Monthly Archives: May 2006

Uncategorized

[From NCP] No On Prop 75

[Originally posted at Norcal Politics by Stephen Green on October 23, 2005]

Those who wrote and are pushing for the passage of Proposition 75 on the ballot want us to believe that it’s up to us to protect the members of California’s public employees unions from their unions.  If we fail these poor people, their unions will use part of their dues to support political causes or candidates that individual members may not approve of.  We need to do this, the pro-75 people say, because these union members, who have the power to decide whether or not they will join the union, who have some control over who holds office in their unions, and have some say, through elections and conventions, to determine how the unions’ energies and resources will be channelled, apparently lack the ability to exercise these choices in their own best interests.

How absurdly paternalistic is this measure?  This is part of the text of the proposition:

  • "Section 2(e) Because public money is involved, the public has a right to ensure that public employees have a right to approve the use of their dues or fees to support the political objectives of their labor organization."

 What public money are they referring to here?  They apparently consider the salary paid to public employees to still be public money, to be spent according to the dictates of the public, after these employees have received it in their paychecks.  They not only think they, and the voters of California, have a better idea of what’s in the best interests of public employees than these employees’ unions do, they also think they have a better idea of how these employees should spend their money than the employees themselves do.

Although public employees have suffered job losses and wage stagnation along with other California workers over the last five years. through the efforts of their unions they have competetive wage and benefit packages, including sick and vacation leave and health and retirement benefits.  They have, through their unions’ efforts, work rules that protect them from arbitrary or capricious actions by their employers.

I have no doubt that these unions support causes and candidates that their members don’t universally support, but stockholders in corporations and taxpayers and voters in cities, counties, states, and nations don’t get to opt out of financially supporting things those entities stand behind.  The backers of Prop 75 somehow feel that labor unions alone should bear such a burden, that union members alone should have such a privilege (isn’t this concern for the union members by the yes-on-75 people touching?).

Labor unions are inherently political organizations and this is particularly true of public employees labor unions.  Things that are settled in collective bargaining in other industries are often settle in the legislature or at the polls for public employees.  We need look no farthr for an example of this than Propostion 74, on the same ballot, which would extend from 2 to 5 the number of years public school teachers must work to achieve tenure.

In truth, the problem here is that when labor union get involved in politics, they tend to support progressive causes and candidates.  They tend to support the same kinds of things for Californians in general that they support for their members through collective bargaining.  Higher wages, better access to health care, and a more comprehensive social safety net.  These are things that the backers of Proposition 75 are, for whatever reason, opposed to.  These people will work to silence the organized voices that advocate for such things.  That’s what this is about.  The backers of Proposition 75 want to raise barriers  to organized labors ability to work to strengthen their members’ rights at the polls and in the legislature, to block labor’s ability to support progressive causes that benefit all California workers.  Because the backers of Prop 75 have an agenda that is unpopular among Californians, they want to silence the voices, particularly the organized voices, that oppose their agenda.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have to reveal that I am a public employee, but not a member of a collective bargaining group or a labor union.  As with other non-union workers in our society, however, I enjoy most of the benefits my job offers because labor unions, through the power of collective bargaining and organized public advocacy, have raised the level of expectations that individual workers have of their employers.

Uncategorized

Wilkes the “GOP’s ATM”

2 Comments

Newsweek finds out that Kyle “Dusty” Foggo and Brent Wilkes are friends.  Who knew?

It is a bit of a stretch. Most of the Wilkes’ bribes go to politicians, from guys like Randy Cunningham, up through more important Republicans such as Tom Delay, Jerry Lewis, Porter Goss, John Doolittle, and on right to the top of the party – George Bush. Yet, Foggo may be the thread that unravels Republican corruption all the way to the top.

