Governor Obvious

Shorter Arnold Schwarzenegger: We MUST change this system a federal judge has told us to change!

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday ordered his administration to fix problems in California’s lethal injection protocol “to ensure the death penalty procedure is constitutional.”

Schwarzenegger acted in response to a stinging decision issued Friday by U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel in San Jose, who said the state’s system “is broken, but … can be fixed.”

Fogel, who earlier visited the death chamber in San Quentin and held a four-day hearing in September, said the evidence “is more than adequate to establish” that the state’s implementation of its lethal injection procedure violates the Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.  The judge gave state officials 30 days to let him know what they planned to do and he urged the governor to get involved.

Why is this news? 

…by the way, time is running out, but you can still get your Arnold holiday stocking stuffers.  Good to know that the highest constitutional officer in the state sells shit on his website like he’s Bill O’Reilly.

Taking back the CA Democratic Party

(Arnold is a Democrat? – promoted by juls)

x-posted at California Notes

I’m not against reaching across the aisle in an effort to find common ground that benefits all Californians and makes this great state even better. I’m not against finding bipartisan solutions to the complex problems facing the state. I am against selling out.

Not to exonerate Phil Angelides for complicity in his own defeat, but the Democratic leaders, and yes, even the party itself, are not blame free. Throughout the summer months as it became clear that the gap in the poll percentages were not closing, Democrats seemed to flee the Angelides campaign and, desperate to be aligned with a winner, flocked to Arnold Schwarzenegger.

This morning while reading the morning paper, I managed to keep the coffee from spewing across the room, as I read about inaugural bash plans.

Schwarzenegger released his deep list of 22 inaugural committee co-chairs, which includes incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, as well as U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein.

While the inaugural co-chairs are ceremonial positions, it doesn’t bode well that Democratic Party leaders are seen as being “co-opted” by the Republican Governor.

Statements like this don’t help either.

Roger Salazar, a spokesman for the California Democratic Party, said Schwarzenegger “ran as a Democrat. We’re going to hold him to it,”

Is Salazar out of his mind? This is the same Schwarzenegger who tried to take away public employee pensions, take away teacher’s job security, silence the voice of working Californians, denied health care to all Californians and to California’s children, and has said he plans to try at least some of it again.

This could be the reason why progressives across the state are putting out the call to get themselves elected as delegates to the Democratic State Convention.

In one month, the California Democratic Party is holding elections for the DSCC (Democratic State Central Committee).  There will be 80 separate caucuses, one for each assembly district, on the weekend of January 13-14.  The 6 men and 6 women who win these elections will become 1/3 of the delegates to the CDP, and will as part of their duties become delegates to the state convention in April, where they can vote on the party platform, party operation and machinery, and specific candidate endorsements.  This is a real opportunity to get progressives and reformers into the state party to attempt to steer it in a direction that is more responsive to the grassroots, more engaged with the electorate, and generally more functional and successful.

I also have previous post here and here.

Bipartisanship is all fine and good, but let’s not go to calling the Republican Governor a Democrat just because he signed a minimum wage bill that doesn’t adjust for inflation and says – there’s no proof yet and evidence (veto of SB 840) suggest otherwise – that he supports universal health care. While I support our Democratic leadership, Pelosi, Núñez, Boxer and Feinstein should be ashamed to allow themselves to be co-opted.

And, Roger, get a clue. Schwarzenegger did not run as a Democrat, but as an opportunist who took advantage of a Democratic Party afraid to stand up for progressive values and stand strongly with it’s chosen nominee.

Click this link for information about how you can help take back your party and become a delegate to the CA Democratic State Convention.

Hidden Taxes and Other Fun With Names

(cross-posted from Ruck Pad)

One Arnold’s rhetorical tricks is playing around with the word “taxes”.  He signed the Grover Norquist pledge, saying he would never raise them.  However, he has raised the amount flowing out of Californian’s pockets into the state government in the form of fees.  The most well known are his increases to state tuition.  Now he is trying a new form of creative naming, this time around health care costs.

The New America Foundation released a report that exposes something Arnold is referring to as a “hidden tax”.  It is the estimated extra $1,186 that an average Californian family of four with private insurance pays in premiums to “subsidize the care of the uninsured.”  Hospitals cannot turn down someone who shows up at their ER and the costs are passed on to the consumers.  Arnold is setting the scene for a plan which would take away those costs, but would cause new “fees” elsewhere, shifting the burden.  Jordan Rau does a great job parsing the move:

Schwarzenegger’s analysis comes from a report released by the New America Foundation. But the politics of his comments are tantalizing. The governor already has declared that though he wants to help every Californian to be able to obtain health care insurance, but will not raise taxes to do so. However, IF Californians are already paying a tax by any other name through their premiums, then a number of possible solutions — such as some versions of an employer mandate to provide coverage or a requirement that individuals purchase insurance — could be argued as not raising taxes but as making people pay costs that others are now shouldering.

It’s an argument not likely to win over the anti-tax crowd, but could give Schwarzenegger some important rhetorical wiggle room for whatever plan he presents next year. Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, who is expected to release his own plan shortly, immediately lauded the perspective, saying: “We certainly agree that easing the burden of the “hidden tax” — especially what responsible businesses pay when they offer insurance but their competitors do not — is a priority.”

Of course the New America Foundation issued the report to help make the case for universal health care:

Peter Harbage, one of the authors of the New America study, said the point of the study was to make sure people understand the links between the premiums paid by the insured and the costs of care to the uninsured.

“It’s easy for people who have health insurance to believe that the uninsured is a problem separate from them,” he said. “What we are trying to show is that everyone in California is already paying for the uninsured. It would be better to have a universal health care system where everyone gets coverage that is more affordable.”

