Monthly Archives: February 2006

Uncategorized

Underpinnings of Attempts to Weaken CalPERS

2 Comments

Things are not always what they seem on the surface.  For example, take the recent effort by California Republicans to turn part of CalPERS into a 401(k)-style plan.
 The Republicans’ stated reasons are faith in the stock market
and the ability of individuals to invest.  Deeper, it does some
other, very different, things.  Here are three, off the top of my head:

[more on the flip]

1.  Reducing CalPERS’ holdings reduces CalPERS’ ability to act as
an active investor in American corporations.  CalPERS has around $235 billion under investment [must download PDF ‘Investment Facts’]  and demands good governance
from the companies in which it invests.  By contrast, imagine the
collective action required for thousands of California State employees
to require good governance from the companies in which they invest.
 Is it any wonder that big-corporation financed Republicans want to
reduce CalPERS’ influence?

2.  It’s a swipe at the California State employees’ unions, just
like Proposition 75 was.  It’s intended to reduce their security,
increase their risk, make them more fearful and pliable.  That’s
the effect of increasing risk on individuals, and is one of the reasons
that unions are important.

3.  It enriches the various investment management entities,
another important Republican constituency.  According to the
latest financial statements from CalPERS, their administrative overhead
in fiscal 2005 was $208 million on assets of over $235 billion,
for a management burden of 0.09%.  CalPERS’ return on investment
in fiscal 2005 was 12.3%.  By way of comparison, the management
burden on an S&P 500 tracking stock with zero active management is
likely to be twice that (though that’s still fairly low) and the return
for the S&P 500 over the same period was just over 8.1%.   And
do we really have to get into the performance record of most managed
funds?

The underlying dynamics here are almost exactly the same as they were for the failed Social Security privatization push at the national level. And the outcome would be just as likely to be bad for ordinary working people.

California

Valentines Day is about hate

(I meant to post this a few days ago. I think it’s funny, in a sad way. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Randy Thomason, of the anti-gay marriage proposition group voteyesmarriage.com (or as I like to call it: HateMongerers.com), thinks that Valentines Day has been hijacked by EqualityCalifornia:

From Sonoma to San Diego, hundreds of gay and lesbian couples applied for marriage licenses and were turned down as part of a statewide campaign to shine a spotlight on efforts to legalize same-sex marriage.
***
“Valentine’s Day has been hijacked and that’s wrong,” said Randy Thomasson, who heads the initiative VoteYesMarriage.com. “This is a day about love between a man and a woman. Marriage and Valentine’s Day are both wonderful, good things but they need defense and protection.”(LA Times 2/15/06)

Yes, just like Christmas, Valentine’s Day has been  hijacked.  I always thought that what Valentine’s Day is about is love, pure and simple. I remember in school that we gave out little valentines to everybody.  We didn’t skip one group.  Perhaps Mr. Thmasson should look at our schools for a lesson in Valentines Day and love.

Uncategorized

CA-50:Francine Busby’s Inspiring Speech at Los Angeles Rally (Audio)

3 Comments

(CA 50 is running fast and furious. Take a listen to your next Congresswoman from San Diego. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Francinebusby

Francine Busby is inspiring candidates across the nation to believe the impossible can happen. When you hear this speech you will know why. But also notice how she paid her dues before deciding to run for Congress. She served locally. She ran for other offices and won.

And she knows the value of fundraising! She spends hours everyday on the phone raising money so she can win the race. Most of out new candidates have a hard time doing the same things that Francine Busby takes for granted.  And remember….she is her second run for the same seat…she doesn’t give up!
She’s the Model…..listen and learn….
MP3 download here

Uncategorized

Angelides: Cleaner Energy, Less Sprawl

3 Comments

I like the way Phil
Angelides is thinking:

Vowing to be “pro-business and pro-environment,”
Democratic
gubernatorial hopeful Phil Angelides unveiled a “Clean California” plan
Thursday that seeks to cut the state’s oil consumption by 25 percent
over 10 years.
…
Angelides said that if he is elected governor, he will introduce
legislation to mandate all new vehicles sold in the state be flexible
fuel cars, capable of running on any mix of gasoline and bio-fuels,
such as ethanol.

He said he would also require major oil companies to supply
bio-fuels
at filling stations to match the number of flexible fuel vehicles on
the road.

In addition, Angelides said he would require state and local
governments to purchase vehicles that use alternative fuels, or to buy
efficient vehicles, such as hybrids, when replacing or expanding their
fleets.

