Although Ellen Tauscher’s congressional staff scrubbed from her federal website photos of George Bush (see 1, 2, 3, 4) and Joe Lieberman (see 1 & 2), they seem to have forgotten to scrub the text:

At the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, she gave a nominating speech for Sen. Joe Lieberman’s Vice Presidential bid…

In her new capacity within the New Democrats, Rep. Tauscher will lead the centrist, pro-growth members of the House to find mainstream solutions on issues such as technology and trade. Rep. Tauscher recently served as National Vice Chair of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, where she traveled across the country, meeting with elected officials and building a base of New Democrats for state and national office.

As anyone paying attention to trends in Democratic Party politics will tell you, not exactly the stuff you want to brag about going into a primary.

Antonio Villaraigosa’s takeover attempt at some of the LAUSD schools, seems to have been scuttled at least for the moment.  Judge Dzintra Janavs (yeah, [she of the loss to the bagel lady http://www.calitics….) has ruled the Gloria Romero Education Reform Act, or whatever they want to call it today, unconstitutional because of a 1946 constitutional amendment taking the schools out of municipal control:

“The statute makes drastic changes in the local governance of the LAUSD, giving the Mayor a role that is unprecedented in California,” she said in her 20-page ruling, adding that the law “completely deprives the LAUSD governing board of any ability to control or influence the actions or decisions” in schools under the mayor’s control.

This transfer of power was a primary goal of the legislation, but Janavs rejected that transfer as contrary to the California Constitution on numerous grounds. Fundamentally, she said, the Constitution forbids transferring authority over schools to entities outside the public school system.

She cited a 1946 constitutional amendment that “specifically removed municipal authority over school districts and appears to reflect the people’s determination to separate municipal functions from school functions due to the variety of conflicts that arise between their respective interests.”(LA Times 12/22/03)

More over the flip… 

Antonio claims to have both the law and the public support behind him, but, well, only the former matters now.  As for the political implications, well, there are many.  First, as this was a big win for the current school board, look to the March elections for school board control.  As I understand it, Villaraigosa is planning on running his own slate in an attempt to have a certain level of influence over the board.  This makes those elections even more critical. 

Of course there are other things to consider here too.  Many exchanges had been made to get this bill passed.  Fabian Nunez used up a good deal of “political capital” to get this one through for his mentor Villaraigosa. 

The mind spins at how this could play out if it holds up…

(Cross-posted from The Courage Campaign)

George Skelton has an interesting piece in yesterday's LA Times that suggests that those of us who seek expanded access to healthcare in California should actually be optimistic about Arnold's claims to want to fix the current healthcare crisis (6.5 million Californians are uninsured.)

Conventional wisdom among Arnold skeptics is that he's a pretend progressive who has no core principles other than his own ambition and maintaining power. Well, healthcare may be that rare exception. Remember where he comes from, after all.

Arnold Schwarzenegger says one of his first purchases after coming to America 38 years ago was health insurance.

"It's a cultural thing, maybe," he says. 

"I come from Austria, where everyone's insured. It was a totally normal thing to me. Like eating and sleeping and finding an apartment. It was like, 'Now you've got to get the insurance.' One of the things I wanted to do the first month."

More…

Austria has a generous social insurance program that has only been cut back recently as more conservative leaders have taken power. Essentially, health insurance is a part of social security and is handled through a combination of contributions from citizens, employers and the government. So Arnold is a product of a society that values government as a means to level the playing field; a society that gets that the socio-economic status one is lucky or unlucky enough to be born into should not dictate the level of healthcare one receives.

Is that to say Arnold will sign the most liberal of health insurance plans that come across his desk? Of course not, we've already seen him veto single payer. He is a Republican after all who is beholden to interests who traditionally oppose such programs. But this might make him just the advocate we need to gain consensus on this issue, which, while it may not be needed politically, is in the longterm interest of any program that is implemented in the state. Gavin Newsom stood up to his liberal city council to pass a compromise health care program that, because it is somewhat business-friendly, has a chance to get replicated in other less liberal cities across the country.

As an example of Schwarzenegger's ability to bring conservatives around to the progressive view on certain issues, look at how he framed Prop 90 back in November when he finally came out against it. He used conservative language touching on their fears of "trial lawyers," "frivolous lawsuits" and wasted "taxpayer dollars" to make his case against 90. He does the same thing here by framing the healthcare of his homeland not as socialized medicine or the triumph of big government but rather in terms of personal responsibillity (he says "everyone's insured" and "you've got to get the insurance"), which of course is another favorite buzzword of conservatives. 

If Schwarzenegger is as committed to expanding health insurance to the 6.5 million uninsured Californians as Skelton seems to genuinely think he is, he could really serve as a great tool by which to frame the healthcare debate nationally and to normalize the idea for those whose kneejerk reaction would be to oppose it. As Senator-elect Bernie Sanders said on Air America this morning, the way the US is going to adopt a national plan is only once states start implementing them at the local level. We have a unique opportunity to lead the nation on this issue, here's hoping the governor doesn't squander it.

