<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>California Policy Inbox</title>
	<atom:link href="http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?feed=rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://inbox.berkeley.edu</link>
	<description>Selected highlights of what's new in California public policy and politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:21:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>LAO Estimates Budget Shortfall</title>
		<link>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=727</link>
		<comments>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=727#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:21:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jlefevre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[State Budget]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=727</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
California&#8217;s Fiscal Outlook: The 2010-11 Budget [Legislative Analyst's Office]
The state&#8217;s budget watchdog agency has issued its forecast of the state&#8217;s General Fund shortfall for the next budget year, estimating the state faces a shortfall of nearly $21 billion. The Legislative Analyst&#8217;s Office says the budget gap consists of a $6.3 billion projected deficit for the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="prebox"><a href="http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/PubDetails.aspx?id=2143"><br />
California&#8217;s Fiscal Outlook: The 2010-11 Budget</a><br /> [Legislative Analyst's Office]</div>
<p>The state&#8217;s budget watchdog agency has issued its forecast of the state&#8217;s General Fund shortfall for the next budget year, estimating the state faces a shortfall of nearly $21 billion. The Legislative Analyst&#8217;s Office says the budget gap consists of a $6.3 billion projected deficit for the rest of 2009–10 and a $14.4 billion gap between projected revenues and spending in 2010–11. The 2010-11 estimated deficit is much higher than previous predictions of around $7 billion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?feed=rss2&amp;p=727</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Republicans Divided and Undecided on Boxer Challenger</title>
		<link>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=711</link>
		<comments>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=711#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:20:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jlefevre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Elections and Voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Affairs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polls and Surveys]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=711</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Field Poll: GOP Primary Voters [Field Research Corporation]
The two Republicans most likely to challenge Barbara Boxer in her bid for a fourth Senate term received lukewarm support in the most recent Field Poll of Republican voters. State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine) is favored by 20%, while businesswoman Carly Fiorina, who has not yet formally announced [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="prebox"><a href="http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2314.pdf">Field Poll: GOP Primary Voters</a><br /> [Field Research Corporation]</div>
<p>The two Republicans most likely to challenge Barbara Boxer in her bid for a fourth Senate term received lukewarm support in the most recent Field Poll of Republican voters. State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine) is favored by 20%, while businesswoman Carly Fiorina, who has not yet formally announced her candidacy, is at 21%. Nearly 60% of respondents were undecided. In matchups against the Republicans, Boxer holds leads of 17 points over DeVore and 14 points over Fiorina.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?feed=rss2&amp;p=711</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sacramento Bee Database Tracks Gifts to State Leaders</title>
		<link>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=682</link>
		<comments>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=682#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:43:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jlefevre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Campaign Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections and Voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislature]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=682</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Database: See every gift given to state leaders [Sacramento Bee]
From an analysis of thousands of lobbyist disclosure reports, the Sacramento Bee has developed a database that tracks gifts to state lawmakers between January 2008 and June 2009. During those 18 months, lobbyists gave legislators, their staffs, and relatives about $610,000 in gifts, including concert tickets, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="prebox"><a href="http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/2156954.html">Database: See every gift given to state leaders</a><br /> [Sacramento Bee]</div>
<p>From an analysis of thousands of lobbyist disclosure reports, the Sacramento Bee has developed a database that tracks gifts to state lawmakers between January 2008 and June 2009. During those 18 months, lobbyists gave legislators, their staffs, and relatives about $610,000 in gifts, including concert tickets, 424 meals at the upscale Sacramento restaurant Spataro (average cost: $57 a meal), kegs of beer, and free travel to destinations from Hawaii to Hungary. (While legislators may not accept more than $420 in gifts annually from a single organization, there is no restriction on gifts to lawmakers&#8217; friends and families.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?feed=rss2&amp;p=682</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Impact of Trade-Related Job Losses on Women Workers</title>
		<link>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=667</link>
		<comments>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=667#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:14:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jlefevre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Children and Families]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy and Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=667</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hidden Casualties: Trade, Employment Loss &#038; Women Workers [D&#x0113;mos]
