(Welcome Assemblyman! – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

I am really excited to start blogging on Calitics.  Recently, while I was at the Democratic Convention in San Diego, I was blown away by how well Calitics bloggers connected the grassroots activists across the state with the events in the convention hall.  It was eye-opening to see first hand how professionally the netroots report the activities of the party infrastructure through this site. That weekend, I decided that it was important for me to begin engaging the conversation that is taking place among active, progressive Democrats everyday on the Calitics online community.

I am leaving myself room to blog about just about anything that I feel Calitics members would be interested in reading.  I imagine that most of my entries will focus on the policies that I work on, day to day.  I want to ensure that, to the extent that there is interest, the netroots are aware of the legislation that I am promoting in California.  However, I also want to use Calitics to inform readers in my community about events in my district, thoughts that I have on politics at all levels, and even an occasional post about my marathon preparations.

Equally as important to me is hearing the feedback of Calitics readers.  Members of the progressive blogosphere have never been shy about sharing their thoughts on certain issues, and I have benefited greatly from the input.  However, I am really interested in generating more thoughts on specific proposals that I am working on.  In the coming weeks and months, I hope to write a series of diary entries about some of the bills that I have authored this year, in hopes of generating feedback from Calitics readers.

For those of you who may not be familiar with me, or the work I have been doing, I posted my bio as an extended entry.

As an Assemblymember, I have spent my time fighting to improve the quality of life for residents of the San Fernando Valley and California at large.

In 2002, I was elected to the California State Assembly to represent the over 400,000 residents of District 40. In Sacramento, I currently serve as Chair of the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Commerce and am part of Speaker Fabian Nuñez’s leadership team. Besides chairing the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee, I am also a member of the Aging; Judiciary; Government Organizations; and Elections and Redistricting Committees.

My dedication to activism started at an early age. In high school, I joined with classmates to create a Students Against Drunk Driving chapter, after a classmate was tragically killed by a drunk driver. Today, I continue my fight to save other families from the devastating effects of drunk driving by working with the National Traffic Safety Board, the Century Council and Mother’s Against Drunk Driving to create new laws to crack down on hard core drunk drivers. In 2005, the Century Council named me “Legislator of the Year.”

Shortly after graduation from college, I worked tirelessly on a ballot measure to increase community college funding. In the Legislature, I remain committed to improving education for all Californians. In my first term, I successfully carried legislation to secure $1 billion in funding for special education programs. Locally, with the Canoga Park community, I have been influential in honoring teachers through the implementation of the Walk of Hearts Foundation, which I hope to help expand to be a statewide program. In 2005 I was given the “Outstanding Alumnus Award” for UCR.

Growing up in the Valley, I dealt with the rampant transportation problems that continue to plague Los Angeles. Recognizing the danger, economic depletion, and sheer frustration traffic in Los Angeles has caused, I used my influence to make improvements to the 405/101 interchange. In addition, I have been a champion for the Metro Orange Line that is finally linking the San Fernando Valley to the Metro mass transit system of Los Angeles.

While I am committed to tackling transportation, education and public safety policy, I also have a deep passion for health and physical fitness. As a child, I suffered from severe asthma, and the symptoms were only managed through the help of an inhaler and distance running. My need to remain active for health reasons has become a favorite pastime. I have participated in races as short as 1-mile to ultra marathon 50-mile races. I have turned my passion for health into a crusade to stop the obesity epidemic that is overcoming children and adults in California. I have carried legislation to help clinics treat obesity-related diabetes and asthma, and to help make sure student food is nutritious. I am also one of two Legislators on the California Taskforce for Youth and Workplace Wellness.

In 2004, I created the Assemblymember Lloyd Levine Fit & Fun Challenge in which schools compete to bring out the most students, families and teachers to walk, run, bike or skate a five kilometer course. While I realize that one day of exercise will not stop the epidemic, I believe that exposing students to “fun” exercise will help them see that physical activity is not a chore.

This year, I am working on legislation to promote energy efficiency and reduce global warming, to fight for better end-of-life choices for terminally-ill Californians, to encourage the humane treatment of elephants in zoos and circuses, and to protect our environment.

Prior to being elected to the Assembly, I served as Legislative Director to former Assemblymember John Longville.

I earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Studio Art from the University of California, Riverside, and have completed course work toward a Master of Arts degree in Public Policy and Administration. I live in the San Fernando Valley.

For more information, please visit my Web site at http://democrats.ass…

The Good Doctor is in San Francisco tomorrow. You can buy the $50 ticket here. Of course, this event was in the May Calitics event listings.