But the agency’s problems may only get worse, and one reason is Foggo. Federal investigators are looking at the ties of the CIA’s “Ex Dir” to a congressional bribery scandal. Foggo was a high-school football teammate and college buddy of Brent Wilkes’s, a defense contractor who was identified as an unindicted co-conspirator when former San  Diego congressman and ex-Navy air ace Randy (Duke) Cunningham pleaded guilty. The CIA has acknowledged that its internal watchdog is investigating if Foggo helped steer any contracts to Wilkes. According to three sources who declined to be identified commenting on the details of a government probe, there are also indications that the Feds are interested in Foggo’s role in the wider Cunningham bribery scandal. Recent news reports have alleged that Wilkes (who has not been charged with any crime) sponsored poker parties at the Watergate and other expensive Washington hotels, and that he may have been involved in a scheme to provide prostitutes to the disgraced Cunningham.

More on the Repulican’s ATM follows.

Brent Wilkes is a bit more than “a defense contractor.”  Wilkes is a one man defense conglomerate, operating a dizzying array of companies that appear designed for a single purpose, to scam money from the defense and intelligence apparatus of the United States.

Wilkes apparently is big in the transportation industry as well.  At least in the transportation of Republican politicians.  Wilkes’ Group W Transportation operation appears to have been designed to allow Wilkes to ferry key Republican leaders around in the style to which his bribes and contribution had made them accustomed.

Yet Group W, owned by Poway defense contractor Brent Wilkes, has provided personal air transportation for some high-profile passengers — including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, who has flown on the jet to such locations as Idaho for a hunting trip and Hawaii for a golf tournament.

Brent Wilkes is also a major financial contributor to Republican politicians. Aside from convicted felon Randy “Duke” Cunningham, Wilkes made substantial contributions to California Representatives John Doolittle (CA-4), Jerry Lewis (CA-41) and Duncan Hunter (CA-52).

But, wait there’s more Wilkes largess to politicians.  Wilkes it turns out is also a Bush/Cheney Pioneer – someone who raised at least $100,000 in contributions to the President’s 2004 campaign. In this, Wilkes is on a list of just 327 other dedicated fund raisers. In fact the first name on this list is Jack Abramoff. Distinguished company for Wilkes.

Wilkes is also a a key contributor to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger rewarded Wilkes with posting to two prestigious public boards. Postions that he asked Wilkes to give up when his involvement with Cunningham became public.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who received $77,400 from Wilkes and his wife, Regina Wilkes, has no such plans [to return the money], according to a spokesman.

Schwarzenegger, however, did ask Wilkes to resign from the Del Mar Fair Board and the State Race Track Leasing Commission the day after Cunningham pleaded guilty.

Schwarzenegger appointed Wilkes to both volunteer positions, continuing a tradition in which governors appoint contributors to such prestigious posts.

Cunningham was the most obvious and illegal of Wilkes bribery enterprises. In may turn out that Foggo will be as egregious and illegal a case as was Cunningham’s, but it is important to remember that Wilkes was what The Left Coaster called “An ATM for the GOP.” His largess was directed at anyone who could help him continue to loot the U.S Government and steal the money of American taxpayers.

Uncategorized

Mayor Villaraigosa endorses Cindy Montanez for State Senate

1 Comment

Cindy and Antonio

It was expected, and it happened: the Mayor has picked Assemblywoman Cindy Montanez over City Councilman Alex Padilla as his choice for the next State Senator for District 20 in the San Fernando Valley.

Is this a significant development?  Arguably, yes.  The mayor needs every ally in City Council he can get in order to pass a city budget and to take control of the school district.  The political capital that Villaraigosa has put on the line adds substance to the symbolism of his endorsement.  His endorsement also adds significantly to the profile of Montanez’ campaign, which, if judged by street sign presence in the district alone, could use some more visibility.

The race in the 20th is possibly the most important one in the state this year aside from the gubernatorial.  The low-octane performance of both candidates for the Democratic candidate for governor, unfortunately, threatens to drag down the electorate’s interest in every other contest as well.  Maybe Villaraigosa’s star power can bring some much needed attention to the San Fernando Valley, at least among Southern California Democrats.

Now if only the mayor would take a firm stand on immigration — then he’d be all over the national airwaves, and could command some serious attention with his endorsements.