Over the past several decades, international trade and increased foreign competition has led to widespread job losses in American manufacturing. The general perception is that these losses have primarily affected jobs and industries that are traditionally male, such as auto manufacturing. Researchers from D&#x0113;mos, however, point out [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="prebox"><a href="http://www.demos.org/pubs/trade_women.pdf">Hidden Casualties: Trade, Employment Loss &#038; Women Workers</a><br /> [D&#x0113;mos]</div>
<p>Over the past several decades, international trade and increased foreign competition has led to widespread job losses in American manufacturing. The general perception is that these losses have primarily affected jobs and industries that are traditionally male, such as auto manufacturing. Researchers from D&#x0113;mos, however, point out that women workers in the US have been significantly impacted by trade-related job losses. Female-intensive industries, such as textiles and apparel, have faced the highest levels of import competition over the past decade and, as a result, have had high levels of job displacement. The situation is compounded by the finding that many manufacturing jobs pay much better than other jobs  available to non-college-educated women workers, so laid-off women are likely to find their earning power lowered, perhaps permanently.<br />Given these conditions, the authors argue for a governmental policy that emphasizes training, professionalizing the jobs that are likely to stay within the country, and a commitment to supporting families during periods of job transition. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?feed=rss2&amp;p=667</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Recent Mexican Immigration Trends</title>
		<link>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=659</link>
		<comments>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=659#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:58:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jlefevre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Demographics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=659</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mexican Immigrants:
How Many Come? How Many Leave? [Pew Hispanic Center]
The Pew Research Center examines data from several sources to determine if (and how) recent immigration patterns between Mexico and the United States have changed. Statistics from several sources point to a substantial decline in the number of immigrants entering the U.S. from Mexico since 2006. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="prebox"><a href="http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/112.pdf">Mexican Immigrants:<br />
How Many Come? How Many Leave?</a><br /> [Pew Hispanic Center]</div>
<p>The Pew Research Center examines data from several sources to determine if (and how) recent immigration patterns between Mexico and the United States have changed. Statistics from several sources point to a substantial decline in the number of immigrants entering the U.S. from Mexico since 2006. Yet there appears to be no significant change in the number of immigrants returning to Mexico, despite the downturn in employment opportunities due to the current recession. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?feed=rss2&amp;p=659</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Winners in California&#8217;s Budget Crisis</title>
		<link>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=654</link>
		<comments>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=654#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 23:46:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jlefevre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legislature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Budget]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=654</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To Have and Have Not [California Budget Project]
While the September 2008 and February 2009 state budget agreements cut billions of dollars from state public services, they also included changes to corporate tax rules that will net millions of dollars in tax breaks for some California businesses. A report from the California Budget Project explains how [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="prebox"><a href="http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2009/0906_bb_To_Have_and_Have_Not.pdf">To Have and Have Not</a><br /> [California Budget Project]</div>
<p>While the September 2008 and February 2009 state budget agreements cut billions of dollars from state public services, they also included changes to corporate tax rules that will net millions of dollars in tax breaks for some California businesses. A report from the California Budget Project explains how the changes &#8212; elective single sales factor apportionment, tax credit sharing, and net operating loss carrybacks &#8212; will cost the state $8.7 billion in lost revenues between 2008-09 and 2015-16. The companies that will profit from the changes are some of California&#8217;s largest &#8212; 80 percent of the benefits will go to companies with gross receipts in excess of $1 billion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?feed=rss2&amp;p=654</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Analyzing the &#8220;No on Prop 8&#8243; Campaign</title>
		<link>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=647</link>
		<comments>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=647#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:44:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jlefevre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ballot Measures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections and Voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=647</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Time to Build Up: Analysis of the No on Prop. 8 Campaign and Its Implications for Future Pro-LGBTQQIA Religious Organizing [National Gay and Lesbian Task Force]