Angelides also said he would:

* Seek to shorten commutes and pollution through
smart-growth plans
that place housing near work and transit. He said he would use state
grants, loans and bonds to rebuild and improve neighborhoods in hopes
of avoiding more sprawl. And he would urge the adoption of laws
requiring regional and local general plans that limit sprawl.

* Propose changing sales tax collections to discourage the
practice of
approving large shopping malls and other tax-producing developments to
help cities and towns pay their bills. Angelides said he would seek to
collect and share sales taxes regionally to eliminate competition
between adjoining cities for development and tax revenues.

* Increase partnerships and investments to encourage the
creation of
clean fuels and technology. He said he would provide incentives to
encourage fuel-efficient choices by business and consumers.

California is a huge market for any business, including the
automotive industry.  They can’t afford to ignore the
California market, so changes in the kinds of vehicles they can sell in
California will also change the vehicles they sell throughout the rest
of the United States.

A statewide emphasis on smart development and public-private
development partnerships would be great, and the change in the tax
distribution model is genius.  One of the perverse outcomes of
Proposition 13 is that every locality wants businesses because they
generate tax revenue for the local governments.  Residential
development, by contrast, is a dead-weight loss — under Proposition
13, it’s almost impossible to pay for the services (schools, police,
fire, roads, water, etc.) that residential development needs.

Some market fundamentalists will protest the state’s intervention in the market. They are of course missing two important issues:

1. The state has already intervened in the market by building roads with tax dollars and encouraging sprawl with its development policies. There’s no inherent reason that further policymaking is inappropriate.

2. Sometimes the market is stupid. In particular, the market is impatient, and wants to externalize as many costs as possible. In the case of energy, it’s not obvious that the market will respond to the long-term needs of the American people, as long as the costs of supplying the market (like the military, pollution, and carbon dioxide) can be externalized to the population at large.

Uncategorized

Why Does Duncan Hunter Want to Steal A National Park?

1 Comment

When I first wrote this in December I couldn’t figure it out.  Why did Duncan Hunter wanted to take this national park from the American people and turn it over to be used as a hunting preserve for the rich?  Duhhh.  This is the perfect setting for Dick Cheney to go hunting.  When Hunter says he wants the island for disable veterans to hunt.  He doesn’t mean for them to do the hunting.  He means for them to be hunted by Cheney and his pals.  The same crowd that kills 400 birds in a couple of hours of canned hunting on a game farm.  Sometimes you just have to step back and look at the big picture.

Congressman Duncan Hunter (CA-52) has had a pretty high media profile lately. In just the last few weeks, Hunter, who is Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, opposed the McCain anti-torture amendment; proposed building a fence along the entire US-Mexico border and the study of a similar barrier for the Canadian border; AND attempted to steal 53,000 acres of the Channel Islands National Park.

Duncan has been a busy, busy boy, lately. Of course being a close associate of Cunningham pay-for-play Co-conspirator #1, Brent Wilkes, may be part of Hunter’s inspiration to change the subject in public.

Hunter’s opposition to McCain’s anti-torture legislation was motivated by his desire to serve his masters in the Bush Administration and possibly to provide cover for one of his major corporate contributors and torture investigation subject, the Titan Corporation.

Hunter has long been a proponent of sealing the Mexican border. His efforts lead to miles of fence in the San Diego area. This, of course, just pushed illegal border crossing out into the less inhabited areas of San Diego and Imperial counties. Since the fences were built illegal immigration has increased, but facts don’t get in the way of a Republican when he has a wedge issue to exploit.

Yet, Hunter’s proposal to turn Santa Rosa Island over to the Department of Defense seems bizarre, even by the very low standards of San Diego county Republicans. The island makes up over 40% of a national park that serves about half a million visitors a year, but Hunter is proposing that it be converted into a hunting and recreation preserve for the military and their guests. When pressed on the issue he even went so far as to propose the island be established as a hunting preserve for disabled veterans.

Santa Rosa Island was privately owned until 1986 when the Federal government bought the island from the Vail and Vickers Company for $30 million. Vail and Vickers is a family business that has run cattle ranching and, more recently trophy deer and elk hunting, operations on the island since 1902. Part of the government purchase agreement allowed Vail and Vickers to continue their hunting operation on the island until 2011.

The hunting operation provides well heeled hunters the opportunity to bag trophy Roosevelt elk and Kaibab mule deer from herds managed to provide the maximum number of such animals. Neither the elk nor the deer are native to the island. They were transported the 40 miles from the mainland for the specific purpose of establishing a hunting preserve. The going rate for hunting on the island ranges from $5,000 to as much as $20,000 for a four day visit.

