Daily Archives: October 5, 2007

Uncategorized

Keep Blackwater Out of California, Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Diane Feinstein


(video is great earlier coverage of Blackwater West from KNBC)

Despite the well deserved outrage over Blackwater’s repeated atrocities in Iraq, the company is moving forwards with their plans to open up a new base in San Diego.  LAT:

Anne Tyrrell, spokeswoman for the Moyock, N.C.-based company, said Blackwater was not altering its Potrero proposal in light of the controversy. Last week the company announced it had dropped negotiations to buy land in North Carolina for a training site. That decision, Tyrrell said, was not a result of the controversy.

Rep. Bob Filner (D-Chula Vista) has introduced legislation to block “mercenaries” from training on non-federally owned property.  This would essentially can Blackwater West before they get a chance to break ground.  Where are Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer on Blackwater West?  Silent, despite Courage Campaign delivering over 8,500 petitions to them.  That is unacceptable.

Thanks to activists within the California Democratic Party’s executive board, the party is now on record officially opposing Blackwater West.  It’s time for Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer join their party in stopping Blackwater from operating in California.  Take Action: sign the new letter to Senator Boxer and Feinstein and give them a call if you can.

Below the fold is the email we sent Courage Campaign members earlier today.

Dear Julia,

Terrifying.

That is perhaps the most appropriate word to use in describing the menace that is Blackwater USA — the private “security” firm that just murdered 17 innocent Iraqis, sending another 24 to the hospital, in a rampage on the streets of Baghdad.

Blackwater, the same private firm of paid thugs whose incompetence cost the lives of American troops in Fallujah in 2004, now wants to build a base on California’s border to train mercenaries.

The consequences are ominous: Imagine Blackwater “defending” our border with Mexico in a vigilante action. Or providing emergency “security” to urban areas in California after a natural disaster.

No way. No Blackwater. Not in California. Not in America.

The security of California and our citizens is at stake. That’s the message that needs to be heard — loud and clear — by Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Barbara Boxer.

With activists converging to protest Blackwater in San Diego County this weekend, it’s your turn to take action. Please sign our NEW letter to Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer and/or make a quick call to follow-up. Then tell us about the results of your calls at the following link:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/stopblackwater

Blackwater’s plans to build a private mercenary training facility in San Diego County are simply unacceptable. Consisting of 15 firing ranges, a helipad, a heavy vehicle operator’s course covering the equivalent of 10 football fields — and populated by 360 staff and “students” — this dangerous base is just the beginning of Blackwater’s infiltration of our state’s security.

We hoped Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer got the message when the Courage Campaign delivered 8,543 of your previous petition signatures to their offices. We hoped they got the message when the California Democratic Party passed a resolution — putting the party on record — opposing Blackwater’s base. We hoped they would take a stand with their party and with us. But we haven’t heard a word.

Tell Senators Feinstein and Boxer to join the California Democratic Party in opposing Blackwater’s base in San Diego County. Then tell us what they told you:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/stopblackwater

The details now emerging from Iraq are deeply disturbing. The New York Times describes the beginning of last week’s massacre:

It started out as a family errand: Ahmed Haithem Ahmed was driving his mother, Mohassin, to pick up his father from the hospital where he worked as a pathologist. As they approached Nisour Square at midday on Sept. 16, they did not know that a bomb had gone off nearby or that a convoy of four armored vehicles carrying Blackwater guards armed with automatic rifles was approaching.

Moments later a bullet tore through Mr. Ahmed’s head, he slumped, and the car rolled forward.

The car, with Mr. Ahmed’s dead body pressing on the gas pedal, sped towards the Blackwater guards. They filled it with bullets and grenades, setting it on fire. Then continued to shoot at anything in sight. People ran away and cars turned around, desperate to get out of the hail of gunfire. But bullets continued to fly, cutting down 17 innocent civilians and wounding 24 more.

Killed in their cars. Shot in the back.

As Blackwater’s founder — right-winger Erik Prince (Mitt Romney’s campaign co-chair) — testified in Congress this week, these mafia-like mercenaries are still insisting they “acted appropriately at all times.” Despite the latest atrocities, the State Department continues to pay Blackwater hundreds of millions of dollars to operate in Iraq, even though the Iraqi government insists they should leave.

