Key takeaways from U.S. Senate debate

The four leading U.S. Senate contenders in California tried to use 90 minutes of free air time Monday night to solidify their pitches to voters — and also to set themselves apart from their opponents.

But the biggest fireworks in their first debate happened when the three Democrats ganged up on Republican Steve Garvey, repeatedly pressing him to say whether he would vote for former President Donald Trump this year.   

Garvey wouldn’t play ball — even after Rep. Katie Porter trolled his baseball fame.

• Porter: “Once a Dodger, always a dodger…. This is not the minor leagues. Who will you vote for?” 

Despite not committing to a choice in 2024, Garvey said that he voted for Trump in 2016 and in 2020 (“both times, he was the best person for the job”) and that he doesn’t believe “Joe Biden has been good for this country.”

Garvey also caught flak — particularly from Rep. Barbara Lee, who received cheers from the audience after calling Garvey “so patronizing” for touting his recent tours of homeless encampments, where he said he “went up to them and touched them and listened to them.” 

But Garvey wasn’t the only one who received criticism from his fellow debaters. In addition to railing against Wall Street and the Washington establishment, Porter slammed Rep. Adam Schiff  for taking money from special interest groups, to which he replied: “I gave that money to you, Katie Porter.”

Schiff, for the most part, focused on his record challenging Trump, appearing to wear his 2023 censure by the House as a badge of honor (“I was censured for standing up to a corrupt president… and I would do it all over again.”) And Lee highlighted her personal background — as a formerly unhoused person, as a single mother of two and as a woman who had an illegal abortion — to drive home her platform of expanding social services.

The debate also brought to light some other key differences among the candidates, writes CalMatters politics reporter Yue Stella Yu. As the lone opponent of earmarks among the three Democrats, Porter argued that the practice invited corruption and is a “fancy word for Washington politicians substituting their personal interests… for what our needs are,” while the other Democrats argued that bringing back billions of federal dollars to the state helps Californians (Said Schiff: “Any senator from California that says, ‘No, I’m not going to fight for those resources,’ that’s going to be wonderful news for 49 other states…”)

And on the Gaza war, Lee pointed out that she was the first candidate to call for a permanent ceasefire, arguing that increasing civilian casualties “will never lead to peace for Israelis nor the Palestinians.” Schiff, meanwhile, said he supports an independent Palestinian state, but that Israel had a right to defend itself, while Porter said that the conditions for a ceasefire are complex, and “you can’t say (ceasefire) and make it so.” Garvey said he stands with Israel and said after the horrific Oct. 7 Hamas attack, a two-state solution isn’t possible until the next generation.

For more on the debate, read Stella’s story. If it didn’t decide your vote in the March 5 primary, a second one is scheduled: KTLA 5 in Los Angeles announced that Nextstar Media Group outlets across California will host the same four candidates on Feb. 12. And if you want to learn more about the candidates’ records and positions, spend some time with this deep dive from Stella.

The first day of a planned five-day strike across all 23 of California State University campuses started Monday with demonstrators at Cal State Los Angeles chanting, “Hey hey, beep beep, the CSU is mighty cheap.” 

But it ended Monday night with the announcement of a tentative agreement between the union representing faculty members and the nation’s largest public four-year university system.

As CalMatters higher education reporter Mikhail Zinshteyn explains, though the California Faculty Association — a union that represents 29,000 professors, lecturers, coaches and others — held one-day strikes at four campuses in December, this was the first time its members walked out at every campus since its founding in 1983. 

The union said the deal includes a 5% raise retroactive to July 1, 2023, another 5% raise this July 1 (as long as the state doesn’t cut base Cal State funding), a pay bump for the lowest-paid faculty and an increase in paid parental leave from six weeks to 10. 

Before the agreement was reached, union members were joined by members of the powerful California Labor Federation during their strike. And Cal State vowed to dock the pay of workers who strike, with one spokesperson calling compensation during the walk off “a misuse of taxpayer dollars.”

For more on Monday’s strike and the tentative labor agreement, read Mikhail’s stories.

And as those workers receive more pay, janitors who worked at The Cheesecake Factory may be eligible for back pay, writes CalMatters’ Jeanne Kuang.

