Cross-posted here, here, and here.

BENAWU posted another of his great Congressional race tracker updates yesterday, announcing that 317 out of 435 House races have confirmed candidates (or presumed returning incumbents).  But despite this early success, in California there are only confirmed challengers for 10 out of 19 sitting Republicans.  Only Texas has more unfilled races right now, and it’s friggin Texas.  As BENAWU notes, all of these districts had challengers in 2006, so some level of infrastructure exists for a challenge.  Now many of these districts are going to be tough sledding for any Democrat thanks to redistricting in 2002, but anyone who’s been paying attention the last few years knows that the Republican party is potentially vulnerable almost anywhere.  The goal of filling every race proved its worth last year with surprising success in supposedly safe districts across the country.  Just ask Jerry McNerney or Nancy Boyda or Jim Webb for starters.

The advantages of competing everywhere have been well established and I won’t get long-winded about them here.  Being well positioned for an unexpected scandal, building the party by presenting an honest version of the platform, keeping incumbents (and their money) tied to the home district, supporting up and down ticket races, the reasons stretch on and on.  Certainly in California there’s a lot of reason to be concerned with keeping incumbents at home.  Seven of the incumbents have a combined net cash on hand of $2,511,924 already, the 8th (Darrell Issa is worth as much as $677 million) is one of the richest members of Congress, and the 9th will be, well…Duncan Hunter’s son.  So keeping their focus narrow is going to be key to efforts throughout the state and country.  The Race Tracker is a great resource, but it requires that the rest of us do the legwork.  So to make sure that California covers every district this year, I’m asking for volunteers to take one of the nine remaining districts and chase it down, investigate, babysit, prod, browbeat, and just generally keep track of efforts to get a candidate.  I don’t want us to wake up a year from now and realize that we forgot a district, and in the process I think it’s an excellent opportunity to get to know the state a bit better.  These districts stretch from Oregon to Mexico and encompass urban, suburban, rural areas.  You don’t have to live in the district to adopt it, but being nearby or knowing someone might help.  Some of these might be really easy- there might be a candidate next week.  Others might be heavy on the labor and light on the love.  Quite frankly, I don’t know; but I should.  So here’s a rundown of the districts who need some attention, and to get the ball rolling, I’m willing to take either CA-49 or CA-52, depending on what people’s interest level might be in one or the other.  Any takers for the remaining districts?

CA-02: Rep. Wally Herger has held this seat stretching from Yuba City to Oregon since 1988.  Republicans have a 45/33 registration advantage and Bush received 62% in 2004.  But Herger didn’t much outperform Bush and Bush isn’t nearly as popular anywhere as he was in 2004.  It’s not Dem country, but Herger is especially bad.

CA-03: Rep. Dan Lungren was elected to this seat which wraps around Sacramento and runs to Nevada in 2004 but has been in Congress before.  When serving Southern California in the 1980s, he was one of Newt Gingrich’s favorite minions.  He’s since done two terms as California’s Attorney General and lost the governor’s race in 1998.  This seat, in various incarnations, spent 36 years in Democratic hands before going Republican in 1998’s election and while it’s been redrawn to be more favorable to Republicans, neither Bush nor Lungren was able to crack 60% in their last respective elections in this R+7 district.

CA-19: Rep. George Radanovich holds down this Central California district including Oakdale and Kerman.  Challenger T.J. Cox raised almost $700,000 last year, and Radanovich is currently sitting on only $123,000.  This has been declared an impossible district for Democrats (it’s one of the most Republican in the state), but Radanovich had to stay home more than usual last year, and that’s better for all of us.

CA-21: Rep. Devin Nunes was elected to Congress in 2002 before he turned 30 years old and is the only representative this new district to the West and South of Fresno has ever had.  He was barely phased by last year’s wave election, getting his lowest percentage ever, but still claiming 67%.  But that’s still the right direction, and the work of reclamation begins by showing up.

