Talkin’ Bout My Generation: Widening Inequality in Post-1979 California

The California Budget Project’s report, A Generation of Inequality: The State of Working California, 1979-2006, has already started to grab public attention, such as a front-page article in the SF Chronicle.

It’s about time. Although neoliberalism has been hurting working Californians since 1979, it’s been in the last few years that the situation has become dramatically worse. Low wages, poor job growth prospects, and soaring costs of living are killing the California Dream for millions of residents of this state.

Below I offer an overview of the report, and some suggestions on what we can – and should – do about the growing crisis.

The CBP has identified several major factors that illustrate the widening inequality in California:

  • 70% of job creation in California since 1979 has been in high-wage or low-wage jobs. The middle-income folks have faced stagnation or declining incomes.
  • Wage gains are not only unevenly shared, but inflation and the soaring cost of living has hit low- and middle-income workers harder than their counterparts in other states.
  • Workers are getting fewer benefits – health care has been slashed, as have pensions.
  • Young Californians – those born since 1979 – have fared poorly in the state’s job market, and since 2000 those with college degrees have had *fewer* job prospects than those with only a high school diploma, though the latter group is still facing poor prospects of their own.

California is becoming a place where only the rich can afford to enjoy basic economic security – whereas everyone else must face high housing costs, rising energy, food, and health care costs with shrinking wages and poor job prospects.

It’s apt that this report focuses on 1979 to the present, as that corresponds to my own lifespan. Parts of this report ring all to true to my own cohort. Take my high school class, which graduated from an Orange County school in 1997. Today most of us work either in financial services, high-tech, or education, with many of the grads who did not attend college working in the service sector.

This is not a recipe for economic security. Those who work in financial services are facing the specter of widespread job losses as a 25-year long asset bubble starts to unwind. Those who work in high-tech already faced a bust in 2000, and know all too well how easily their jobs can be outsourced. Those of us who work in education are dependent on government funding, which Republicans are seeking to cut at every opportunity. Those who work in the service sector find their employment to be unsteady and their wages wholly inadequate to the cost of living in California. And most of us who attended college are saddled with student loan debts, cutting into our incomes even more deeply. And that’s just from a suburban high school – Californians from poorer backgrounds obviously have fared much worse than we.

Meanwhile the situation continues to worsen. The bursting of the housing bubble has already caused the state’s unemployment rate to rise every month in 2007. Gas prices have retreated somewhat from their spring highs, but remain around $3/gal in the state, still an unsustainably high level. At the same time Republicans successfully gutted state mass transit funds, effectively shackling Californians to their cars and to the oil companies. Arnold’s preferred health care plan would merely saddle these struggling families with hundreds of dollars a month in premiums, while still not actually delivering them affordable, comprehensive health care.

This report illustrates a state in crisis, lurching toward catastrophe. 28 years of neoliberalism has put us on the edge of a precipice. How do we deal with it, then?

Do we follow the advice of conservatives like Joel Kotkin, who in the SF Chronicle article about the CBP study called for more of the same – less regulation and taxation of business, implying though not saying that this will also require further cuts to vital public services? That would be like turning to the folks who broke Iraq and asking them to fix it.

Instead we need to revive the old progressive, New Deal era emphasis on economic security. Some believe that progressive politics remains amorphous and without a core agenda. Economic security, I believe, MUST be that agenda.

We must build a diverse coalition of all ethnic and racial backgrounds, of middle- and low-income households, to challenge the neoliberal economy. Instead we must demand and put into action policies that will help even out the balance in California, and save the state from impending ruin.

We need, at minimum, the following:

  • Universal health care. Providing cost certainty to families, as well as health, is vital to providing for our future security.
  • A redefinition of the California Dream – a new urban strategy for California life, providing for affordable housing, sustainable transportation, and better use of our resources. We must stop subsidizing suburban sprawl, one of the culprits behind this inequality, and instead redirect our energies to building up our cities.
  • A new, long-term source of good jobs for California’s low- and middle-income families. The Green Jobs initiative pioneered by Rep. Hilda Solis could well be the prototype for this, providing for a clean environment, sustainable practices, and jobs for ALL Californians, across class and racial lines. California can become a leader in 21st century manufacturing, building on local resources to provide a sustainable and clean range of products for America as we face the dual shocks of climate change and peak oil.
  • Root-and-branch reform of agriculture. Californians have already become major leaders of the Farm Bill reform movement and we need to ramp this up significantly. Agriculture is the backbone of California’s economy and, of course, of civilization itself. We need to shift CA ag toward sustainable, organic, healthy practices, linking city and country in a new network of local food production and consumption that provides income and jobs for rural counties and affordable, quality food for the cities.
  • Educational reform and affordability. The cost of higher education – including technical and vocational training – has soared, and these costs represent a massive drain on earning power for working families. We need to put into place a plan to forgive ALL student loans, and redeem the promise we made in 1960 to give Californians free higher education. This will spur entrepreneurial activity, as well as ensure that the young can help pay for the needs of aged.

All of those solutions will help Californians of all backgrounds and class status. We cannot follow in the footsteps of those who will tell us that in the hard times that we now face, we must choose who to include and who to exclude – a choice that always seems to come down to race.

This is the challenge we face as California progressives. And these can be the solutions that we offer. This can be our opportunity to build a prosperous and secure 21st century state.

FOX on Dirty Tricks Initiative

(now in orange, go reco)

Bob put it on the quickies, but this really deserves its own post.  This is what happens when FOX decides to cover the Republican attempt to pass an initiative that would give them an extra 20 or so electoral votes and possibly tip the entire election to the Republicans.  They call the advocates for it “pro-reform” and the opposing Democrat “anti-reform”.  Eric Kleefeld over at TPM has the catch:

We are never told anything more about who these men are, who they work for, or what their partisan activities might be – all we’re told is that the guy for this initiative is “pro-reform” and the man opposed to it is “anti-reform.”

As it turns out, “pro-reform” Kevin Eckery is a Republican consultant and the spokesman for Californians for Equal Representation, the astro-turf group offering the initiative. And “anti-reform” Ari Swiller is a Democratic fundraiser.

TPM has the screen grabs.  Perhaps Crooks and Liars will have the video later.

Meanwhile, go sign the petition against the initiative and join the Facebook group.

Confidence in voting machines, or lack thereof

The Field Organization continues the slow trickle from their late July poll. Today, we get the data on confidence in voting machines (PDF). About 44% of voters have a great deal of confidence in the voting system. Folks, that’s less than half of all voters that feel comfortable with how we vote. That’s scary.

But the data that’s really interesting is that even with all the money we’ve spent on those stupid touch screen machines, people still don’t feel a whole lot more comfortable. In fact, given a choice between voting systems, 32% would choose optical scan, 31% would choose punch-cards, and 31% would choose touch screen.  Practically 2/3 of the state would prefer we use old-school technology to count our votes.  So then why are we paying Diebold, Sequoia, and ES&S millions of bucks when we could just be using Scantrons?

Arnold Comes Out Swinging On Health Care

Without a health care plan of his own that any legislator would back, Arnold Schwarzenegger is left to mold the Democratic leadership plan in his image.  He came out strong yesterday in the opening salvo in the negotiating process:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger took a firm stand Wednesday against the Democratic healthcare proposal moving through the Legislature, saying for the first time that he would not support an expansion of medical insurance if it were financed solely by new requirements on employers.

The Democratic proposal would require employers to spend at least the equivalent of 7.5% of their payroll on their workers’ health. The governor insisted that the plan also must require all Californians to have insurance, an idea at the core of his January proposal.

Democrats omitted that concept, believing that many people would be unable to afford the premiums.

Schwarzenegger’s program would have given employers the option of providing insurance or paying into a state fund that would offer it to uninsured workers and those who couldn’t afford individual policies. It also would have spread the responsibility of paying for expanded healthcare to doctors and hospitals, an idea that was rejected by Democrats as politically infeasible.

Schwarzenegger essentially wants MassCare, with its individual mandate, along with a buy-in from doctors and hospitals along with individuals and employers.  This is what he calls a fee but is probably a tax, which means Republicans would have to get involved because it would require a 2/3 vote.  But that doesn’t matter; he’d rather have no health reform at all than one without an individual mandate:

Schwarzenegger has said repeatedly that all parts of society — including healthcare providers, individuals and businesses — must make sacrifices if all Californians are to be insured. Nearly 5 million residents lack coverage at any given time. The Democratic proposal would cover 69% of them. Schwarzenegger’s comments were even more pointed earlier in the day, when he told the Sacramento Bee editorial board that he would veto a bill that failed to spread the costs around.