The Iraqis may not have the power to kick them out of their country, but we have the power to keep them out of California. And we need Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer to lead the way.

It’s time for our Senators to stand up with us and the California Democratic Party and shut down Blackwater. Take action now: sign the NEW petition and/or call your Senators. Then tell us what they said:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/stopblackwater

The movement to stop Blackwater in California and the country is growing exponentially by the day. 

Congressman Bob Filner (D-San Diego) introduced a bill in the House last week that would allow the training of “mercenaries” only on property owned by the federal government — which would keep Blackwater out of California.

Meanwhile, this weekend, hundreds of local activists will be gathering at the proposed site for Blackwater West in San Diego County. The Courage Campaign will be sending a blogger to San Diego County to represent you and tell all of us about it on the Courage Campaign blog.

Time is running out. Please tell Senators Feinstein and Boxer to join us, the California Democratic Party, Congressman Filner, and grassroots activists in leading the way to keep Blackwater out of our state… before it’s too late:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/stopblackwater

Thank you for everything you have done and continue to do to stand up against Blackwater.

Sincerely,

Rick Jacobs
Chair

P.S. Three months ago, KNBC in Los Angeles filed a special in-depth report exposing Blackwater. With the Courage Campaign taking an early stand on opposing Blackwater’s base, I was interviewed about their plans to set up shop on our border.

Click here now to watch the YouTube version of KNBC’s report — it’s as good as investigative journalism gets:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/stopblackwater

Bay Area

A Carbon/Gas Tax for the Bay Area?

10 Comments

It’s not a new idea: Raise the gas tax as a method of both funding public transportation, as well as encouraging people to use it instead of their cars. Discussions of climate change, peak oil, and sustainable development usually always at some point or another emphasize a gas tax as a particularly effective carbon tax. And as the San Francisco Chronicle notes today, the SF Bay Area is starting give the idea serious consideration:

Regional officials are taking a close look at trying to increase the Bay Area’s gasoline tax by as much as 10 cents a gallon and believe voters might agree to it as a way to help combat global warming, The Chronicle learned Thursday.

Although the regional Metropolitan Transportation Commission has been able to ask voters for a higher gas tax since 1997, a decade of polls indicated there was little chance such an unpopular idea would ever secure the necessary two-thirds approval in the nine Bay Area counties.

Now, however, with public concern building over climate change, the electorate might not be so opposed to a new gas tax as long as voters see it as a way to help the environment, officials said.

A 10-cent-a-gallon increase in the Bay Area could generate an estimated $300 million a year or more to pay for transportation-related projects. Although the money could be used for roads, the emphasis probably would be on public transit and efforts to reduce auto pollution.

But is this a workable plan – workable in both policy and political terms?

As we are well aware, any tax increase in California must get 2/3 approval, whether in the state legislature or at the ballot box. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which plans and helps fund transportation in the Bay Area, has found that it’s difficult to meet such a high threshold.

But apparently, linking the tax to global warming makes some difference:

The Bay Area Council, a business-backed public policy group, favors the fee approach, council spokesman John Grubb said. His organization last polled Bay Area voters three years ago about their feelings on raising the gas tax. Support then was around 50 percent. Tying the issue directly to global warming would help boost support, he said.

Whether it would boost support to 66.6% is another question entirely. One option is to charge a gas “fee” instead of a “tax” – it only requires a simple majority but, as the article notes, is much more restricted as to how funds raised can be spent.

Still, a gas tax brings with it significant costs as well as benefits.

The first is affordability. Although some opponents claim “this is probably the wrong time to raise the gas tax, given how high the cost of gas is now,” the fact is gas prices are not coming down anytime soon – if ever. Not only is peak oil a factor – increasing demand + finite supply = higher costs, but the devaluation of the US dollar is also pushing prices higher. Neither trend is going to ease anytime soon.

Because of the volatility of gas prices, I do not believe voters and drivers would actually notice the tax increase – especially if it is implemented in phases. In 2005 Washington State enacted a 9.5 cent gas tax, implemented via 3 3-cent increments between 2005 and 2007. Drivers barely noticed this, especially at a time when prices were swinging 40-50 cents a gallon.