Uncategorized

What’s wrong with CA-42? *** Call to Action***

7 Comments

(Anybody live in CA-42? This seat currently belongs to Gary Miller, a proud co-author of the Racist/Nativist HR 4437. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

When Charlie Wilson’s campaign couldn’t get 50 signatures to file in OH-06 I thought that the Repubs would have only token opposition. WILSON GOT ON THE BALLOT THROUGH A PRIMARY WRITE IN CAMPAIGN.

When our candidate withdrew from NJ-04 less than a week AFTER filing closed I thought the Repub incumbent would go unopposed. A REPLACEMENT CANDIDATE GOT ON THE BALLOT.

When our candidate didn’t file in PA-09 I thought that the Repub incumbent would go unopposed. A WRITE IN CANDIDATE SURFACED.
When our write in candidate bailed out in PA-09 I thought that the Repub incumbent would go unopposed. ANOTHER WRITE IN CANDIDATE SURFACED.

So what the hell is wrong with California’s 42nd Congressional District??????????

Below the Fold………………………

How is it that we can fill every district in states like Utah, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Indiana, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Georgia and Kentucky but we can’t fill a lousy district like CA 42.

Here are the facts:
CA 42
Counties – parts of Orange, Los Angeles and San Bernardino.
Bush 2004/ Kerry 2004 – 62/37
Repub incumbent 2004 vote – 68%
Registered Repubs/ Dems – 171133/99356

Boxer won San Bernardino in 2004. Boxer and Kerry both won LA county but not the relevant parts of LA county.
Congressional District Map

As you can see a fairly Repub district but not overwhelmingly so and yet CA 42 joins AL 06, MS 03 and TX 11 as the ONLY districts where filing/nominations have closed and there is no Democratic candidate. Let me tell you that the other 3 are all districts and states that are much less Dem friendly than CA 42.

So what the hell is going on???

A write in candidate needs 1000 write in votes at the Primary on June 6th to get the party line for the General in November. So come on Kossacks find a candidate. We have write in candidates running in PA 9 and PA 15 so why not CA 42?

As Howard Dean enunciates so well we must contest EVERY district. Right now we are contesting more Districts (420) than the GOP did in 1994 (419). How cool is that? And we will end up with Dems running in at least 425 out of the 435. (and we might yet get to 430!)

So do YOU know anyone in CA 42.

Come on email State Party Chairman Torres and the County Chairs too!

Art Torres
LA County Chair
Orange County Chair
San Bernardino County Chair

Let’s get a write in candidate here so that Gary Miller doesn’t get a free pass!

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Where we go from here: Fighting Arnold’s bond-based momentum

There aren’t that many progressive bloggers focusing exclusively on California politics.  But, pretty much all of us have noted something about how this bond package will affect the governor’s race.  Julia at BetterCA has her opinion, Frank at CPR has his, and Randy at Bayne of Blog has his.  I know Bradley doesn’t like it when you call him a blogger, but he’s got his thoughts too.  And from the other side, Dan Schnur, a Rep operative, posted on FlashReport yesterday that this all but locked up the governorship for another 4 years.

The infrastructure bonds that the legislature put on the November ballot this morning will re-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger. Already armed with advantages over either of his Democratic opponents on taxes, driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, and Jessica’s Law, the presence of bonds providing money for road, school and levee construction gives Schwarzenegger an issues arsenal that will be almost impossible for either Steve Westly or Phil Angelides to defeat.(FlashReport 5/5/06)

Now many of us would argue with parts of his logic.  I have a HUGE quibble with his belief that anything to do with immigration is a good issue for him.  But, that being said, I think if you nibble around the corners of the analysis from both sides, you get to an overall consensus this was a win for the Governator.

Until today, all he had to run on was the Worker’s Comp “De-form”. (See this BetterCA post about it.) I don’t intend on getting bogged down on Worker’s Comp, but you could get bogged down quickly.  In short form, the Worker’s Comp Reform has had much smaller of an impact than Arnold would have you believe.  In fact, Fabian Nunez called for another round of reform  on it just last month.  Suffice it to say that Worker’s Comp and the failed “Year of Reform” was not the greatest platform from which to run.