After California voters approved Proposition 8 in November 2008, restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, a group of secular and religious leaders gathered in Pasadena to analyze the ways in [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="prebox"><a href="http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/time_to_build_up">A Time to Build Up: Analysis of the No on Prop. 8 Campaign and Its Implications for Future Pro-LGBTQQIA Religious Organizing</a> [National Gay and Lesbian Task Force]</div>
<p>After California voters approved Proposition 8 in November 2008, restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, a group of secular and religious leaders gathered in Pasadena to analyze the ways in which conservative religious communities contributed to the measure&#8217;s success. Their report examines how gay and lesbian religious organizing efforts have fallen short, and outlines strategies to guide future advocacy efforts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?feed=rss2&amp;p=647</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Individual Mandate in Health-Care Reform</title>
		<link>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=633</link>
		<comments>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=633#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 22:52:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jlefevre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=633</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Individual Mandate: A Background Report [California Research Bureau]
Many recent health care reform proposals have included some form of &#8220;individual mandate&#8221; &#8212; a legal requirement that every citizen obtain adequate health insurance coverage. People who don’t receive coverage through their employer or some other group would be required to purchase their own individual coverage; failure to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="prebox"><a href="http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/09/09-007.pdf">Individual Mandate: A Background Report</a><br /> [California Research Bureau]</div>
<p>Many recent health care reform proposals have included some form of &#8220;individual mandate&#8221; &#8212; a legal requirement that every citizen obtain adequate health insurance coverage. People who don’t receive coverage through their employer or some other group would be required to purchase their own individual coverage; failure to do so would result in fines or other penalties. This background report from the California Research Bureau looks at the pros and cons of the individual mandate &#8212; how many uninsured people would likely be covered, the costs of implementation, administration, and enforcement, and likelihood of compliance, based on similar policies in other areas (auto insurance, child support payments, immunizations). </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?feed=rss2&amp;p=633</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bleak Prognosis for Health-Care Coverage</title>
		<link>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=626</link>
		<comments>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=626#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 23:48:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jlefevre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=626</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No Recovery In Sight: Health Coverage for Working-Age Adults in the United States and California [UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education]
As the Obama administration continues its push for health-care reform, many have voiced concern over the economic cost of enacting health-care reform during a time of economic crisis. Looking at the issue from [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="prebox"><a href="http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/healthcare/no_recovery_in_sight09.pdf">No Recovery In Sight: Health Coverage for Working-Age Adults in the United States and California </a>[UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education]</div>
<p>As the Obama administration continues its push for health-care reform, many have voiced concern over the economic cost of enacting health-care reform during a time of economic crisis. Looking at the issue from another angle, the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education examines health coverage trends to calculate the costs of <em>not </em>acting on reform proposals. By 2012, they predict a possible increase of 4.2 million uninsured working-age adults in the United States and 600,000 uninsured working-age adults in California over pre-recession 2007 levels.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?feed=rss2&amp;p=626</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Welfare and Work Participation</title>
		<link>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=621</link>
		<comments>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=621#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 22:55:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jlefevre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Children and Families]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=621</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sanctions and Time Limits in California’s Welfare Program
[Public Policy Institute of California]
Federal welfare funding in California is dependent on a percentage of adult welfare recipients being employed at least part-time or engaged in &#8220;work-related activities.&#8221; A work participation rate under 50% can result in a loss of federal funding. Recent statistics indicate California falls far [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="prebox"><a href="http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=711">Sanctions and Time Limits in California’s Welfare Program<br />
</a>[Public Policy Institute of California]</div>
<p>Federal welfare funding in California is dependent on a percentage of adult welfare recipients being employed at least part-time or engaged in &#8220;work-related activities.&#8221; A work participation rate under 50% can result in a loss of federal funding. Recent statistics indicate California falls far short of that rate. In this report, PPIC examines the potential effects of proposed policy changes (increasing the severity of sanction and time-limit policies) to improve this rate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?feed=rss2&amp;p=621</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