I just got this in my email inbox from Frank Barbaro, Chairman of the Democratic Party of Orange County:

Wal-Mart’s destructive impact on communities is well- documented. Local competition is driven out, noise and traffic increases, and local governments and taxpayers get a raw deal.

Wal-Mart is planning to open a 170,000-sq. ft. supercenter at Chapman Avenue and Brookhurst Street in Garden Grove and the only thing standing in their way is the City Council.

Come help to keep a Wal-Mart Supercenter out of Garden Grove. We will be walking door to door to educate residents and build support for the Main Street Coalition. We hope to see you there!

So how can YOU support what’s best for local small businesses and healthy communities in Southern California? Well, follow me after the flip for all the details…

OK, so we know that Wal-Mart isn’t good for workers. We know that Wal-Mart doesn’t provide its workers adequate health care… So they just dump the workers into taxpayer-funded Medicaid programs. We know that Wal-Mart’s “low prices” don’t do anything to alleviate poverty. And yes, we know that Wal-Mart loves to bleed taxpayers dry with all those subsidies… But they don’t even have the decency to pay their taxes!

So why the heck would Garden Grove want all this trouble in their city? We need to educate people in the community about why Wal-Mart doesn’t really save us money. We need to let folks know just how much money Wal-mart costs us every year! We need to get out and talk to our friends and neighbors in Garden Grove, and the OC Democrats are ready to team up with the Main Street Coalition to do just that!

Date: Saturday, May 12
Time: 10:00am-2:00pm
13252 Garden Grove Blvd.
Garden Grove, CA 92843
Meet in the Courtyard

Residents will be able to sign support cards, join the coalition, and receive more information about the campaign.

As we build in numbers in the community, the stronger our voice becomes to before the council. It is imperative the community become aware and involved in this campaign so that we can keep Wal-Mart out!

Yes, let’s keep Wal-Mart out! And let’s keep good jobs and good living in Garden Grove! Wal-Mart may be big and powerful, but we won’t let them take away what we like about our community. : )

Last week I explained to you all California’s plan for a true high speed rail system that would link the state’s major metropolitan areas, and described how Arnold Schwarzenegger was trying to terminate the plan.

Since then there has been a great deal of activity in the state, ahead of a crucial meeting in Sacramento this week on funding for the project. There now appears to be some significant movement from Arnold’s office toward a supportive position. However, there is still a long way to go, and your help is needed to ensure that California does the right thing and saves this project.

Note: For a full explanation of the California high speed rail plan, see my diary from last week

Is Democratic Pressure Bringing Arnold Around?

As of a few weeks ago it looked like Arnold was trying to kill the project outright. The CHSRA (California High Speed Rail Authority) plan was originally slated to go before voters in November 2004. That was postponed to November 2006 and again to November 2008. In Arnold’s initial budget proposal he suggested postponing the vote indefinitely and slashing CHSRA’s budget to a mere $1 million, barely enough to keep the office open.

Since news of this got a wider hearing, there has been a significant amount of pushback, especially from Democrats. The California Democratic Party, at its annual convention in San Diego two weekends ago, passed a resolution strongly supportive of the plan. Activists from around the state began calling their legislators and rallying support for the project.

Now it appears Arnold has budged – to some degree on this all-important project. In a letter to the Fresno Bee last Friday, Arnold announced that “the state must build high speed rail”:

But let me be clear: I strongly support high-speed rail for California, and especially for the San Joaquin Valley. Increasing the Valley’s transportation options, especially after voters passed Proposition 1B to repair Highway 99, would better serve the region’s growing population and enhance the Valley’s critical importance to our state’s economy.

The promise of high-speed rail is incredible. Looking forward to the kind of California we want to build 20 and 30 years from now, a network of ultra-fast rail lines whisking people from one end of the state to the other is a viable and important transportation alternative and would be a great benefit to us all.

On the surface this sounds great. Clearly Arnold understands that this project – the most important project proposed for  California in the last 45 years – cannot be allowed to die. And that is a major victory for our side.

However, careful parsing of his letter indicates how much work we have left to do to truly save this project, and just how little faith we can have in Arnold’s apparent “support” at this time.

The Outstanding Issues: Funding

The bulk of Arnold’s letter to the Bee is a claim that the CHSRA does not have adequate funding identified. The proposal that will go before voters in November 2008 will provide $10 billion in bonds, out of a projected $40 billion cost. Arnold’s letter asks where the rest of this money will come from.