But Schwarzenegger found a winning issue in the infrastructure bonds.  It’s a sore spot of Liberal Democrat and Conservative Republican alike.  Who can vote against better roads?  More accessible housing?  Flood protection?  Well, in the end, the Democrats couldn’t stand up to this populist message.  Poll numbers for a bond package were just too high.

But the Dems did a good job on reining this one in.  Arnold had proposed a $222 Billion dollar infrastructure package.  It has now shrunk to under $38Billion.  Not chump change, but not quite $222 billion either.  But at any rate, it’s enough for Arnold to proclaim that he is the “Let’s Build It Governor.”  True, it’s Bullshit.  Arnold Schwarzenegger is no Pat Brown.  Pat Brown revolutionized not only the state, but the entire nation.  He provided a model of how to build infrastructure.  He built the incredible higher education system through his Master Plan for Higher Education.  He provided a water plan that is still, although clinging to life at this point, still the basis for our water delivery.  These bonds do not approach Brown’s broad vision.  By the way, if you are interested in Pat Brown, check out Ethan Rarick’s Pat Brown book, it’s a good read.

See the flip for more analysis

These bonds are broadly popular.  In April’s Field Poll (PDF), 57% of Californians approved of Arnold’s bonds package, with just 30% disapproving.  This includes a net approval of 11 point amongst Dems.  This is all during a time when he was at 39% overall approval, 47% disapproval.  And Dems had a 42% net disapproval.  So with Dems, Arnold had a net 53% swing from overall approval to the bonds.  This is a very, very good issue for him.  A real winner.

And the thing that is going to be even harder to overcome is the fact that there will be Democrats campaigning for this package.  Sen. Perata and Speaker Nunez worked hard on this package, and I’m sure they would genuinely like to see it pass.  A failure on the bond deal would not be a good thing for them politically.

And in addition to those considerations, add in the fact that both Angelides are almost forced to support the package.  And today they both announced that they support the plan – in principle.  Angelides has been a long proponent of bonds to improve infrastructure, dating from before Arnold’s plan.  So he has to come out in favor of “Arnold’s plan”:

“The agreement by legislative leaders on a $37 billion infrastructure bond package is a victory for our State and for future generations of Californians. This is a realistic infrastructure investment package that – when combined with a responsible and truly balanced budget that fully funds our schools – will help build California’s future.

“I’ve been a forceful and consistent advocate for using bonds to invest in an environmentally sustainable future. I’m pleased that this new plan draws from those values, adding a housing and transit component to promote smart growth, providing funds to secure our levees and enhance our educational resources.

“I applaud Senate President pro Tempore Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez for fighting for an infrastructure plan that will put California on the high road to a sustainable future and a strong economy.”(NewWestNotes 5/5/6)

Phil’s campaign does a good job emphasizing the fact that the legislature designed this package.  Also, he pumps a few areas that he’s fond of: smart growth, levees, and levees.  In general this does a good job tying this package to his values.

And Westly?  Well, he has a track record of supporting Arnold’s bonds.  Is he going to change now?  Hardly: he can’t logically not support these bonds.  And so he does:

“I applaud the Democratic leadership for reaching across party lines to ensure that California can begin rebuilding its crumbling infrastructure.

“We must move past the partisanship that has paralyzed this State and work together to tackle the tough issues facing California.

“This $37 billion investment is vital to California’s future. We must protect those funds from waste, fraud and abuse. I am calling upon the Governor and the Legislature to put tough fiscal controls in place to ensure this bond is a boon – not a boondoggle – for California.”(NewWestNotes 5/5/6)

Again, this is a well-crafted release.  I like that Westly rolls his audit and clean government ideas into the mix.  Westly’s been all over the government efficiency thing recently, and this message just reinforces that.

But Arnold Schwarzenegger is not unstoppable.  First thing that I would point out is that I am in favor of this bond package.  However, the Dems who helped to work out this package should not appear with the Governator.  He wins if he can regain the bipartisan/moderate patina.  Having Dems at his side at campaign events would do just that and give him a big boost.  Angelides is running as the anti-Arnold and would be harmed if all of a sudden Arnold wasn’t that bad.  Westly, well, he’s getting pegged as a kindler, gentler Arnold.  If the real one is already seen as kind and gentle, he’s in a world of trouble.

