Today’s roundup is on the flip. I’m busy today, and there’s not all that many entries, so you’re getting them in no particular order and without headings.

As always, use the comments to let me know what I missed.

• SFist: Bring Out Your Trash, Alameda
  http://sfist.com/2007/07/17/bring_out_your.php
• The Liberal OC » In God They Trust
  http://www.theliberaloc.com/2007/07/17/in-god-they-trust/
• Cannonfire: More on Duke Cunningham
  http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2007/07/cunningham-again.html
• The People’s Vanguard of Davis: Hard Work Behind the Scenes
  by Heystek and Provenza Helped Save the Pass-Through Agreement
  http://davisvanguard.blogspot.com/2007/07/hard-work-behind-scenes-by-heystek-and.html
• Politics in the Zeros » Homebuilder CEO says
  subprime regulation needed
  http://polizeros.com/2007/07/18/homebuilder-ceo-says-subprime-regulation-needed/
• California Progress Report: Schwarzenegger Nominee to Head
  California Air Board Pledges to Faithfully Implement AB 32,
  California’s Global Warming Law
  http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/07/schwarzenegger_49.html
• Working Californians: GOP: How About We Cut School
  Funding 
  http://workingcalifornians.com/blog/julia_rosen/2007/07/18/gop_how_about_we_cut_school_funding
• The Liberal OC » The Republican War on Education
  http://www.theliberaloc.com/2007/07/18/the-republican-war-on-education/
• The California Majority Report // Right-Wing Anti-Term
  Limits Reformers Get Caught in Their Own Spin
  http://www.camajorityreport.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&ptid=9&aid=2078
• California Progress Report: No Vote on the California State
  Budget, But Some Interesting Developments
  http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/07/no_vote_on_the.html

Let’s face it.  This blog – and to an extent, politics in this state in general – is heavily tilted to the large population centers in the Bay Area and Southern California (including Orange County and down to San Diego).  But to continue in this fashion would be shortsighted, because it’s clear that the population patterns are moving away from two all-powerful hubs and toward a more widely spread pattern.  What has been getting most of the ink from the recent study by the state Department of Finance is that the Inland Empire will soon become home to the second-largest county (Riverside) in all of California.  But what has been less remarked upon is the expansion of the Central Valley:

With a new state forecast predicting that California’s population growth will tilt ever more toward the Central Valley, Southern California’s Inland Empire and fast-growing areas around Sacramento, experts say the state’s political center of gravity may shift, too – away from the more urbanized, coastal metropolitan areas that dominate the state’s political and economic life today.

The Central Valley “will clearly gain heft compared with the other metropolitan regions,” said Carol Whiteside, president of the Great Valley Center and the former mayor of Modesto. “It won’t be the baby cousin any more.”

The Central Valley will grow from 10 percent of the state’s population in 2000, to 16 percent of all Californians by 2050. The Bay Area is projected to gain about 3.5 million new residents by 2050, but its share of California’s population will drop to 17 percent, from 20 percent in 2000, an analysis of new state Department of Finance projections shows.

This is something important for political groups to internalize.  The traditional structure of Democratic election efforts has been to raise turnout in LA and SF, and hope to do half-decent everywhere else, and walk away a winner.  That’s not going to work as we go forward.  With 1 in 6 Californians living in places like Modesto and Fresno and Stockton and Bakersfield and Merced and the numerous towns throughout the San Joaquin Valley, Democrats must build and grow their presence outside of the urban metropolises, to a level where they were in the recent past before giving up practically all of that ground to the Republicans.

Some stats on the flip:

Here’s the spread of population in 2000:

Coastal Southern California: 47%
Bay Area: 20%
Central Valley: 10%
Inland Empire: 10%
Other (High Desert, Sierras): 13%

Here’s the projections for 2050:

Coastal Southern California: 39%
Bay Area: 17%
Central Valley: 16%
Inland Empire: 14% (3x the size in 50 years!)
Other (High Desert, Sierras): 14%

The “big 2” go from 67% of the population to 56%.  That’s significant in a statewide election.  It will also likely affect reapportionment, with the Bay Area potentially losing seats in Congress or the state legislature as early as the 2010 Census.