On Sunday, The Union-Tribune reported on the simmering issue in San Diego of sex offenders concentrating in the downtown area.  Now that Jessica’s Law (Proposition 83) has been overwhelmingly approved by Californians, local officials have been given the greenlight to run sex offenders out of downtown.  But has anyone given any thought to where they’re supposed to go?

To recap, Proposition 83 prohibits sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of parks and schools (among other things).  It also happens to be the pet issue of Republican Assemblywoman Shirley Horton who represents many of my neighbors and who just rode it to a very expensive reelection to the State Assembly.  The constitutional applicability of Jessica’s Law is already being considered in U.S. District Court, but in the meantime, that would restrict all but a few blocks of the entire San Diego downtown area.  The reasoning from City Councilman Kevin Faulconer is that “downtown is a neighborhood now” which leads me to wonder what residential non-neighborhoods he’s imagining sex offenders moving into.  The NIMBYism that goes on in debates like this is perfectly understandable of course, but regardless of what ruling eventually comes from the courts, shouldn’t we be focusing on the bigger issues?  Like, for starters, how to prevent sex offenders who are potentially dangerous from being released in the first place?

Southern Californians for Jessica’s Law, right on the front page, presumably as the crux of their argument since they went to all the trouble of bolding it, announces the horrible reality that “many [sex offenders] are living in our communities and neighborhoods, near our schools and parks…”  Well geez, prisoners are being released and trying to integrate themselves back into communities and neighborhoods?  It would be much better if we could keep them all together somewhere, isolated from the rest of us.  Maybe we could call it jail or something.

Obviously, this is a complex issue with a lot of wrinkles that’s too much for any politician to take on with one bite.  It involves reconsidering penalties for non-violent and drug offenders, it involves the rate of prison construction, it involves reviewing and probably reforming the parole evaluation and tracking system.  And probably it involves treading a very careful course that many will see as soft on child predators.  You can’t get everything into a soundbite though, so we get crap laws like this that are wildly popular in San Diego and elsewhere because they glamorously treat symptoms but never dive into the root causes of the problems we face.

Which steers us to the essence of the issue.  In San Diego, in California, in DC, we’ve spent the past several (or more than several) years suffering through reactive legislation dressed up as proactive and visionary.  Sex offenders are being let out of prison while still potentially a threat?  Don’t keep them in jail or innovate treatment procedures, just don’t let them live anywhere except prison.  Corporations are outsourcing jobs overseas?  Don’t make American workers more desirable via advanced training and education, create tax penalties.  There are people who so hate the way in which the United States has conducted itself internationally that they’ll kill themselves and murder innocent people?  Don’t consider treating people who hold different beliefs with respect or consider dialing back the hegemonic drum-beating, just do your best to kill them.  While the stated goals of these policies will always be presented as exceedingly admirable, problems just don’t get solved.  At the local, state and federal level, we’ve spent years watching the whack-a-mole school of policy in action.

The application of Proposition 83 is in the hands of the courts now, and we’ll see what happens in the next couple of months.  In the meantime, is there such a thing as comprehensive politics anymore?  Are there politicians willing to take a swing at legitimate, large-scale reform?  And if they’re out there, is it even possible to accomplish something like this in the age of soundbites?

If there’s hope for comprehensive reform, it won’t come from the top down.  While it’s a bit much to expect actual legislation to be written and pushed from the grassroots, it’s increasingly clear that a comprehensive platform that reflects the rank and file of the Democratic Party at the local, state, and national level would be best driven by the grassroots, in particular a progressive version thereof.

So when you get a DFA invitation to participate in party elections, or when people talk about Taking Back The CA Democratic Party, it’s exactly this issue.  It’s giving the grassroots an opportunity to ensure that the party’s platform and the laws pursued and enacted make more sense from a functional level.  Ultimately, that our party and our government is working on sustainable progress with the minimum of wasted effort.

So if your district needs a good progressive to run, do it.  If your district already has one, vote for them.  It doesn’t save the world, but it’s a start.

So the Governor’s borrow-and-build solution to the current prison crisis yielded a surprising couple of paragraphs from the chief Democratic legislator on the committee that would oversee it.  I don’t know what to make of Gloria Romero’s statement:

Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles), a longtime advocate of expanded rehabilitation programs in the state prison system and chairwoman of a legislative committee that oversees corrections, stood with the governor as he unveiled his proposal. Romero said she was optimistic that Schwarzenegger’s plan would help foster the kind of reforms she seeks.

“We have historically paid little attention to what happens after [inmates] get that $200 and the bus ticket out,” she said. “We will never merely build ourselves out of this problem.”

Little of the new spending the governor is proposing would be used for rehabilitation.

Why exactly is she rolling over on this one?  The proposal accomplishes the opposite of her goals.