The CHSRA has always maintained that the $10 billion is necessary seed money to convince the federal government and private investors that they can invest in the project and provide for the remaining costs.

Steven T. Jones, a reporter for the truly excellent San Francisco Bay Guardian, notes that these claims are not totally correct, and that major bond houses like Lehman Bros believe that state seed money – in this case, $10 billion – WILL bring in private capital and convince the bond market that the project is worthy of their support.

Arnold’s letter to the Bee makes the CHSRA plan sound like another flawed and unfunded government project and posits a false “chicken and egg” problem. In fact this is by no means the case, as the necessary starting point – $10 billion in state bonds – has already been identified, and a whole lot of people, from venture capitalists to the aforementioned bond market are convinced this will break the logjam and produce the remaining $30 billion. In short, CHSRA has already identified where the remaining money will come from, although they understandably cannot get a firm commitment from the private sector until they get a firm commitment from the public sector.

Arnold’s Unspoken Caveats

As Steven T. Jones noted, Arnold’s administration has not answered this point, nor has it addressed the nonpartisan, no BS Legislative Analyst’s Office report that says there can be no more delays on the project – it is time to vote.

Instead the letter to the Bee suggests Arnold wants to do with high speed rail what he’s done with climate change – adopt a posture of support for action, but in practice do nothing that will actually produce action. Arnold claims to “propose additional funding” in his budget for CHSRA but this is unspecified and probably an effort to claim his paltry $1 million proposal for the 2007-08 budget as “additional funding.” Nor does he commit to a 2008 vote, which everyone else involved agrees is key to the success of the high speed rail project. Reading Arnold’s letter carefully, one finds he talks a big game, but does not actually provide any firm assurances that high speed rail will go ahead. Instead he seems to want “more study,” which as anyone with knowledge of politics knows, is pretty much a statement of nonsupport.

What might be at the root of Arnold’s opposition? Last week I speculated that his millions in campaign contributions from oil companies might have something to do with it. Surely that plays a role. But as Steven T. Jones notes, it is also partly because wants to use the state’s bond capacity for other things – like more prisons, more dams, more freeways. In other words, things the state needs less of, instead of high speed rail, a transformative project that will add much more to the state’s economy and long-term needs than a prison or a dam or a freeway.

How YOU Can Help Save High Speed Rail

As I said at the beginning, there is a all-important hearing in Sacramento this week regarding the project. A State Senate Budget Subcommittee will meet to determine the fate of CHSRA funding – whether Arnold’s paltry $1 million sum will stand, or whether the full funding needs of $130 million to keep the CHSRA alive will be provided. The Bay Rail Alliance has provided the crucial contact information:

Senate Budget Subcommittee 4 hearing
Thursday, May 10
@ 10 AM or upon adjournment of the previous session,
Room 112, State Capitol
item 2665, the High Speed Rail Authority’s budget

Members of Senate Budget Sub 4 Committee

1) Senator Michael Machado (Chair)
Senate District 5 – Tracy, Manteca and Stockton in San Joaquin County; Suisun City, Fairfield, Dixon and Vacaville in Solano County; Davis, West Sacramento, Winters and Woodland in Yolo County; as well as Walnut Grove and a portion of Elk Grove in Sacramento County.

Phone:  (916) 651-4005
Fax:  (916) 323-2304

State Capitol, Room 5066
Sacramento,  CA  95814

2) Senator Robert Dutton (Republican)
Senate District 31 – southwestern portion of San Bernardino County and the northwestern portion of Riverside County: all of Big Bear, Grand Terrace, Highland, Loma Linda, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Upland, Yucaipa, Yucca Valley, Crestline, Lake Arrowhead, Mentone, Running Springs, An Antonio Heights and portions of San Bernardino and Colton; all of Riverside, Glen Avon, Highgrove, Mira Loma, Pedley, Rubidoux, Sunnyslope and all but a small portion of Woodcrest.

State Capitol, Room 5094
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4031
Fax: (916) 327-2272

3) Senator Christine Kehoe – Democrat from San Diego
Phone:  (916) 651-4039
Fax:  (916) 327-2188  State Capitol, Room 4038  Sacramento,  CA  95814

Location:
State Capitol building, room 112, Sacramento

If you live in these districts, by all means, CALL! Even if you don’t there may well be value in calling them to let them know of your strong support for high speed rail. Of course, if you can attend the hearing, by all means do so. I wish I could be there, but unfortunately I cannot.

