by Assemblymember Jim L. Frazier (D-Oakley) – Tire recycling program: rubberized asphalt.
• AB 529 by Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) – Vehicles: motor carriers: inspections and fees.
• AB 530 by Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Fullerton) – Vote by mail ballots: telephone applications.
• AB 593 by Assemblymember Bill Quirk (D-Hayward) – Alcoholic beverages: Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
• AB 664 by Assemblymember Das G. Williams (D-Santa Barbara) – Gold Coast Transit District.
• AB 721 by Assemblymember Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) – Controlled substances: transporting with intent to sell.
• AB 826 by Assemblymember Reginald Jones-Sawyer (D-South Los Angeles) – State property: surplus.
• AB 1186 by Assemblymember Susan Bonilla (D-Concord) – State Athletic Commission.
• AB 1299 by Assemblymember Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) – Telecommunications: universal service programs: California Advanced Services Fund.
• AB 1398 by the Committee on Natural Resources – Solid waste: recycling: enforcement agencies.
• AB 1403 by the Committee on Judiciary – Family law.
• AB 1419 by the Committee on Elections and Redistricting - Presidential general elections: party qualifications.
• SB 155 by Senator Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) – Vehicles: motor vehicle manufacturers and distributors.
• SB 211 by Senator Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina) – Tax administration: disclosure of information: Franchise Tax Board and cities.
• SB 279 by Senator Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) – San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority.
• SB 304 by Senator Ted W. Lieu (D-Torrance) – Healing arts: boards.
• SB 305 by Senator Ted W. Lieu (D-Torrance) – Healing arts: boards.
• SB 328 by Senator Stephen T. Knight (R-Palmdale) – Counties: public works contracts.
• SB 463 by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) – Sentencing.
• SB 485 by Senator Ronald S. Calderon (D-Montebello) – Weighmasters: junk dealers and recyclers.
• SB 558 by Senator Ted W. Lieu (D-Torrance) – Reporters' shield law.
• SB 591 by Senator Anthony J. Cannella (R-Ceres) – Renewable energy resources: local publicly owned electric utility: hydroelectric generation facility.
• SB 609 by Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) – Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman.
• SB 740 by Senator Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) – Telecommunications: universal service programs: California Advanced Services Fund.
• SB 788 by the Committee on Transportation and Housing – Transportation.

Governor Brown also announced that he has vetoed the following bills.

• AB 841 by Assemblymember Norma J. Torres (D-Pomona) – Junk dealers and recyclers: nonferrous materials: payment. A veto message can be found here.
• AB 909 by Assemblymember Adam Gray (D-Merced) – Metal theft and related recycling crimes. A veto message can be found here.

10-1-2013

SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that he has signed the following bills.

• AB 234 by Assemblymember Mike Gatto (D-Los Angeles) – Claims against the state: payment.
• AB 351 by Assemblymember Tim M. Donnelly (R-Twin Peaks) – Civil liberties: suspension of habeas corpus for American citizens.
• AB 511 by Assemblymember Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) – Income taxes: voluntary contributions: American Red Cross, California Chapters Fund.
• AB 619 by Assemblymember Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) – Court facilities.
• AB 630 by Assemblymember Chris Holden (D-Pasadena) – Architects.
• AB 648 by Assemblymember Reginald Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles) – Court reporters.
• AB 681 by Assemblymember Melissa Melendez (R-Lake Elsinore) – Spousal support.
• AB 884 by Assemblymember Susan Bonilla (D-Concord) – County Board of Parole Commissioners: parole terms.
• AB 934 by Assemblymember Ken Cooley (D-Rancho Cordova) – Local agencies: unclaimed money.
• AB 971 by Assemblymember Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) – Public agency employers: paratransit providers: criminal history information.
• AB 989 by Assemblymember Kevin Mullin (D-South San Francisco) – State teachers' retirement: account statements.
• AB 1004 by Assemblymember Adam Gray (D-Merced) – Criminal procedure.
• AB 1116 by Assemblymember Isadore Hall III (D-Compton) – Alcoholic beverages: licensees.
• AB 1245 by Assemblymember V. Manuel Pérez (D-Coachella) – Tribal gaming: compact ratification.
• AB 1425 by the Committee on Governmental Organization – Alcoholic beverages.
• SB 203 by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) – Local transportation funds: Ventura County.
• SB 243 by Senator Mark Wyland (R-Escondido) – Professional clinical counselors.
• SB 255 by Senator Anthony J. Cannella (R-Ceres) – Disorderly conduct: invasion of privacy.
• SB 318 by Senator Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) – Consumer loans: Pilot Program for Increased Access to Responsible Small Dollar Loans.
• SB 416 by Senator Carol Liu (D-La Canada Flintridge) – Surplus residential property.
• SB 493 by Senator Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina) – Pharmacy practice.
• SB 563 by Senator Cathleen Galgiani (D-Stockton) – Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development: hospital construction.
• SB 679 by Senator Tom Berryhill (R-Modesto) – Licensees: reporting requirements.
• SB 814 by the Committee on Natural Resources and Water - Natural resources: administration.
• SB 821 by the Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development – Healing arts.
• SB 823 by the Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development – Professions and vocations: licensure.

Governor Brown also announced that he has vetoed the following bills.

• AB 374 by Assemblymember Donald P. Wagner (R-Irvine) – Eminent domain: compensation: loss of goodwill. A veto message can be found here.
• SB 399 by Senator Roderick D. Wright (D-Los Angeles) – California Prompt Payment Act. A veto message can be found here.