CA-22: Rep. Kevin McCarthy has the honor of representing the reddest California district since last year. It covers the inland portions of San Luis Obispo and the suburbs around Bakersfield, reaching all the way to the 395.  Sharon Beery ran here last year but found no fundraising traction.  This one may be the biggest windmill the state has to tilt at, but McCarthy cruised past $1 million in fundraising to take the open seat and is already closing in on a half million on hand.  We don’t want that money propping up Republicans elsewhere if at all possible.

CA-25: Rep. Buck McKeon grabbed this crazy-huge district in 1992 (Santa Clarita to Barstow to the Nevada border and stretching almost all the way to Lake Tahoe.  John Kerry didn’t fare too well here, but Barbara Boxer got more than 45% back in 2004. With Republicans even less popular and McKeon remaining just as conservative (PP score of 3.77%), there’s room for a Democrat to find a sympathetic ear or two.  McKeon had no problem fundraising himself out of any trouble last year, let’s make sure he’s forced to keep it up.

CA-45: Rep. Mary Bono is vulnerable.  Her Palm Springs and Moreno Valley district is just barely Republican and she’s managed to stay in her seat by creating a veneer of moderation to disguise her Bush-enabling record.  Barbara Boxer snagged just under 50% of the vote here in 2004 and Bush didn’t find a receptive audience last year.  2006 challenger David Roth found the monetary support but didn’t strike the right chord to take advantage of voters open to Democratic persuasion.  Time to find someone to strike that chord.

CA-49: Rep. Darrell Issa is a tough nut to crack after buying this Camp Pendleton, Oceanside and Temecula district in 2000.  He’s absurdly rich and got that way through a number of alleged shady dealings.  You may not know it, but you know him as the voice of Viper car alarm’s “Step back, you’re too close to the vehicle.” You may also know him as a major force behind the recall of California Gov. Gray Davis or as instrumental in the firing of US Attorney Carol Lam (who took down Duke Cunningham among others).  That’s been in the news recently hasn’t it?  But in addition to the buckets of money, it’s a solidly Republican district that’s consistently refused to embrace Democrats from Kerry to Boxer to Issa challengers.  At the very least though, it’s vitally important that we get someone in front of microphone in the district to point out loudly that the rule of law is NOT up for partisan discussion.

CA-52: Rep. Duncan Hunter is retiring from this East County San Diego seat that he’s held since 1980(!) whether he gets the presidential nomination or not.  His son (also Duncan Hunter) is the presumptive Republican on the ballot, and as an Iraq veteran will be tough to beat.  But there are glimmers of hope for Democratic ideas starting to percolate up from the local level, and Blackwater West is nearby (though out of district) and has a big fan in the elder Hunter.  Not a bad way to start a debate.

The public hearing scheduled for July 19 about Blue Cross of CA and its deceptive, anti-consumer practices will now be held on August 7.  Not only are they angering their subscriber base by going out of their way to deny claims and cancel policies for “discrepancies” as trivial as typos, but they’re starting to piss off hospitals as well.

Blue Cross of California’s latest antidote to rising healthcare costs isn’t going down very well with physicians. The state’s largest for-profit health plan is set to roll back its payments for about half the services and procedures provided by physicians next month.

And many of the 53,408 physicians in Blue Cross’ preferred provider organization (PPO) networks say that’s a prescription for disaster.

Doctors say the health plan imposed the new rates unilaterally. In most cases, they say, Blue Cross will get its way because it controls the lion’s share of their patient base. But other physicians say they’ve had it with Blue Cross. More than 300 of them have sent notices threatening to dump the insurer if the rates take effect as scheduled Aug. 6. Some say the new rates won’t even cover the cost of supplies. ‘I don’t know how anybody can afford to stay in practice and accept Blue Cross rates,’ said Dr. Charles Fishman, a San Luis Obispo dermatologist who sent a letter telling Blue Cross he would drop its contract if his rates were not improved. A spokeswoman for the insurer described the level of complaints over the new rates as routine, and she said the number of termination notices from physicians over the issue was negligible – less than 1% of the doctors in its PPO networks.

Surely, this will come up in the August 7 hearing, to be held at the Carmel Room Auditorium at the Junipero Serra Building, 320 West 4th St., Los Angeles, from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m.  And It’s Our Healthcare is amping up the pressure by demanding that Blue Cross return to the state millions in excess profits:

This year alone, Blue Cross has sent almost a billion dollars in profit out of California to its corporate headquarters in Indiana.

