Next year, half of San Diego’s eight city council members will be termed out, leaving open seats across town after what has been a tumultuous several years of city government.  Bribery, pension crises, “strong mayor” government, death, shady fundraising, service cuts, union strife, budget shortfalls and oh yeah- a city to run.  As the city council and the mayor continue to battle over just how much power a “strong mayor” should have, the shape of the city council is about to change in a major way.  The ramifications could dictate the fundamental course of San Diego government for quite some time.

Mayor Sanders was elected into office on a platform which called for much more power to be given to the mayor and, by extention, removed from the city council.  In the wake of the City Council missing the pension crisis and the resignations of Acting Mayor Michael Zucchet and Councilman Ralph Inzunza because of federal corruption charges, this was perhaps a natural reaction the failures of the City Council.  But in a micro version of the Bush power grab, Mayor Sanders has done everything he can to give himself complete control over the city’s budget and operation.

The city council, until recently, has been generally willing to acquiesce on these power grabs, but has begun to show some life recently.  It’s fought back over pay raises for police and fire personnel and on cuts to civic services.  It’s a toe in the water, and hopefully the beginning of better progress.  So why is this important?  Well, San Diego is the second-largest city in California, and it’s on the verge of becoming effectively autocratic.  With half the city council coming open, this is the opportunity for San Diego to decide what direction it will send its government.  For those of us who would like checks, balances, and some form of representative government, the stakes are high.  We need a city council that will keep the Mayor in control and a city council that will get San Diego on track (it is most certainly NOT currently on track).

Earlier this week, Voice of San Diego ran a great roundup of the candidates declared or mulling runs for city council districts 1 (Scott Peters), 3 (Toni Atkins), 5 (Brian Maienschein), and 7 (Jim Madaffer).  These races have already added more candidates since Monday, and the first candidate forums will be coming up later in the month.  I strongly encourage San Diegans to check the candidates and keep an eye on this.  The stakes are high and there’s tremendous opportunity to have an impact in this election for both sides.  Make sure good government wins out.

(Cross-posted at Ditch Crazy Dana)

There’s something wrong with the immigration bill in the US Senate. We already know that. But what’s the problem? Is it this? (From Daily Pilot)

“The president insists on defining amnesty in a way that is contrary to the way everybody else defines that word,” he said. “Every time he does, he loses credibility.”

Calling himself a strong supporter of Bush throughout his administration, Rohrabacher said that this time he was personally offended by Bush’s suggestions that the bill was good for America. He repeatedly referred to it as the “Bush-Kennedy” bill, linking Bush to Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy, and he blamed the bill on an “unholy coalition between the big-business element of the Republican Party and the liberal left.”

Amnesty? “Bush-Kennedy”? Huh? Maybe Dana Rohrabacher is taking the right position on this bill, but he’s doing it for the completely wrong reason. So why is Dana wrong, even when he’s right? Follow me after the flip for more…

So why again does Dana Rohrabacher oppose this bill? Oh yes, that’s right…

The bill has no teeth in its enforcement provisions and would only embolden people to sneak across borders to get government benefits, Rohrabacher said.

“Wake up America,” he said. “Our country is being stolen from us. Our country is being invaded. The Senate legislation will only accelerate this invasion.”

Dana then went on to denounce the “Z-visa” provision in this bill, which would charge the undocumented immigrants already here $1,000 for some legal status. He called that “amnesty that would give millions of lawbreakers access to government programs like Social Security”, and he just had to condemn the “illegal immigrants cutting the line in front of legal immigrants”. And of course, he attacked a proposed guest worker program and a points system as this would give these workers a chance to come here legally.

And you know what? Crazy Dana’s actually doing the right thing in opposing this legislation. He’s just doing it for the wrong reason.

Dana doesn’t want to give these “lawbreakers” access to programs like Social Security, even once they become legal. But doesn’t this undermine the whole goal of comprehensive immigration reform? This would take away an incentive for people to come out of the shadows, and get back in line to come here legally. And wait, don’t they already pay into Social Security? Why can’t they receive the Social Security that they’ve already paid into, especially once they receive legal status?