In fact, it devotes most of its spending to more beds, and not rehabilitation and reform.  In addition, the Governor will set up a 17-member sentencing commission consisting of the Attorney General, legislators, citizens groups, the corrections secretary and a judge.  Their ostensible directive is to review sentencing guidelines, but the Governor has already made clear that three-strikes is off the table, and look what they’ll be spending their time on in the midst of a time where we may face a cap on inmates:

Commissioners would spend their first year examining whether the state’s mandatory three-year parole period could be safely shortened for some ex-convicts. The governor is also proposing an $11 billion building program to add space for thousands of additional inmates and changes to the state parole system.

Shouldn’t we be looking at the sentences of the people actually GOING TO JAIL to solve the problem of too many people in jail?  Wouldn’t that be the smart thing to do in the first year?

I still believe that you will not build your way into a solution on prison reform, and any proposal that primarily borrows money to sink it into more brick and mortar ends up making some people rich, more people incarcerated, and the same problem in five years.  The recidivism rate in California is 70%, the worst in the nation.  The Governor described this as “unacceptable” but gave no step to actually reducing that rate other than giving the recidivists a better place to sleep when they come back.

(nice Christmas tale for you. Apparently due to pressure, they’re going to open the shelter after all, but the initial reaction by the council says it all. – promoted by dday)

My lovely hometown council told the homeless of our community to freeze to death. In their last meeting of the year before heading to their warm homes in our suburban town, they denied a request by the Interfaith Community Services to use their own building to house a few homeless during our unprecedented cold snap we’re having (temps have pretty regularly dipped below 30F, which is very cold for a So Cal town):

Four of the five council members said during their last meeting of the year that they couldn’t support a request by officials of the Salvation Army and Interfaith Community Services to open a temporary winter shelter in the gymnasium of the Salvation Army at Las Villas Way near Centre City and El Norte parkways.

The council didn’t vote on the matter because no motion was made. Only Mayor Lori Holt-Pfeiler, who put the item on the meeting agenda, said she supported opening the shelter. No city money was requested for the shelter, only the council’s approval of the building’s additional use.
From the NC Times. Read the comments, they’re amazingly gross at times.

I very nearly puked reading this.

Breaking

From ICS’ spokesperson:

“We are deeply saddened and disappointed with the City Council’s decision,” said Interfaith spokeswoman Christine Vaughan. “To deny your city (residents) warmth, it should be a crime.”

Sam Abed, Ed Gallo, Marie Waldron, and Daniels are all the main drivers of the failed waste-of-taxpayer’s-money that was the recent illegal immigrant rental ban in Escondido. Here’s another bit of the article:

Abed cited two reports that city officials had crafted at his request to demonstrate how dedicated the city has been in helping the homeless.

So, instead of approving a no-cost SOLUTION to help the homeless in FREEZING WEATHER, these…sub-humans commission reports saying how great they are?

It’s enough to make you vomit. I’ve been in a state of agitation all day long over this. This is MY City Council! These sick freaks are making MY TOWN look like… words fail me. Here’s their contact info. The only one who supported helping the defenseless and homeless is Lori holt-Pfeiler, the Mayor.

Here’s the Interfaith Community Services page, if you’d like to offer support or encouragement. I’m not a religious person but these people are tireless, selfless, and giving individuals. They’re the kind of folks that make me NOT move out of Escondido.

Here’s Arnold’s page.

Here’s Bilbray.

An email from Democracy for America:

Your Election in January
Democracy demands participation. You only get a “D” for voting these days; to get an “A” you must run for office! Guess what? There are elections in January and DFA wants you to run.

On the weekend of January 13 and 14, 2007 Democrats all over California will meet to elect delegates for the party. You should run. In 2004, many DFA members ran to fill Assembly District seats and our involvement in these important elections was instrumental in the Party’s support of key candidates who helped take back the Congress and California’s Constitutional Offices last month. With your help, this January we can build on our progressive momentum and continue to shape the Democratic Party’s future.

This is not a small ask, but the rewards of leadership make the difference. Sign up to run for delegate here:

http://www.cadem.org/ApplicationforDelegate

This is what you need to know about the position and your commitment. You must be a registered Democrat in the Assembly District by the close of registration for the November 2006 election. Delegates to the California Democratic Party hold a two-year position. Each Assembly District is entitled to elect 12 delegates to represent each district, evenly balanced between men and women to the extent possible. Delegates are expected to attend the California Democratic Party Convention in San Diego on April 27-29, 2007, and the 2008 Convention in Northern California. Dues are about $150/year, plus travel expenses for the conventions.

It’s time to stand up, show up and speak up. DFA representation in the CDP played a key role in the Party’s nomination of Jerry McNerney, as well as the Party’s support of Debra Bowen and other successful progressive candidates. It is up to you to decide your role in the next elections now. We can work together to make this happen.

I hope you decide to run. We will be with you every step of the way.

Please post your links to CDP reform in the comments.