Some overviews of why high speed rail is a good and necessary project can be found:

– In my comprehensive CA High Speed Rail diary from last week
– An excellent letter from the Bay Rail Alliance

There may also be value in contacting Arnold’s office, to explain how valuable the project will be in terms of transportation alternatives, traffic relief, sustainable development, reducing pollution, slowing global warming, and providing jobs. To contact the governator:

Main contact page E-mail link

Call him! (916) 445-2841

Write him a letter! Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

More contact info for important state legislators can be found in my original CHSRA diary.

Help us save high speed rail in California!

The strike has been blocked. For now, at least, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus drivers will NOT be allowed to walk off the job and begin striking over their labor dispute. So why has the strike been blocked? Arnold went to court. (From OC Register)

They determined that a bus strike would cripple the county’s transit system and disrupt the lives of thousands of residents.

In addition to affecting more than 200,000 daily bus passengers, a strike would have adverse economic impacts on businesses, with a potential loss of $800,000 in sales per day.

The findings of a state-appointed ad-hoc panel were sent to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who in turn asked state lawyers to seek an injunction to prevent a strike from happening Monday.

“He sees this labor dispute as a safety issue for the county,” said aide Sabrina Demayo Lockhart, a spokeswoman for the governor’s office. “We think this next step will help.”

So what happens next? Follow me after the flip for more…

So why can’t the OCTA drivers strike? The court agreed with the finding of the ad-hoc panel appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger that too many Orange County residents would lose their mobility.

A walkout would “significantly impair the health, safety and welfare ability of a sizeable portion of Orange County residents,” according to the report.

The board was appointed last week to gather information about the dispute between bus drivers and their employer, the Orange County Transportation Authority.

An Orange County Superior Court judge agreed with the board’s findings Monday and ordered a 60-day cooling-off period that bars 1,100 bus drivers from walking off of the job and potentially leaving thousands of bus riders stranded.

And what does this mean for the workers? How are they feeling about this? And is there room for an agreement between the bus drivers and OCTA that can potentially avoid any strike altogether? Apparently, $2.8 million can make a big difference.

Currently, OCTA bus drivers earn hourly wages of between $13.72 and $21.42. Currently, OCTA and the union are about $2.8 million away from reaching an agreement.

OCTA officials say the wage increase is based on economic projections prepared by Chapman University. Union leaders argue that Chapman’s projections were off three years ago during a previous contract negotiation, and were inaccurate during recent negotiations.

Patrick D. Kelly, principal officer of union Teamster Local 952, said union members will spread their message to the public and bus riders to drum up support.

In terms of negotiations, Kelly said the union cannot ask for less than the $210 million, three-year contract it requested. The OCTA has offered the union a $207 million contract, about a 13.3 percent increase in wages and benefits.

“I don’t think there’s much room for us to make a lot of movement,” Kelly said. “[The OCTA]hasn’t moved one iota in the last couple of months. … It might get to be a hot summer.”

Now that the court has ordered more time for negotiations, let’s hope that OCTA can reach an agreement with its workers. The economic well-being of these workers is at stake. If Chapman’s economic projections really are off, then OCTA needs to bridge the $2.8 million gap and pay the workers what they need to make ends meet.

Oh yes, and this is not just about the well-being of the bus drivers. This is about the economic well-being of the entire county. If OCTA cannot reach an agreement with the drivers, and if the drivers have no option left but to strike, then there will be way too many thousands of people who would suddenly be immobilized. They wouldn’t be able to go to work, or go to school, or go to the grocery store, or really go anywhere. We can’t let that happen.

Let’s hope OCTA uses this opportunity to make a deal with the bus drivers that all sides can agree to, because no one can afford to just not get around.

Maybe this is why we have a Computers and Internet Caucus, from the comments:

I keep reading this Net Neutrality pablum with absolutely NO DISCUSSION about what the heck it is.  Sounds soooo easy to support right ?  Like Bush’s Clean Skies Initiative or his Healthy Forests plan, why don’t some of you stop complaining and start explaining ?  I’m on the Labor Caucus and I’m gonna believe my brothers & sisters at CWA unless you start the education process.

OK, after the flip, because the CDP would look awful for siding with the wrong side in the labor split over the issue.

First, what is Net Neutrality:

Network Neutrality – or “Net Neutrality” for short – is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.

Put simply, Net Neutrality means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination.

Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It protects the consumer’s right to use any equipment, content, application or service on a non-discriminatory basis without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network’s only job is to move data – not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.