And amnesty? How does this bill provide “amnesty”? Where is the “amnesty” in this bill? These immigrant workers would have to pay fines. They would have to be split from their families in many instances. They would have to leave after eight years to their nation of origin, and go through a long and complicated process to try to return. Now I understand that these people should have to go to back into line and pay some fine in order to earn legal status. However, do they really need to be kicked out after eight years? And how the heck is that even enforceable? And do they need to be split from their families, and from their communities? Is this really “amnesty”?

Now Dana’s right about the guest worker program being a raw deal. Remember what I said yesterday?

This bill would also create a new underclass of immigrant workers. Under the new guest worker program, immigrant workers can only stay here temporarily, and then just return home. Meanwhile under this new “merit based” system of immigration, people would be admitted into this nation based on how “economically valuable” they would be. This really only serves the American corporations that want continued cheap labor. Under the new law, they can get their “disposable labor force” that can be discarded and replaced every few years.

Now maybe a guest worker program would work. However, the NILC has it right when they say “that temporary workers who establish ties here must have a realistic path to permanent residence and true job portability that allows them to change employers freely if they are mistreated”. This proposed guest worker program in the bill does not have this, but only provides for a temporary labor force that American corporations can dispose of and replace at their will. Barbara Boxer was right when she said this would hurt American workers. But you know what? It would hurt these immigrant workers, too.

But anyways, back to Crazy Dana. He’s doing the right thing, but it’s really for the wrong reason. He’s opposing this sham that’s supposedly “comprehensive immigration reform”, but he’s opposing it because he wants a more cumbersome, punitive, and downright impractical like that disastrous HR 4437 that the US House passed in 2005. We don’t need that. We need comprehensive immigration reform. We just need comprehensive immigration reform that actually works for these immigrants, and works for American workers. It’s just too bad that Dana Rohrabacher isn’t interested in real reform that’s actually practical.

Just to keep things exciting, it’s local brew night at your friendly neighborhood Open Thread.  The Calitics Event Calendar has been stocked with all sorts of delicious June activities, including the roll out of multiple San Diego candidates for office.  CA-50 candidate Michael Wray will rock the Rancho North County Dem Club next week, and then be part of a candidate’s forum on the 21st with fellow candidates John Lee Evans and Nick Leibham.

Candidate for AD 78 Marty Block kicks off his campaign on the 18th.  $100 a pop unless you can sweet talk Francine Busby :).

San Diego’s 3rd city council district will be open next year.  Dem clubs will be gathering on the 28th for an endorsement forum.  The district already has a crackpot conservative running who’s running against “special interest gays and lesbians” in the district known for its large gay and lesbian population.  Why not right?

Anyways. We’ll ice the “All San Diego All the Time” open thread with some local tunes.  Because it’s an election special, and because I’m going to the Air Conditioned Lounge tonight and Wesley once had a regular DJ gig there (maybe still does?), San Diego superstars: Bloody Hollies – Satanic Satellite

“You better start running… running… running… RUNNING”

UPDATE: Yup, he’s still there.

The day after America’s nursing movement announced its plans to use the tragedy and horror of SiCKO to spur people to action, the attacks are already beginning.

Fortunately, for you, me, and most people the attacks are best described as unintentionally hilarious.  What moviemaker doesn’t want crazy anti-patient Web sites pumping our press releases about their product?

Cross-posted at the National Nurses Organizing Committee’s Breakroom Blog, as we organize to make 2007 the Year of GUARANTEED Healthcare–thanks to SiCKO.

You might have seen the plans: An unprecedented coalition of over a dozen activist nurse organizations will serve as the co-hosts of SiCKO, sponsoring screenings and premiers around the country, all of which will culminate on opening night, June 29th, when 3,000 RNs, doctors and other healthcare providers will fan out to every opening night around the country to talk with the audiences about how to transform their emotions into change.  Many of them will be in red scrubs–keep an eye out.  We have one goal: guaranteed healthcare now.

Well today we have this:

Robert Helms, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute told Cybercast News Service {said}…”what is sicko about both the California Nurses Association statement and the Michael Moore movie is the low level of understanding of our health care system that both reveal.