It is interesting that Hunter’s proposal would turn the island over to the Department of Defense in 2009. As the purpose of the land grab is to provide recreation and hunting to the military and any fat cat congressional guests they might invite along, it looks like Hunter’s motivation might be to maintain the island hunting concession, while freezing out the general public.

Hunter might even be able to argue that the island hunting concession could pay for much of the military’s recreational use, if it were allowed to continue its commercial business. So, in essence, Hunter’s proposal would transfer the island from public use to private use while maintaining the hunting concession. Ron Sundergill, Pacific Regional Director, National Parks Conservation Association, suggested as much in an article he wrote about Hunter’s proposal.

“We can only guess that the reason this is being proposed is to protect the commercial interest that operates the elk and deer hunting venture on the island. The owners of the venture, whose family sold the island to the federal government in 1986 for nearly $30 million, will be required to end their commercial activities in 2011. The timeline for ending the elk and deer hunting results from a legally binding agreement between the National Park Service and the National Parks Conservation Association, but the owners of the hunting venture strongly objected to the agreement.”

Could it be that this whole deal is as transparent as that? Is Hunter really proposing that a national park serving hundreds of thousand visitors a year be taken out of the public realm and locked up by the Department of Defense just to serve the narrow self-interests of small commercial venture?

Hunter attached his island take-over amendment to the defense appropriation bill. Just a few words in a multi-billion dollar spending package. This is the second time Hunter has tried to slip this proposal through Congress. In May, Democrats and environmental groups thwarted his first attempt. This time, Republican Senator John Warner, told Hunter that pushing forward with this proposal would jeopardize the passage of the entire appropriations bill. Hunter withdrew the amendment, but vowed to present the proposal again when Congress reconvenes next year.

The Sacramento Bee editorialized about Hunter’s persistent efforts to take Santa Rosa Island back from the public.

“This is an insult to the national park system and for the efforts put into properly managing these islands. Last-minute amendments are no way to enact proposals like this. California’s two senators say the military never asked for Santa Rosa Island as an exclusive retreat; regardless, they say they would never support such a fate for the island. It is not Duncan Hunter’s to give away.”

Why does Duncan Hunter want Santa Rosa Island? The Department of Defense has never asked for the island. In fact, the Department of Defense is closing military facilities all over the country. Many of these military bases, which the DOD still controls could easily be converted to the use Hunter proposes for Santa Rosa Island. These facilities are far more accessible and developed than an island 40 miles off the California coast.

So, why does Duncan Hunter persist in his efforts to take Santa Rosa Island away from the public?  Whose interest is he serving?

Uncategorized

Doolittle, the Chocktaws and Abramoff

1 Comment

Another story on Doolittle’s connections to Abramoff in the SacBee today. (via FiredUp! California)

WASHINGTON – When Rep. John Doolittle praised a “great American success story” on Sept. 16, 1998, it was one of the earliest signs that he shared interests with Jack Abramoff and Rep. Tom DeLay.

“One tribe that has been a national leader in exercising its self-determination to build a strong tribal government and reservation-based economy is the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians,” the Roseville Republican said in a five-paragraph statement he entered in the Congressional Record.
***
The Choctaws have since become widely known in Washington as one of Abramoff’s longest and most lucrative clients, and whose members would conclude he betrayed them for his own enrichment in the years since they first signed with him in 1995.

They also are the second-biggest contributor to Doolittle’s leadership fund, a political action committee, with $19,000 in donations since 2002.

Not that Doolittle’s seat will ever go blue, but it is symptomatic of the California GOP Culture of Corruption.  Maybe he can get his wife to take his seat when he’s in prison. 

Uncategorized

Doolittle’s Rat PAC

Representative John Doolittle (CA-4) is, by all reports, a devote Mormon. He doesn’t drink. He doesn’t smoke. And, he is vehemently anti-gambling. Except, apparently, when being pro-gambling helps out his friend Jack Abramoff’s clients.

Why would a straight-laced guy like Doolittle hold a Republican Party fund raiser in Las Vegas? Why do people rob banks? That’s where the money is says Doolittle in the Sacramento Bee.

According to Doolittle, Las Vegas “is a place that our target audience, namely these $5,000 donors, would like to go.”

More from the Strip follows.

The Bee focuses on a major Doolittle fund raising event held at the exclusive and expensive Venetian Resort Hotel Casino on the Las Vegas Strip. The 2005 event was designed to haul in big bucks for Doolittle and the Republicans.