While the new AT&T honcho has vowed to control all video on the AT&T/SBC/PacBell network, right now you can still see user produced video, here’s my favorite on Net Neutrality:

And here’s Amanda:

And here’s a video AT&T only want it’s customers to see if Senator Byron Dorgan cut a deal with them:

Senator Kennedy has some thoughts too:

And Moby:

Hell, even ninjas are talking about the issue:

Because of a free internet, these videos on a policy issue have been viewed more than 2 million times. Democrats dominate online because it is a level playing field, this is critical for the future of the Party.

It’s also Blue and Orange.

In an editorial today, The San Diego Union Tribune takes issue with John Edwards for being willing to consider an “excess-profits, excess-income tax.”  The editorial complains of Edwards “hawking class warfare” and complains that a rich person has no business being concerned about class issues.  In closing, it does us all the service of “call[ing] this toxic idea by its proper name. It’s a tax on performance. It’s a way to punish the high-achievers in our economy in the hopes that we might be able to discourage them from trying so hard and achieving so much.”

I’ll refute this nonsense on the flip, but first the kicker:

The good news is that at least one of Edwards’ competitors, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, had the good sense to shoot down the idea, promote himself as a taxpayer, and chide Democrats for proposing taxes as the solution to every societal problem – and non-problem.

Let’s clear out the low-hanging fruit right out of the gate.  This narrative of the self-loathing rich man who hates success is absurd.  It sets up John Edwards as ineligible to be concerned about the poor because he isn’t poor, noting his large house and his haircuts (we of course don’t have actual policy to discuss, natch).  Continuing to channel some bizarro, bastardized spirit of Horatio Alger, the UT suggests that, since increased taxes on increased success is a stand against ambition, taxes are inherently some sort of penalty for success.  One wonders whether the opposite is true, and the editorial page would drool over a proposal to impose an extra tax on poor people for not trying hard enough to be rich and successful.  Hey, if Carnegie can make it, then why can’t you (Except for that philanthropy part. Social responsibility is for Stalinists)?  Don’t tread on my bootstraps John; I need to lift myself up by them or else.

What’s particularly distressing here though is that the editorial can get away with all this crap without even once referring to any Republican politician, idea, proposal, or existing policy.  Why? Because Bill Richardson provides all the cover needed to paint John Edwards as some sort of nefarious enemy of the American Dream.

In short, Bill Richardson is killin us on taxes.  It would be one thing if Bill Richardson simply had a different outlook on how to spur economic growth.  We could talk about that.  But he’s painting the rest of the Democratic field as traditional tax and spend liberals and, in the process, serving up ammunition on a silver platter for Republicans who have absolutely no other substance to bring to the debate.  This has been a particularly frustrating burr in the sides of bloggers for a while now, and here’s still more evidence of the damage done by the perpetuation of these right-wing talking points.  Letting the right jump up and down screaming “See! Even other Democrats know Democrats are wrong!” is anathema to party building and every aspect of progress that the Democratic Party has been pursuing over the past several years.  And so Bill Richardson, please, take a few notes to heart.

First, particularly for California Democrats, you do NOT want to do the opposition work on behalf of Republicans.  We’ve been through this, and all it got us was four more years of Schwarzenegger.  Do you want to be a part of that? No, you do not.

Second, tax-and-spend is a Republican talking point that is ridiculous on its face and shouldn’t be a part of your world for two broad reasons: One, the Republican alternative, which you’re giving credence to, is spend without taxing and that’s bad.  Two, you are going to spend the taxes you collect, so you tax and spend as well.  To suggest this is bad, well…convince me why I want to pay taxes that do nothing and we can talk.

Third, this is a party-and-infrastructure election.  You’re going to be talking about Iraq and alternative energy and universal health care and immigration, but all of these issues have to be addressed through the prism of engaging people in politics.  The people you’re talking to about these issues are people who are extra-ordinarily excited about politics right now and we want to keep them involved.  Ripping down your fellow Democrats does not accomplish this and leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many who are trying to do something lasting in and with this party.

By all means, compete in the primary and make your case for being the best Democrat in the field.  Talk about how you have a different view when it comes to how best to inspire economic growth that suits the 21st century.  But for the love of all things good in the world, do not do it by saying of your fellow Democratic candidates “See? The Republicans were right about you.”  If you do this, you will lose.  And I can pretty much guarantee that I’m right about that.

My question to John Edwards at the state convention in San Diego has the right-wing press all agitated. Check this out.