We have to start thinking about this and planning now.  What are the concerns of the Central Valley?  Obviously agriculture and water concerns would weigh heavily, one would think, but the Valley is also urbanizing and developing rapidly.  These aren’t all cow towns anymore; there are at least 5 cities with over 100,000 inhabitants.  The San Joaquin Valley is also the primary oil-producing region in our state.  Culturally this is likely to be a more classically Western libertarian area.

We have a 3-2 deficit among the Congressional delegation in this area.  Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa are Democrats, and George Radanovich, Kevin McCarthy and Devin Nunes are Republicans.  By 2050 there could be up to 10 seats in this region.  Are Cardoza and Costa helping grow the Democratic brand in the Central Valley?  Are they promoting policies that can help Democrats win?  This is a diverse area as well, with not just Hispanics but lots of Asian and European communities.  How are they being served?

I hope people are asking these questions.  The Central Valley could hold the key to continued Democratic dominance in California.

UPDATE: Here’s an example of a Central Valley issue that simply doesn’t get a lot of attention.  From our friends at the California Teachers Association:

The California Teachers Association is part of a coalition of education groups fighting Assembly Bill 1403 that is winding its way through the legislature. The bill would disrupt implementation of a new law helping schools of greatest need in the Central Valley and take control away from local school boards to help improve student learning in their districts. 

AB 1403 by Assemblyman Juan Arambula, D-Fresno, gives the Fresno and Tulare county superintendents authority over local schools and districts that do not meet the state Academic Performance Index (API) or the federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements.  Currently the local school boards, State Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Board of Education have these powers. The bill also disrupts new efforts already under way to help 39 schools of greatest need in these counties as part of the Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA). QEIA, sponsored last year by CTA, provides $2.9 billion over seven years to help hundreds of schools across the state with proven intervention reforms such as reducing class sizes, hiring more counselors and providing quality training for teachers and principals.

This is kind of Antonio Villaraigosa’s school takeover effort, ported into the Central Valley.  I would think that Democrats could earn a lot of goodwill among the grassroots in Fresno and Tulare by scuttling this effort to centralize control in the county superintendents.  Maybe a Central Valley reader could give their impression of this issue; to me it seems like a no-brainer to let the schools determine what’s best for their schools and their students.

Brian has a post on the latest budget news below.  I have coverage of this move over at Working Californians, but want to delve more into the politics of what is going on here.

I admit it, the factors at play in the budget battle are fascinating to me.  They tell the story of the state of the California legislature so well and it’s relationship with the governor.  Plus, the dysfunctional rules that the legislature operates under.

There are three sides in this fight. First you have the governor, who is more wrapped up in his public image and travels than actually governing.  However, it’s not like he is that relevant.  His working relationship with the Republicans has so soured that he cannot, through the sheer force of personality, peel enough of them off to pass a budget.

Last year it was different.  The governor managed to convince the Republicans (the second side) to play ball, in part because he needed a well oiled legislature and the appearance of bi-partisanship to smooth his path to election.  So, while many principled Republicans objected to the budget, the Republican leadership cleared the way for the budget’s passage, bringing along the right number of votes.  This lead directly to the installation of new Republican leaders, ones who vowed that they would not cow to Arnold’s demands.  They were elected to their positions with the express purpose to ensure that the Republicans in the legislature were not irrelevant.  They practically promised that the budget would be much more difficult to pass this year. 

It has been, but that is due in part to slightly weakened finances.  There just is not as much money as there was last year.  Thus the fight.  The actual places where the government can make cuts is severely limited, because of predetermined funding paths for many programs.  These formulas guarantee funding, but it also increases the pressure on the programs not subject to these rules in a time of budgetary pressure.

Now, Arnold is fairly absent, in part because his presence really would not do much good.  He has little leverage over the Republicans.  Arnold does not want to relive the 2005 Special election.  He avoided cutting funds for education and public safety, because he knew that that old battle would get waged again.  He already lost it once and probably would end up with the same result.  Plus, he is trying to work with those groups in a consensus manner, not a big public dispute.  Instead of cutting their funding, he decided to go after the poor, elderly and children.  That is a new fight, if an unpopular one.