Next: repeat this mantra: “One good idea does not a good governor make.”  He has had one, I repeat one, success since he has been elected.  This bond package is his ticket.  Oh sure, he was maneuvered into signing some other good bills, but this is really all he’s got.  You really think he’s going to start campaigning about immigration?  He’s going to start playing Arnold the Nativist.  I think not.  And education?  Hardly!  He can’t say one word without a throng of CTA teachers surrounding him and calling him on his bullshit.  Sure he could say that he was going to use the extra revenue this year to repay the looted Prop 98 funds, but you, I and about 12 million California voters know that this is not true.  And the teachers will make sure that they don’t forget.

So, how do we win on two fronts – the bonds and the governor’s race?  We change the subject as much as possible.  The bonds will practically approve themselves.  At this point, who is out there to protest them? McClintock – he voted against all but flood control?  Well, now that he’s Arnold’s running mate, that would be very poorly viewed upon.  So let the bonds do their own work.

And what should we talk about? 

1) Education.  The looted Prop 98 funds have still yet to be returned, regardless of whatever Dan Schnur has to say. 
2) Special Interests Arnold: The governor who vowed to crush the special interests, and called teachers girly men…yup, this is still him.  Now he is ok with taking special interest money, as long as it is a Grover Norquist-approved special interest.  In summary: Indjuns: bad.  Slave labor supporting, anti-tax wingnuts: good!
3) Prop 73 Redux.  2/3 of the state is pro-choice.  These are the people that are going to vote for a Dem governor.  Arnold endorsed 73 last time.  Let’s not tip-toe around this issue.  We need to take a stand on this issue.  Voters on the left will appreciate it, and pro-choice voters who are waivering will be attracted to a firm stance.
4) The Environment: Arnold tasked a committee to come up with a plan to reduce greenhouse emissions.  Then when he gets the report and Grover doesn’t like it, he hacks it to bits in his proposal to the legislature (Dianne Feinstein: “my heart fell when I saw that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had backed away from a strong position on global warming.” (SacBee 4/13/06)

And finally, on the day of the primary, as soon as we know the nominee, we rally around him.  Whether it’s Westly or Angelides, it doesn’t matter if you are luke-warm on him now.  If your guy doesn’t win the primary, well switch on over.  If Westly wins, Angelides, Nancy Pelosi and the 2 senators need to do a press conference the next day saying how much they support him.  If Angelides wins, Steve Westly, and his rainbow of supporters should do exactly the same.  Because in the end, what’s important is that Arnold returns to his acting career and Brutal Deluxe comes out in 2008, not 2012.

Uncategorized

CA-50 Republican Poll Shows Busby With Decisive Lead

1 Comment

This looks like great news, so why am I skeptical? Over at Flash Report, the drumbeat for right wing Republican darling, Eric Roach, to run against Republican lobbyist Brian Bilbray has become frantic. Roach, for his part, remains silent. In fact, Roach has missed two deadlines established by his own spokesman for an announcement of his intentions. Last week, we were told Roach would have an announcement by week’s end. This week, the same line. No announcement.

Now to this latest poll. The numbers for Busby are outstanding. In a poll of 450 potential voters, skewed heavily with Republicans, Busby outperforms Bilbray 43% to 37%. This seems pretty unusual, so let’s look at the poll a little more closely.

First, the poll was commissioned by conservative Republican and Eric Roach supporter, Bill Hauf. Hauf ostensible wanted to find out both Bilbray’s position in his race against Busby, but also the mood of the conservative electorate. The poll appears to have been designed to insure that Bilbray’s liberal tendencies would be exposed.

Second, the poll used a classic “push poll” methodology. The money question of voter preference is preceded by questions designed to predispose the respondent to make a specific choice. For example, prior to asking if a voter prefers Busby or Bilbray, there might be a couple of questions about Bilbray the lobbyist. Or, depending on the poll, a question about Bilbray eating the flesh of young children.

Third, the poll was designed to scare Republicans. Bilbray (the eater of living children) performed far worse against Busby than Roach, the white knight of the Republican right.