“If anyone over there thinks that I will sign a bill that . . . has only employer mandate, they shouldn’t,” he said, according to an account posted on the newspaper’s website.

“I won’t sign it. It won’t happen,” he said.

My favorite part of the article is the part where Schwarzenegger just ignores reality.

The idea of scrapping private insurance altogether and enacting a state-run program — an idea championed by Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) in the Legislature and Michael Moore in his film “SiCKO” — has gained support: The poll found that 36% of Californians now prefer this approach, up from 24% nine months ago.

Schwarzenegger, however, reiterated his opposition Wednesday.

“It’s very clear people don’t like government running their healthcare system,” he said.

Yes, so clear that it’s the most popular proposal before the people.

This is bluster from an action hero, and I’m not sure it should be taken seriously by Don Perata and Fabian Nuñez.  Schwarzenegger wants a ready-made market for the insurance industry, and his plan had no floor on coverage and no ceiling on costs.  That individual mandate starts to look like a gun barrel under those circumstances.  And I’d rather see nothing enacted than something that holds up California’s indigent and forces them to pay through the nose. 

The guaranteed issue part of his proposal, whereby nobody could be denied insurance, should be retained.  As we move toward an eventual not-for-profit system, setting up some public framework, as the new AB8 is rumored to strengthen, is crucial.  And clearly, the Governor shouldn’t be saying a word about healthcare until he fights the callous Bush Administration proposal to deny coverage to children by tightening S-CHIP eligibility.

UPDATE: The California Budget Project released a report detailing what California families could actually afford for health care, and according to their assessment, a family making twice the poverty line would be unable to contribute ANYTHING toward their own health care given the cost of living in the state.  Even those making 300% above poverty would require some help.  If you like feeding your inner wonk, it’s a good report.

When their sons go to fight and lose their lives

Quote of the day, from Paul Rieckhoff on Hardball:

“Our troops are not political props, and they aren’t chew toys”.

Indeed.

Remember that Rieckhoff is an Iraq War vet, and founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. He was responding to the GWBush speech today to the VFW, and also to Ari Fleischer’s (R-Warmonger) new war porn group.

Here’s from the IAVA response to the speech:

“President Bush failed to adequately address many of the urgent issues facing veterans today.  The last thing these veterans needed was a history lesson.  They remember America’s wars because they actually fought them.  Instead of making references to previous conflicts, we need the President to take more seriously the myriad of issues facing veterans and their families right now.  There were glaring omissions in his remarks, including answering who will replace Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson when he steps down in October,” said Paul Rieckhoff, IAVA Executive Director.  “Instead of offering a history lesson, President Bush should be specific about taking immediate action on the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala Commission to fix the deplorable conditions and poor care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.  These are matters of life and death for America’s newest generation of veterans, but on these critical issues, President Bush came up short.”

IAVA Director of Government Affairs, Todd Bowers, attended President Bush’s address to the VFW.  “While IAVA commends the Veterans of Foreign Wars for hosting such an important gathering, we were disappointed by what President Bush said, and more importantly, did not say this morning.  It’s critical that President Bush place a higher priority on implementing the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala Commission to ensure that veterans receive the honor and care they deserve.” 


Here’s more about Ari’s new play date club:

Beginning today, Freedom’s Watch, a new right-wing front group for the White House, “will unveil a month-long, $15 million television, radio and grass-roots campaign” to pressure Congress to continue supporting President Bush’s disastrous Iraq strategy. The group, which is “funded by high-profile Republicans who were aides and supporters of President Bush,” is headed by a familiar face from the Bush war effort: former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer.

Swell. As usual, zombies are those who don’t have the good sense to quietly go off and die.

Update: via email from Paul Rieckhoff:

Steve,

Great blog. Thanks for running that quote and for supporting our work.

Also, here’s another from Think Progress wherein Paul rebuts Ari.

SteveAudio.blogspot.com

August 22, 2007 Blog Roundup

Today’s Blog Roundup is on the flip. Let me know what I missed.

To subscribe by email, click
here and do what comes naturally
.

Budgets are Moral
Documents

Electoral College

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry…

Health Care

Local Motion

All the Rest