Blue Cross is able to amass such a profit because it currently relies on business practices that harm millions of Californians, such as:

–Spending less of California’s premium dollars on patient care than other larger insurers
–Denying coverage for pre-existing conditions?and instead seeking to insure only the healthy
–Selling insurance designed to provide limited benefits, coupled with high deductibles and co-pays
–Raising rates however and whenever it chooses

We urge the state enact meaningful reform to stop these practices and we urge the state to order Blue Cross to return the hundreds of millions of dollars in excess profit to California.

We, the undersigned Californians, ask the state to make Blue Cross reform its business practices to start putting people ahead of profits and stop using California as an ATM.

Blue Cross has already settled out of court on some of these issues, but there is no indication that they have curtailed their practices and cleaned up their act.  Blue Cross has also taken the lead in torpedoing meaningful health care reform in the state.  It is maybe the most unconscionable company in the state, and I don’t know what it takes to get a corporate charter revoked, but theirs ought to be.

At any rate, you can keep the pressure up by signing the petition.

It looks like Sen. President Pro Tem Don Perata has come up with the more appropriate moniker for the California Republicans’ sense of “Fiscal Responsibility”:

California’s budget stalemate triggered partisan mudslinging Wednesday when the Senate’s Democratic leader accused minority Republicans of “fiscal terrorism” for demanding more cuts from welfare, public transportation and other programs.

“As far as I’m concerned, (Republicans can) continue to hold up the state budget because I’m not going to capitulate to this kind of terrorism,” Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata said after delaying a scheduled vote by one day. (SacBee 7/26/07)

This is surely what it is. The GOP Caucus has presented a plan to steal food from the mouths of children by slashing CalWORKS, and medical care from the sick by slashing Medi-CAL.  Is that what the GOP has left? Taking from those who have the least so that those who have the most can have a few more dollars. Ackerman’s plan is completely counterproductive at best, and disastrous if it ever comes to fruition. 

It now appears that all that is left is the trappings of decorum. Perhaps something will be worked out, but it appears that post-partisanship is dead. It appears that the work of repealing the 2/3 super majority must become job #1 for California progressives.

Tal vez he llegado tarde en el pleito que sigue en nuestra legislatura, y tal vez como muchos he dejado que los legisladores hagan lo que les da la gana, pero ahora esta afectando a los quien no se pueden defender por si mismos: madres solteras, ansíanos y niños. Tal vez los republicanos en la asamblea y el senado no tienen abuelos o gente en sus familias que requieren servicios publico, pero para que pidan reducir los impuestos a los ricos a cambio de que continúen cortando el fondo para servicios públicos para los quien lo necesitan mas es en una palabra: cruel.

Desde Enero los legisladores se han estado debatiendo sobre el presupuesto del 2007-2008. Ahora más que nunca los republicanos se están aprovechando de la situación ya que para que el presupuesto se apruebe, ellos necesitan dos votos republicanos para poder llenar las dos terceras partes del voto que se necesita. Desde que el Gobernador Schwarzenegger cambio su posición a post-partidismo y se ha puesto del lado de los demócratas mas frecuentemente, especialmente [link SF] con relación al salario mínimo, descuentos de drogas y el calentamiento global. Republicanos, como dice Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, un científico político de la Universidad de Sur California aquí que

“[Los Republicanos] piensan que la definición [del gobernador] de pos-partidismo es cooperación entre el gobernador republicano y la mayoría democrática en la legislatura con un propósito mínimo para el comité republicano.”

El gobernador se ha hecho inutil por su politica, dejando a los republicanos hacerse cargo de una lucha solo para probar que tiene una voz. Ellos han obligado a los democratas en la asamblea a ponerse de su lado con ellos resultando en “herir a la gente más venerable en nuestro estado.”