However, this poll is good news for Busby. The margin of error is too great to be just the product of the “push poll” bias. And, it shows that Republican support of Bilbray is incredibly weak.

The continuing drumbeat of bad news regarding the Bush Administration and the support of Republican leaders like Cheney and Hastert are huge negative for Bilbray. In fact, the mainstream party support for Bilbray is playing right into both Busby and Roach’s hands.

The result here is great for Busby, a major negative for Bilbray and a big inducement to Roach to take on Bilbray (for his own good).

Blog Roundup

California Blog Roundup, 5/5/06

Today’s California Blog Roundup is on the flip. Teasers:Infrastructure Bonds, Governor’s Race, Immigration, 15% Doolittle, Paid-For Pombo, LA-area Assembly Races, some cynicism, Latinos as a power, labor, and some pictures.

Infrastructure Bonds

Governor’s Race

Immigration

CA-4 and CA-11

Everything Else

California

Hike in minimum wage favored by small business

1 Comment

[Thanks to Julia Rosen of Alliance for a Better CA for suggesting I cross post this from The Bayne of Blog.]

One of the arguments leveled against increasing the minimum wage has been the assumed negative effect it would have on small business. The fear expressed by many, mostly outside of small business it seems, is that raising the minimum will drive small businesses out of business as they struggle to pay the help. Of course, this has never happened with previous wage increases. When low-wage workers get a raise they spend it. This in turn puts more dollars in the pockets of businesses of all types which drives the economy because more employees are needed to service more consumers.

According to a recent Gallup Poll, an increase in the federal minimum wage ($5.15) is favored by almost half of all small-business owners. Seventy-five percent of small businesses claim that a 10% increase in the minimum would have no effect on their businesses.

Wouldn’t it be great if these small businesses would get behind the effort to raise the minimum wage. Low-wage workers could earn more, put more back into the economy, and everybody wins as businesses do better and hire more workers which in turn puts more money into more hands continuing the cycle. Bubble up economics sounds a whole lot better to me than trickle-down. But then, I’m not the one doing the trickling, and have seen to many people, including myself, get trickled on. If the small businesses favoring a hike in the minimum wage would get on board and help in our campaign to increase it, we would have a powerful ally that would have to be heard. Alas, many small business owners are under the thumb of big business through Chambers of Commerce and other business organizations.

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Bond Deal Done!

1 Comment

Looks like we have a bond deal for a $37.3 billion package.  They went late…very late into the night to get this deal done.  It will go to the voters in the November gubenatorial general election.

The Senate moved the four-piece infrastructure package – $19.925 billion for transportation projects, $10.416 billion for K-12 education and colleges, $4.09 billion for flood protection and $2.85 billion for affordable housing – on separate, two-thirds votes that were completed at 12:30 a.m.

The Assembly followed by approving the same package of bonds, the largest in state history, by 3:30 a.m.(SacBee 5/5/06)

Self-congratulatory comments were being tossed all around.  There was even talk of bipartisanship *gasp*.

“It’s nice to get something accomplished,” said state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland. “This is probably the biggest accomplishment certainly I’ve seen in this building in quite awhile, just in terms of our commitment to the future of the state’s economy and its infrastructure.

“It’s also a textbook example of what bipartisanship can look like.”
***
“I’ve been up here for 11 years, I’ve been involved in a lot of bonds and bond negotiations, and this probably has one of the best balances among interests that are important to Republicans and interests that are important to Democrats,” said Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman of Irvine. “Somebody asked me earlier who lost and who won. I don’t think either side. If you have a good bond, you can have everybody be winners.”

Well there are some words which you don’t hear bandied about too often in Sacramento.  It looks as if in the end, when the Governor cleared out, the Legislators were able to get this done.  Yes, I know Arnold will take as much credit as possible, but I think the real credit should go to the legislators who worked tirelessly for several months to get this done for the people of California.  Arnold’s grand plan was changed and sculpted by the legislature. 

Will he run as the “new Pat Brown”?  Yes. 

Does he deserve that title? Hell no.