Behind the need for fundraisers such as Doolittle’s is the increased demand for money to fuel political campaigns. As a member of the House leadership, Doolittle is required to raise $250,000 for House Republicans each year.

When asked about that, Doolittle said he had just been told he needed to raise an additional $100,000 for an upcoming House Republican dinner.

So, in essence Doolittle was sent out by his party’s leadership to raise money so that the crew in Washington could have a nice meal.
We don’t know what kind of deals had to be struck to insure that congressional Republicans were able to eat filet mignon instead of hamburger, but we do know that Doolittle’s event featured a stellar cast of co-conspirators and potential government witnesses.

…the biggest draw of all for the Doolittle event – then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

DeLay, now facing a trial in Texas for campaign finance irregularities, knew them all. Under pressure from House Republicans worried about the growing Abramoff scandal, DeLay permanently surrendered his commanding leadership job in December.

Former DeLay staffers who started the now-infamous Alexander Strategy Group lobbying firm were there with DeLay.

The firm, which closed its doors last month as a result of the scandals, employed DeLay’s wife. Among its clients were those connected both to Abramoff and to defense contractors whose cash payments to Cunningham brought down the Vietnam War hero.

DeLay flew into Las Vegas on the private corporate jet of Group W, one of the companies owned by Brent Wilkes. Doolittle’s PAC paid $358.50 for DeLay’s privileged seat.

Doolittle pays the standard commercial airfare and DeLay rides out to Vegas on Brent Wilkes’ private jet. Just business as usual for Doolittle. But, not only did Wilkes provide DeLay with a $20,000 private jet ride, Wilkes also had some sugar for his pal Doolittle.

Wilkes also attended Doolittle’s event, giving Doolittle $10,000 in personal and PAC checks, almost certainly unaware that his businesses would be raided about two months later as federal agents built their bribery case against Cunningham.

Also attending was Ed Buckham, DeLay’s former chief of staff and a founder of the Alexander Strategy Group. Buckham was Wilkes’ lobbyist.

Doolittle said it may have been Buckham who first introduced him to Wilkes, setting up a relationship that the congressman says he still cannot believe was tainted by corruption.

Karl Gallant, another Alexander Strategy Group lobbyist, was there. He also ran DeLay’s political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority.

Not since the days of Sinatra has Vegas seen a “rat pack” to equal this crowd. Although, now days the “pack” has been replaced by “PAC”. And speaking of PACs, Julie Doolittle was in attendance with her husband.

By the time of the fundraiser – Doolittle’s second at the Las Vegas complex – his wife, Julie, already had been subpoenaed by the Justice Department for business records related to work she had done for an Abramoff interest, the Capital Athletic Foundation.

John Doolittle continues to insist that he has done nothing wrong. Yet, it is hard to understand how a man who claims to have such a strong moral compass could surround himself with so much corruption and remain untainted by it.

Doolittle’s personal morality may not have been compromised by his association with Abramoff, Wilkes, DeLay and their retainers, but his public morality certainly seems to have been sold to the highest bidder.

Uncategorized

An (early) state election analysis

1 Comment

Hi. I just joined this group today. I am a native of California (Burbank, 15 minutes from downtown Los Angeles), but recently moved to the Chicago area for a few years. My interest, and knowledge, is still in California politics, though, hence why I am joining this group.

I decided my first diary should be some kind of political analysis, so let’s go!

Read my analysis of the major state races below the fold…

Now, before you read on, PLEASE make sure to give your thoughts, responses, or corrections to what I write. I may be way off-base on something, so tell me what you think.

GOVERNOR – We all now Ahnoldt is unpopular. His approval is hovering in the low 30’s, and he is already neck-in-neck with both Democratic challengers, State Treasurer Phil Angelides and State Controller Steve Westly. And this is with Ahnoldt having much higher name recognition than either Democrat. So this is a top-tier contest. If I heard right, Angelides is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination over Westly. Correct?

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR – With Cruz term-limited and running for Insurance Commissioner, this is an open race. Since State Senator Liz Figueroa isn’t raising much money, I figure the Democratic nomination is really a battle between State Senator Jackie Speier of San Francisco and State Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi. Speier is raising more money, but Garamendi has more name recognition from many previous statewide runs. The Republican nomination is all sewn up for State Senator Tom McClintock of Thousand Oaks, who I’m very afraid could win. It is extremely important that we elect a Democratic Lieutenant Governor, since Lieutenants usually end up running for Governor after 8 years. What are your thoughts on this race?