The Democrats (in the third and final side) have the upper-hand here, but the limitations of the state constitution mean that they cannot dictate the entire budget.  They need two Republican Senators and six Assemblymembers to vote for the budget.  Unlike just about every other state in the nation, our budget must be passed with a 2/3rds majority.  This is one of the few times when they do need to strike a deal with the Republicans. 

However, they do have the advantage of having the public support for funding schools, the poor, those on welfare, children and public service.  The scope of the problem is simply not big enough to be able to justify the cuts.  The two sides are only about $2 billion apart.  It is very hard for the Republicans to credibly argue to the public that our state’s finances are so bad that they need to cut these beloved programs.

This dynamic set up the current Democratic strategy.  The leadership is continuing to negotiate in private, but they are taking very public actions to try and increase the pressure on the Republicans to cave.  They started a fairly low level push to try and get the Republicans to actually submit programs to cut.  The blogs were used to push that message and get the reporters to start asking questions.  At the same time Nunez scheduled a vote on the budget to show the public that it was not the Democrats who were holding up the process.  Even if it never occurred, it got the message out there.  Meanwhile, the Republicans finally laid out their cuts, but in secret.  That was then mocked, creating the impression that they were scared to expose them in public.  This started a narrative about them, before we knew what they actually were. 

Then came today’s news about education cuts.  The Democratic leaders went to what is arguably the most powerful coalition of issue based groups to inform them about the Republican’s plans.  They could have exposed other proposed cuts to a different set of groups, but I suspect the cuts were not as large, nor those groups as effective at mobilization than the education community.  They can now continue this tact with every single interest group community effected by the proposed cuts.  The groups put outside pressure on the negotiations and drive news coverage of the stalemate.  The effectiveness of this strategy rests on the knowledge that the public supports the Democrats on the issues.  Absent that and there is no point in raising the profile of the fight and driving down the legislature’s approval ratings due to the acrimony.  The lessons of 2005 are still out there.

(Woo-hoo! A REAL netroots candidate in Orange County! What more could I possibly ask for? Oh yes, and you can also enjoy this at Daily Kos and The Liberal OC! ; ) – promoted by atdleft)

(photo from Wikipedia)
I posted this over at dKos but really wanted to put it here because it’s such an important site in California netroots.

Caution is preferable to rash bravery – Sir John Falstaff, King Henry the Fourth, Part I

Falstaff may be beloved, but he was not who you wanted leading you into battle.  Political challengers today need to be brave, brash, maybe even a little rash.

In World War II, when the gates came down in LCVPs (Landing Craft, Vehicle, Personnel), exposing the marines and soldiers inside to uncounted barrages of fire, they didn’t sit around discussing whether it was prudent to charge ahead with the goal of defeating a formidable enemy.  No one had to order them to go to give their lives; they just did it.  They had a world to save and they gave their lives for a cause they believed in.

Today, those of us who would defend the Constitution have a new fight.  Today, as a Democrat, a veteran, and a longtime member of this community, I’m marching off to that fight.

I’m running for Congress.

My campaign manager, Major Danby says that he likes this photo of me that he took at the Huntington Beach Fourth of July Parade, where I marched with the Democratic Party of Orange County, and that it has to appear near the top of the diary so people know who’s talking to them.  Here you go.
 

Now let’s talk about my campaign.

I’m running because Congress has let the President stomp on the Constitution, balloon the deficit, and get us stuck in a misbegotten war.  Gary Miller seems to see his position in Congress mostly as a way to make money for his friends.  I swore an oath to defend the Constitution when I was in the Air Force during Viet Nam (1966-1970), and that’s why I’m going to run.  I’m going to swear another oath to defend the Constitution as a Congressman. I didn’t see combat then but that doesn’t stop me from fighting now and when I get to Congress.

No one has elected me to “represent the netroots” in a run for Congress, but I think my opinions on issues reflect those of the broad community.  I want us out of Iraq and back to making the alliances with other countries that we /need/ to fight terrorism.  I want single-payer health insurance that is available to all.  I want a government that respects scientific facts – in global warming and otherwise – rather than fantasies that give them some political advantage – in making policy decisions.  But if there is one issue that motivates me above all others, it’s this:

*I want to defend the Constitution and the rule of law – while we can.*

There are forces in and out of our elected government who think that they have the right to ignore our laws and the fundamental basis for American values.  We see it with signing statements, defying subpoenas, ignoring constitutional amendments, evading Congressional oversight, and flouting federal law.  While this President and Vice-President have stomped on the Constitution, my opponent, Gary Miller, has held their coats.