Ahora lo que me enoja mas es que Fabián Núñez, el vocero de la asamblea, dejo ir a los miembros de la asamblea después del voto para un receso de verano por un mes. El voto que aprobó el presupuesto del 2007-2008 incluye nomás lo que querían los republicanos y los demócratas parecen que dejaron todos sus escrúpulos en casa.

Ahora con la asamblea de vacación, cualquier cambio que hace el senado al presupuesto requiere otro voto por la asamblea de dos tercios, que por seguro vaya ocurrir y nomás quiere decir que no vamos a tener un presupuesto por lo menos otro mes.

Cuando llego el presupuesto para ser aprobado por el senado, el presidente interino del Senado, Don Perata encero al senado para que se pongan de acuerdo con el presupuesto que había sido aprobado por la asamblea. Los republicanos se han puesto de acuerdo entre ellos mismos que ahora para aprobar el presupuesto el en senado, todos los senadores republicanos deben aprobar el presupuesto, que es algo de una fantasía. Hay senadores republicanos como Senadores McClintock, Margett, y Hollingsworth que nunca han aprobado el presupuesto del año, y ¿ahora con este berrinche piensan que se van a poder poner de acuerdo? No lo creo.

Al salir del encierro Perata salio mas frustrado diciendo, “No entiendo que es lo que quieren”, la respuesta de el líder del los senadores republicanos, Dick Ackerman dijo que quieren lo que han querido desde enero y es un presupuesto balanceado. Yo estoy de acuerdo con teniendo un presupuesto balanceado, pero ¿como es que van a dejar una madre soltera que recibe mil dólares (del estado y en estampas para comer) en Los Ángeles sin ningún aumento o tal vez sin nada? Pero muy bien aprobaron el la asamblea para aprobar cortes de impuestos a negocios en Hollywood.

No es por nada que Perata al entrar para discutir el presupuesto aprobado por la asamblea dijo que “parece que fue escrito por chimpancés” y lo prenuncio “muerto en la llegada”.

Realmente se me hace muy infantil los tácticos que han usado los republicanos y como dice La Opinión “El presupuesto está secuestrado por una minoría ideológica que quiere imponer su medicina a toda costa, incluso perjudicando a los californianos.”

Me frustra que los que sufren son gente como mi mama, mi hermana y muchos mas en peor situaciones que no se pueden defender o no saben como. Espero que Perata siga fuerte y no deje que la necesidad de dos votos republicanos los distraiga.

OK, I can't stop thinking about this. All the Orange County Supervisors claim to be good “fiscal conservatives” who are “responsible” in spending our tax dollars. John Moorlach says that current pension benefits for county deputy sheriffs are “irresponsible” and “illegal under state law”.  Janet Nguyen tells us that we need a “county services office” in order to better serve taxpayers in Westminster. Now isn't THAT wasteful?

But then, this problem isn't just at the county level. In Sacramento, the Republicans in the State Senate think it's OK to “balance” the budget on the backs of the poor and needy.They decry health care for poor children as “wasteful spending”, and then do whatever they can to preserve tax breaks for the ultrarich and mega corporations that aren't really needed. Is that their priority? Is it really more important that the ultrarich get tax breaks than poor kids getting health care? 

Follow me after the flip for more as I wonder what exactly can be considered “wasteful”…

So why is helping those that can't help themselves “wasteful”? And why is helping those who really don't need any more help “prudent”? I don't get it.

I don't get how Republicans always miss the point of government. When we fight back against draconian cuts to services that are needed by the working poor who have difficulty helping themselves, we're chided as “fiscally irresponsible”. When we rail against pension cuts for hardworking public servants, we're called “imprudent”. But when we catch them padding budgets with pork projects and tax breaks for their superrich sugar daddies, they say we're not “economically minded”. And when we catch them spending public funds to help them get reelected, they say that we're on a “political witch hunt”.

So that's it. I've had enough of the Republican wasteful spending. I've had enough of them lecturing us on “fiscal responsibility”, while they treat our tax dollars like their piggy banks to dispose of whenever they want. I've had enough of them coddling their uber-wealthy patrons with pork and tax breaks while our poor neighbors go without health care as they struggle to pay the rent and feed their families. I just hope I'm not the only one outraged by all this Republican waste.