A universal health care system is not where Arnold is heading.  He is simply using the study to help build his case for more “fees”.  Interestingly, the most recent major policy proposal to come out of DC on health care reform is not a universal system.  Reform and labor groups are hoping to have some sort of reform pass and move towards an universal system later.  California does not need to have the same sort of intermediary step.  We are progressive enough to push for the real thing, though Arnold is admittedly the biggest stumbling block.

The Caress

Ellen Tauscher - The CaressThe incompetence of Ellen Tauscher’s internet moves has Washington insiders paying attention, with the Hotline’s Blogometer noting:

CA 10: “The Kiss” Becomes “The Caress”

The samecircles  that got such mileage out of naming Sen. Joe Lieberman‘s (I-CT) SOTU embrace of Pres. Bush “the kiss” have now labeled the pre-Iraq-war picture of Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) sitting with Bush‘s hand on her lap “the caress.” But Tauscher’s trouble with pictures past does not end there. DailyKos‘ founder Markos Moulitsas calls Tauscher “a coward” for “scrubbing pictures of Lieberman from her site in fear they’ll be used against her.” Kos even hits Tauscher for photos not on her site including one from the signing of the Homeland Security Act, calling the pictured Tauscher, Lieberman, Bush, and ex-Maj. Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) “the four horsemen of the apocalypse.”

Kos later spells out the netroots case against Tauscher: “Suffice it to say, she’s the leader of the Conservative Blue Dog Democrats, has consistently undermined the Democratic Party, has been a driving force (not just a supporter) in things like the Bankruptcy Bill, and essentially acts like she represents Utah while serving in a 59 percent Kerry district.”

That last point is key, because if it weren’t for the district, the netroots would be giving Tauscher a pass (the blogs have never gone after Jim Matheson). But Tauscher’s district deserves to send somebody to DC who actually, uh, represents the district.

San Diego vs. WalMart

(The movie was good, I also recommend Wake Up Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart Watch — get ready for the trolls. – promoted by blogswarm)

On November 28th, the San Diego City Council voted in favor of banning Wal-Mart Superstores (spotted by Todd Beeton at Calitics as well) citing low-wage jobs, traffic congestion and the demise of mom-and-pop stores as reason to keep the biggest of the Big Boxes outside of San Diego.  This was, perhaps sadly, one of the bigger political stories of my several years in San Diego, with friends and foes of discount superstores crowding into the public hearing to plead their cases.  That Walmart would come out on the wrong end of this in San Diego of all places is pretty impressive, as we find our progressive moments to be few and far between.  But as is generally the case when some combination of evil corporations, politics and California combine, it looks as though we’re heading for an expensive legal campaign and an even more expensive disinformation campaign as Walmart fights back.  This is a battle that we’re going to have to fight and win eventually if a progressive agenda is going to have a prayer in this country, and since the fight in Chicago has come and gone, perhaps we can seize on this one to create and hone strategy.

First, to set the stage.  The Council’s vote was 5-3 in favor, sending it to Mayor Jerry Sanders who has no interest in slowing down development or corporations.  Sanders has made clear that he’ll veto the measure in January, but if the 5 votes hold, the veto would be overriden.  This ban is very carefully designed to only ban the largest of Walmart stores, leaving untouched the “normal” sized stores and similar big-boxers such as Target, Lowes, Costco, etc.  Walmart has a long history of taking fights with local governments to the courts and the ballot boxes, and while they’re not saying anything one way or another, we can expect them to not go quietly here.

It’s clear from many of the opinions expressed at the City Council meeting and from random conversations I’ve had around town that the economic ramifications of a Walmart economy.  People are very much convinced that these low prices sustain them, and the problem of course is that in most tangible ways, that’s true.  There’s no doubt in my mind that this will be the crux of Walmart’s inevitable media blitz once the City Council reaffirms their vote.  It’s tough to combat an argument of “they want to raise prices,” especially since it sounds so much like “they want to raise your taxes.”

In an article last week running down the future possibilities, it turns out

One well-known Republican political consultant, who requested anonymity, has already tried to contact the company about working on a referendum, but said the company has not responded to his request. Others in the political community expect the company to wait for the council vote on overriding the mayoral veto — which would take just the same five votes that were needed to pass the ban — before announcing its plans.

The article goes on to suggest that local labor organizations are likely to be major players in any potential referendum action, speculating that “you would see them organize like never before.”  If it comes to this, it’s a great opportunity to roll out the growing netroots/labor ties and start building more and stronger bridges between online activism and grassroots activism.  Most importantly though, it presents an opportunity for the netroots to expand its collective purview beyond straight electoral politics.  As we continue finding our way through the inevitable post-election “what do we do with ourselves” period, I would suggest that the best way to become relevant even when there isn’t an election is to take on more of the day-to-day stuff that keeps the grassroots in business.  Not only do we build progressive infrastructure and step up the hearts-and-minds battle, but the netroots becomes an indispensable ally of the existing grassroots process.

As far as I’ve always understood it, Walmart undercuts everything about a strong and functional local economy.  When it first comes to town, people love the bargains, but as the independent stores with higher wages start getting undercut and going out of business, gradually Walmart’s prices aren’t bargains anymore.  Suddenly, Walmart is all that people can afford.  Obviously this is why a ballot proposition is the most frightening option- this economic cycle is already well established in San Diego and people rely on these prices to get by.  But an education campaign can change that.  Going forward, I mostly hope that this issue, at least broadly if not specifically in San Diego, gains more attention.  The netroots is best as the place where talking points are proposed, refined and distributed, so the more we talk about this, the better equipped people on the ground will be when we all start lobbying our friends and neighbors on this issue.  For all the expanding capabilities of the netroots, serving as a bullhorn is still what we’re best at, so let’s begin to shout.  People deserve better than a Walmart society, and San Diego is the coming battle.