It is hilarious to me that the think tank who provided the intellectual architecture of a failed presidency would claim that nurses don’t understand the healthcare system.  I mean…it’s who nurses are.  Right?

Mr. Helms, however, seems a little shaky:

“Instead of destroying our system and copying the failed systems in Europe and Canada, we should attempt to reform both U.S. tax policy and Medicare and Medicaid payment policies so that consumers and providers have stronger incentives to compete on the basis of quality and cost effectiveness,”

So now he is bravely standing in opposition to nurses, Europe, Canada…the three horsepersons of the socialized medicine apocalypse.  For the record, Europe and Canada both have superior healthcare systems. 

I give Mr. Helms credit for understanding something: his corporate bosses have reason to be worried.  SiCKO will change everything.  The debate will become, “How are we going to deal with those out-of-control insurance companies?”  And of course, we will have energized nurses, doctors, healthcare activisits, and patients from around the country working to answer that question with guaranteed healthcare on the single-payer model….like in Canada, Europe, and the rest of the industrialized world.

Finally, the silly Cato Institute gets their chance to try to tee off and whack the nurses.  Michael Tanner swings and misses:

“The public is not going to see both sides of it when they see this movie, so I think it’s going to be effective from their point-of-view,” he told Cybercast News Service. “It’s designed to tug at the heart strings, not have a serious public policy debate.”

Tanner noted that we are likely to see other health care providers praising the movie.

“There is a great deal of interest in universal health insurance among some providers. It guarantees someone to provide their product,” said Tanner. “I’ve never known businesses yet that aren’t happy to have the government pay for what they sell.”

Those darn nurses again!  They’re out there working for more healthcare for people.  It’s a conspiracy!

Thanks for the pub guys.

And everyone else: go sign up to help on June 29th.  Be one of the red scrubs–whether you’re a nurse, doctor, patient, friend, family, or healthcare activist.  We need you to help capture this incredible historical moment and change healthcare history.  Details to come…

“This bill needs to be simplified, it needs to be clarified, it needs to be rectified before I can support it,” said [Senator Barbara] Boxer, D-Calif. “I don’t think the bill is workable. I think it hurts American workers. The amendment process didn’t make it any stronger for me.’

That was Senator Boxer quoted in today’s Orange County Register story about how the Immigration Reform Bill has now been stalled in the US Senate. This piece of legislation was supposed to attract bipartisan support. But now, it’s getting bipartisan criticism. And today, we saw a bipartisan rejection to moving this bill to a final vote. 

So why are some Democrats now opposing this bill? Why the sudden progressive opposition to this “comprehensive” bill? Maybe it’s because this bill is really only a “comprehensive solution” to a select few that seek to exploit many. And maybe it’s because immigrant families and communities would suffer as a result.

Follow me after the flip for more…

So what’s wrong with this legislation? Take a look at
what the National Immigration Law Center has to say. They’re not too impressed with this bill. And frankly, I’m not surprised.

While many of the Democrats behind this bill might have good intentions, this legislation itself has none of that. It would shift the entire immigration system from family based to “merit based”.

So what’s so bad about that, one might ask. Actually, there’s plenty. I live in a community that’s full of immigrant families here in Santa Ana. Under the proposed legislation, these families here in Central Orange County, and elsewhere, would be torn apart.

Current undocumented immigrants that receive the new “Z visas” can only stay for eight years, so long as they keep a job, and then they must return to their nation of origin to apply for reentry into the nation. What happens if these immigrants now have children here? What happens if they have become a part of the community? Should they be ripped away from their lives just to go through a reentry process? Not only does this sound inhumane, but it also sounds impractical.

But wait, it gets worse. This bill would also create a new underclass of immigrant workers. Under the new guest worker program, immigrant workers can only stay here temporarily, and then just return home. Meanwhile under this new “merit based” system of immigration, people would be admitted into this nation based on how “economically valuable” they would be. This really only serves the American corporations that want continued cheap labor. Under the new law, they can get their “disposable labor force” that can be discarded and replaced every few years.

  And yet, this bill would reduce the number of family members that can be admitted. This would create a permanent underclass in places like Santa Ana. They’d have no family, and no community. They’d have no ties to anyone.

That’s why this is so troubling.