I’ve been around for a long time and I have never before seen such a concerted effort on the part of a political party to subvert our precious and beloved form of government.  Not even Nixon.  At least Nixon had the honor to leave after even Republicans told him that it was that or be impeached and removed from office.  As I’ve written here, in effect Bush and his associates have been instituting something like a slow coup against our very system of government.  Their monarchical vision of our government is not how our system is supposed to work; we must restore our system to its proper form.

Democrats have control of the House – and control of the Senate when Joe Lieberman is thinking straight – which gives them a lot of power. It’s not total power, but it’s more than they use. Our party has the power to inform and rally and lead Americans. But too many members of our party convince themselves that it’s best to play it safe and wait until 2008, when they hope that things will all get better.

I think that’s wrong.  I think that we need to take the fight to the enemies of our Constitution.

Think back again to the Marines and Army storming the beaches of Normandy.  Imagine where we’d be if they stayed in their LSIs and waited for the enemy to leave!  It’s time that we metaphorically storm the beaches of government and take our country back from the enemy who would destroy it for their own purposes. 

If we storm all fronts, from the Water Board to every single Congressional District, we will overwhelm the enemies of the rule of law.  We will make America a better place and restore our values, honor and dignity in the world – and thus our public safety as well.

I want to be part of the second landing wave. The first wave consisted of Jon Tester and Jim Webb, of John Hall, Paul Hodes, Nancy Boyda, Jeremy Kalin, California’s own Jerry McNerney and others who were encouraged – some say in part put into office – by the blogosphere.  It consisted too of people like Brian Keeler who fired a shot across the bow of those who cling to power without serving the public good.  We were part of the solution in 2006.  I believe that we’re helping to foster a fundamental change in America.

I’ve been part of this community for 2-1/2 years.  I’m not a candidate coming /to/ the netroots for support; I’m a candidate coming /from/ the netroots.  I believe that I’m the first “homegrown” netroots candidate to run a viable campaign for the United States Congress.  I won’t be the last.

This is not a vanity or protest campaign. California’s 42^nd district is Republican-dominated, but increasingly independent – which means that it’s full of people who think like Democrats whom we have to convince to /vote/ the way they /think/.  It’s a district I can win.  The local party establishment supports me.  My opponent, Gary Miller, has been swimming so long in the ethical cesspool of Congressional privilege that he’s grown gills.  He’s vulnerable – but no one was on the ballot against him in 2006.  No local elected politician in the district – which has too few elected Democrats – is running against him next year.  So I’ve rashly stepped up and strapped up; now I’m going to show up and make people sit up and pay attention.

Part of why my campaign will be noticed – one reason that it has captured the interest of people /outside/ of the blogosphere – is that I am from the netroots and they’ve seen what it can accomplish.  Among the netroots who have been part of an incredible brain trust so far are thereisnospoon, Hekebolos, occams hatchet, clammyc, OrangeClouds115, atdnext, Shockwave, dday, vernonlee, theKK and the many others who’ve been part of this by means of offering their support and good wishes and still keeping it a “secret”. Major Danby will be managing my campaign full-time.  You probably recognize some of those names.  You’ll be reading a lot of diaries about the campaign from them in the days to come.

My aim in this campaign is to bring the netroots to the many wonderful people I’ve been meeting in the grassroots, and to bring back here some of what they have to offer.  With the spirit and broad expertise of the netroots and the local knowledge and drive of the grassroots, I think we can create something different and new.

I will come here looking for money like other candidates do; for the netroots to come out strongly for my campaign will get attention throughout the political world.  But today, having just announced, is not the day for a hard sell.  I’ll just say this: if you’d like to be among the first to contribute to my campaign, please go to my ActBlue page.  The amount of money that people donate, and the number of people donating, will for better or worse dictate much of the reaction that the world beyond the netroots will have towards my campaign.  To show them that we have a chance, we need to show them that we have a base.