SECRETARY OF STATE – Secretary of State Bruce McPherson (R) is running for reelection (damn you, Kevin Shelley!). The Democratic nomination is now almost certain to go to State Senator Debra Bowen of Redondo Beach. Bowen is a good candidate with a strong background in elections, but how good do you think her chances are of unseating McDiebold?

STATE CONTROLLER – With Westly running for Governor, the Democratic primary is supposedly competitive between State Assemblyman Dario Frommer of Glendale (the big money-raiser), and State Board of Equalizations Member John Chiang. Frommer has the money advantage, by a lot, but are we sure he will get the nomination? The Republican will be either State Senator Abel Maldonado of Santa Maria or former State Assemblyman Tony Strickland from Ventura County.

STATE TREASURER – This seems like a lock for term-limited Attorney General Bill Lockyer (no pun intended). Am I wrong?

ATTORNEY GENERAL – Though the money race for the Democratic nomination is competitive, it seems to me that Oakland Mayor (and former Governor) Jerry Brown is simply unstoppable. Nevertheless, Republicans will do all they can to prevent “Governor Moonbeam”‘s comeback, by running State Senator Chuck Poochigian of Fresno.

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER – I would hope that term-limited Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante gets an easy victory, but businessman Steve Poizner, who is quite wealthy indeed, may pose a challenge. I hope I’m wrong.

STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION – I’m expecting an easy reelection for Jack O’Connell (Democrat, oh, sorry, “nonpartisan”).

So, is my analysis way off? Please contribute anything you can about any of these races.

Uncategorized

“Next New Orleans”: The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

2 Comments

(I say it’s not discussed enough, and then don’t promote! That ain’t right. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Wow, that’s a scary title isn’t it? It comes from this MSNBC article featured in the Tech Section.

Now the experts say California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta presents the next cause for concern. “The Sacramento area is perhaps, after New Orleans, the scariest spot in the country,” said Nicholas Pinter, a geologist at Southern Illinois University who studies river flood risks.

Of course I’ve been saying this for a while.  There is a real dearth of discussion about the flood possibility of the Delta in both Sacramento and Washington.  Something needs to be done fast.  We are watching as the flood plains get filled in by subdivisions.  It’s more than a little crazy.

More in a little bit…

San Diego

Millionaires’ Amendment In Play in CA-50

2 Comments

The “millionaires’ amendment” may be into play in the race to replace former congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham. Republican candidate, Eric Roach, notified the Federal Election Commission that his self-funded congressional campaign had crossed over the notification threshold required by the Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

According to the North County Times, millionaire Roach has already loaned his campaign much of the over $750,000 it has spent on the special election campaign.

In Roach’s notification, he reports that as of Thursday, he had spent $750,000 on the April 11 special election where voters will pick a replacement for former U.S. Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, who resigned from office in November after pleading guilty in federal court to receiving more than $2.4 million in bribes. 

A spokesman for Roach said in a phone interview Friday that in a hotly contested election, with 23 candidates already in the running, Roach had little choice but to spend generously from his own pocket.

Roach is one of three millionaire Republicans in the race who are self-funding the vast majority of their campaign costs. Of this club, Roach is the most recent and least know of the three. He is spending heavily just to earn some name recognition against entrenched and well know Republicans politicians who are in the 50th race.

Roach’s tripping of the “millionaires’ amendment” potentially allows the 20 or so non-millionaire candidates in the race to dramatically increase their fund raising both from individual donors and, in the case of Democrat Francine Busby, the state and national Democratic Party.

All of the non-millionaire candidates are studying the provisions of the complex law to insure that they understand how Roach’s self-funding opens the door to increased fund raising for their individual campaigns.

The top three Republican candidates in the 50th race are now going to have to scramble to get more money flowing into their campaigns. Bill Morrow, Brian Bilbray and Howard Kaloogian have been getting most of their money from outside of the districts and from right wing issues organizations.

Busby, with Democratic Party support in place and the only true grassroots campaign in the race, is in an excellent position thanks to Roach. A Busby spokesman talked about the impact of the “millionaire amendment” on Busby’s grassroots campaign and the financing of her Republican opponents.

“It’s more confirmation that Francine is running against a group of career politicians and millionaires trying to buy this election,” Busby spokesman Brennan Bilberry said. “It means that a grass-roots candidate with support from the community will still be able to run a strong race against a mega-millionaire.”

Busby needs your support now more than ever to take on the right wing nut jobs and the millionaires who want to insure that its business as usual in Washington.

Also posted at Words Have Power.