In one of the state’s most significant cases alleging wage theft, the California Labor Commissioner’s Office is expected today to announce a settlement between the national restaurant chain, some of its contractors and janitors who worked as many as 10 extra hours a week at eight restaurant locations in two Southern California counties. It is one of the first uses of a 2015 law that holds companies jointly responsible for labor violations, rather than just smaller contractors.

According to the labor commissioner, Cheesecake Factory managers kept janitors from going home after their eight-hour shift ended and assigned additional tasks without paying overtime. The companies have paid $1 million in the settlement, with Cheesecake Factory paying the bulk of it. 

To learn more about the wage theft settlement, read Jeanne’s story.

Speaking of labor: Following last year’s strikes by Hollywood screenwriters and actors, another group of entertainers rallied Monday seeking similar benefits from movie studios — including better wages, residual pay for streaming content and protections from unregulated artificial intelligence use. Members of the American Federation of Musicians, which represents 70,000 professional musicians in the U.S. and Canada, demonstrated in Sherman Oaks, while the Cal Labor Fed and unions representing screenwriters and stage production workers voiced their support.

Despite a declining inmate population and cost-cutting measures such as closing three state prisons, the price for imprisoning one person in California has never been higher, write CalMatters’ criminal justice reporter Nigel Duara and health reporter Kristen Hwang. 

Each inmate costs the state a record-breaking $132,860 a year. That’s a 90% increase compared to 2014, when the state spent about $69,400 per inmate. So why isn’t the state’s move away from mass incarceration resulting in a financially leaner criminal justice system?

According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, the direct cost to house a prisoner runs, including food and clothing, run much closer to about $15,000 a year. The remaining 91% of spending per prisoner comes from fixed costs, such as salaries and facility upkeep. And pricey labor contracts and mandates to improve health care have driven up costs.

Last summer, unions representing prison guards and doctors hammered out contracts that are expected to cost the state more than $1 billion over the next three years. Between 2010 and 2019, pay for employees at the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation increased by 43% (from $110,000 to $158,000) — nearly triple the rate of inflation.

The average cost per person for medical care has also more than doubled in the past 10 years. As prisons struggle to hire qualified medical professionals, California has spent more than $1.1 billion over the past five years on temporary medical staff to fill the gap.

(One interesting note: According to state budget documents, rehabilitation costs, such as prisoner education and activities, only make up roughly 3% of total correctional spending.)

Some lawmakers argue closing more prisons would save the state more money. But Gov. Gavin Newsom’s budget proposal recommends keeping prisons open to provide more space for rehabilitative programs.

• H.D. Palmer, Department of Finance spokesperson, in a statement: “We remain committed to meeting the needs of staff and the incarcerated population while right-sizing California’s prison system…”

When Californians who live in wildfire-prone areas can’t secure homeowners insurance, the state’s FAIR Plan Association is a last resort. But as more people buy and renew insurance through the association, the FAIR Plan is struggling to keep up, writes CalMatters economy reporter Levi Sumagaysay.

The FAIR Plan is a group of insurers that is mandated by the state to provide limited fire insurance, typically at a higher rate, when property owners can’t find insurance elsewhere. But after two devastating wildfire seasons in 2017 and 2018 caused traditional insurance companies to drop tens of thousands of customers — with some refusing to sell new homeowner policies in California altogether — the FAIR Plan has exploded in size. From 2018 to today, it went from 126,709 policies to more than 350,000. And while it’s designed to be a temporary solution for property owners, more policyholders are staying on it every year: 90% of current customers are renewing their policies for another year, according to a FAIR Plan spokesperson. 

This has caused some homeowners and insurance brokers to say they are now facing service problems. Long-planned changes to FAIR Plan’s software system has led to confusion, homeowners losing coverage and delays in mortgage closings.

FAIR Plan premiums are also getting more expensive. One customer Levi spoke to, Bill King of Running Springs in the San Bernardino Mountains, said the premium for his home rose from $399 in 2017 to $979 today. And as an associate pastor at his local church, King said the premium for the church’s main building doubled from $4,000 to $8,000 a couple years ago.

• King: “Insurance at times seems like a great evil perpetrated upon us.”

Legislators failed to draft a bill to fix the state’s insurance market last session, and while the California Insurance Department is working on new regulations to try to get insurers to resume writing fire policies, these rules may not kick in for a couple of years. For more on the FAIR Plan, read Levi’s story.