This is not just about one candidate or one campaign, but about building a movement.  It’s about the netroots making connections with the grassroots, and with the voting public. The future of our movement is everywhere in the country, in whatever races we choose to focus our efforts.  It’s about re-establishing the rule of law.  It’s about defending America and American ideals. Are we ready to do that together?

As part of a quest to communicate with a greater population in the state, we’re looking for contributors who can write in Spanish.  As I was telling jsw yesterday, sure, I can understand Spanish and communicate a bit, but I don’t really feel comfortable writing about politics in Spanish. But, I’m hoping that somebody out there does.  So, if you are interested in writing for Calitics en español, please let me know.

Also, if any politicians release bilingual statements, send those my way as well. I can usually hack my way through those. I’m afraid I won’t be able to do much with other languages. And, of course, diaries by elected officials, in any language, are much appreciated around here. I don’t actually know how SoapBlox would deal with Asian languages, however.

Apparently the Republicans have a GREAT idea to cut the budget deficits. See, there’s a lot of money in them there schools, and really, we don’t need them, right? Right? I mean, slashing the schools would work great with W’s plan to use No Child Left (Behind) to privatize public schooling. So, we place unrealistic demands and then take away all their money.  Seems like a two-fer.  So, ssh, here’s the plan:

Republican legislative leaders, vowing to block passage of a state budget until Democrats agree to more spending cuts, have proposed in secret talks to slash $400 million from schools, according to education groups that were briefed on the negotiations Tuesday.

School officials say they were shocked to learn of the proposal at a briefing on the state budget impasse — now in its third week — by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland).

The officials said they were told that, under the GOP plan, the money would be cut out of cost-of-living adjustments for salaries and other expenses and funding for the growth of student populations. The cuts would apply to schools with kindergarten through high school classes and to community colleges. (LAT 7/18/07)

I’m hearing that Arnold doesn’t want to get anywhere near cutting into Prop 98 education funds, given the problems that got him in 2005 and the fact that he lost a lawsuit to the CTA. So, I’m not sure how this is going to work given the fact that Arnold seems a lot closer to the Dems than his fellow Republicans at this point.  Well, let me rephrase that, I think Arnold would go along with pretty much any compromise that could emerge from the Legislature.

But, Arnold does love him some privatizing, but I really doubt that schools would really be his target. But, the GOP, man, they never give up with this crap, do they?

One of the few constants in California history is fighting about water. And in this, the worst drought since recordkeeping began in the 1880s, the fight is shaping up to be a big one. On Tuesday Arnold went to San Luis Reservoir and announced plans for a $6 billion water bond for the November 2008 election. It is based on building 2 new dams in the Sierra and reviving the old Peripheral Canal, one of the most contentious infrastructure projects in our state’s history, going down to defeat in the 1982 election.

Dems have blocked his bill so far, and Don Perata has offered a $5 billion bond plan that steers clear of either new dams or a Peripheral Canal. But Arnold’s interest in new water storage is clear, and so it is worth examining for a moment exactly why this is not the best way to respond to a drought, to climate change.

Over the last 30 years California has repeatedly experienced drought conditions. The longest was the 1986-93 drought, which any of us who lived here or grew up then remember clearly, from dead lawns and 3-minute showers; one of the worst was in 1976-77, when Marin County had to run a hose across the Richmond Bridge to get water from East Bay MUD and SoCal pools went dry, to the delight of skateboarders.

But these are a drop in the bucket compared to megadroughts that hit this state several centuries ago. As Mike Davis recounts in his crucial environmental history of Southern California, Ecology of Fear, researchers have discovered a 200-year period of drought hit the state around the 1200s, and suspect many more exist in the historical climate record. (This is the same drought believed to have forced the dispersal of the Anasazi culture in Arizona.)

Climate change in California is expected to produce a hotter and drier climate, with a reduced snowpack. Precipitation in the Sierra is expected to fall as rain more often than snow, forcing significant shifts in how water is stored.

But the problem isn’t just that the Sierra will see less snow and more rain, but that it will see less water, period. And the problem isn’t limited to the Sierra – as anyone who’s been to the Southwest recently knows, the whole region is suffering from reduced rainfall. Some experts suggest we may be on the verge of a 90 year drought in the US Southwest, and that Lakes Powell and Mead may never return to their previous levels.

Faced with the prospect of prolonged drought, it seems foolish for California to assume it can solve its problem merely through added storage – why build more storage for less rain?

Further, as Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, of Restore the Delta, notes at the California Progress Report, the dams and especially the Peripheral Canal will likely only cause further damage to the Delta, and Arnold’s water spending priorities do absolutely nothing to address the critical need to repair obsolete and vulnerable Delta levees.

No, the solution to our worsening water woes is not to assume that we can just add storage and continue our usual ways. As with energy consumption, reduction in demand – conservation – is THE vital piece of the puzzle.

Friends of the River, a statewide water advocacy group, points out that the state’s own water assessment plan shows that conservation can eliminate the “need” for these new dams.

Some might argue that Californians are too wedded to regular carwashes and hosing down their sidewalks and taking 20 minute showers to actually reduce their water usage. But this is not so. Here in Monterey County we have successfully met water conservation goals. Californians rose to the occasion during the drought of the late ’80s and early ’90s, as they had during the ’76-’77 drought. Explain to Californians the truth of the matter, that we are facing reduced supply and may be facing it for some time to come, and they will act.

Right now California, like the rest of the country, stands at a tipping point. We now agree that climate change is real. We know it is happening and we have a pretty clear idea of what its consequences will be. And we know what we can do to help us survive it without catastrophic disruption. Californians have shown that they can conserve. Will Sacramento fully embrace that ethic, or will Arnold’s “party on, dudes” attitude prevail?

Copley News Service has gotten hold of Duke Cunningham’s (R-Tucson Federal Correctional Institution) jailhouse FBI interview (pdf) and let’s just say that Brent Wilkes is gonna have a rough go of things as a result of this:

“Cunningham said that there was never a sale,” said the FBI report. “Cunningham stated that he and Wilkes created the cover story of a boat sale to explain, if anyone ever found out and asked, his receipt of $100,000 from Wilkes.” Cunningham told investigators that Wilkes fully understood that there would be “no actual change in ownership” of the yacht. The two men agreed to divide the $100,000 into two checks because both “felt that the smaller checks might be less noticeable.”

The documents show that Cunningham had first asked Wilkes for $550,000.

“Wilkes said no to the $550,000 but then countered with an offer of $100,000 if Cunningham would ensure that the support and earmarks would continue to happen. Cunningham promised Wilkes that he would ‘fight like hell’ for Wilkes/ADCS.”

But it doesn’t end there.  The 11-page report details how Duke Cunningham put himself up for sale and loved the swanky lifestyle it afforded him.  His interview sheds more light on the illicit affairs of several of Duke’s other partners in crime, including Mitchell Wade of MZM (guilty plea, awaiting sentence) and launderer Thomas Kontogiannis (guilty plea recently released), neither of whom was gonna get off, but both of which will probably find the water a bit warmer as a result of Duke’s interview.  It’s almost enough to make you wish that San Diego had a tenacious US Attorney commited to rooting out corruption in government huh?  Small solace that it may be, it looks like the rocks tipped over by Carol Lam are still rolling downhill.

Copley’s done a great job of culling through the FBI report and the related Hattier affadavit (big pdf) to pull out the high points in a list at the end of this article, and I recommend you go through the whole list.  But I couldn’t resist pulling out a few of my favorites (all quoted):

– The Rolls Royce that drew so much attention early in the investigation was not the only car that Cunningham made the contractors buy for him. In only two days in early 2002, the congressman bought a $43,000 Thunderbird and a $41,000 BMW from Bob Baker Ford in San Diego with $63,000 of his payment coming from bribes. That was three months before Wade gave him $10,000 toward the used Rolls Royce.

– In mid-2004 when Cunningham needed to make repairs to his boat, he called Wade and demanded $6,500 cash. Wade took the money out of his petty cash, stuffed the cash into a bulging envelope and rushed it over to a Cunningham fundraiser at a Washington restaurant, giving it to a Cunningham staffer.

– Made Wilkes buy Cunningham’s daughter a computer when she went to college and then pay for its later repair.

– Made either Wilkes or Wade pay his way to the 2003 Super Bowl, Jimmy Buffet concerts in Chula Vista, and several Washington Wizards and Redskins games.

And in case anyone’s curious, FCI Tucson is hiring.