Those who WOULD be most hurt by a gas tax are those hurt by any tax increase – the poor, the lower-income. Their neighborhoods have tended to be those least served by public transportation, although recent projects such as SF’s T-Third line have begun to address this.

That leads into my second point, which is that for a rise in the gas tax to have its intended effect of causing a shift away from single-occupancy internal combustion commuting toward public, mass transit, those alternatives need to already be in place. London has had dramatic success with a congestion charge, but it also already had the Underground, frequently rated as one of the world’s best public transit systems.

The Bay Area is better off as a whole than Southern California in terms of transit availability, but the remain both large gaps (especially in the Santa Clara Valley, but also in the East Bay) as well as places where current capacity needs significant rehabilitation (as in much of SF). This has not been helped by Arnold’s penurious funding of public transportation, evidenced by his $1.3 billion cut of mass transit funds from this year’s budget.

A gas tax, I believe, should be Step 2 of a comprehensive program to encourage sustainable, environmentally responsible transportation. Step 1 needs to be state-funded investment in public transportation to extend its reach. If there aren’t usable alternatives already in place, Californians will simply wind up paying more in gas taxes without making behavioral changes.

Also, a higher gas tax would also make sense paired with other methods to encourage public transportation and discourage driving, such as the congestion charge that SF has been considering.

Uncategorized

A Speech Everyone Should Watch: The Responsible Path Out Of Iraq

Bill Richardson gave an extremely thoughtful speech yesterday at Georgetown University on the responsible path out of Iraq. Richardson also outlined a new foreign policy for the U.S., discussed our relations with Iran and explained need to restructure our armed forces. 

On Iraq, Richardson stated, “If you haven’t seen enough to know that we need to get all the troops out then you aren’t watching the same war that I and the rest of America are seeing. I don’t think just changing the mission is enough — we need to end the war.”

Everyone should watch Richardson’s speech and hear the compelling case he makes for ALL U.S. troops to leave Iraq now.  The video clip follows.

My message is part of the candidate series on MyDD.  I am not a member of Richardson’s campaign.

Richardson understands the essential truth about the U.S. intervention in Iraq today:  “Our troops in Iraq are now the biggest obstacle to political change.”

This is where Clinton, Obama and Edwards fall gravely short on Iraq.  They lack this fundamental insight.  While they call for an end to the war in their stump speeches, when directly questioned each refuses to commit to bringing our troops home when they become President.  They say our withdrawal depends upon the situation in Iraq when they become President.  Moreover, they leave open the possibility that our troops will be stationed in Iraq until 2013.

Clinton in particular is playing a “game of dodgeball” on Iraq.  She speaks of the need to “begin to end the war” yet will continue our military mission in Iraq.

If Clinton, Obama and Edwards understood that our troops are unwittingly perpetuating the conflict, they would not keep our troops in Iraq one day longer than necessary for their safe withdrawal. Instead as noted by Helen Thomas they are not providing leadership on the most critical issue of this election, the path out of Iraq:

President Bush has no better friends than the spineless Democratic congressional leadership and the party’s leading presidential candidates when it comes to his failing Iraq policy. These Democrats seem to have forgotten that the American people want U.S. troops out of Iraq, especially since Bush still cannot give a credible reason for attacking Iraq after nearly five years of war.

Last week, at a debate in Hanover, N.H., the leading Democratic presidential candidates sang from the same songbook: Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, along with former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, refused to promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013, at the end of the first term of their hypothetical presidencies. Can you believe it?

When the question was put to Clinton, she reverted to her usual cautious equivocation, saying: “It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting.” Obama dodged, too: “I think it would be irresponsible” to say what he would do as president.  Edwards, on whom hopes were riding to show some independence, replied to the question: “I cannot make that commitment.”

If you want to make an informed choice on whom to support for President and don’t know much about Richardson or have never heard him give a speech, I highly encourage you to watch the video.  Likewise if you have doubts about why the U.S. must bring every single troop home from Iraq now, listen to Richardson’s arguments:

To learn about Richardson the person, his upbringing and what events shaped his life, watch a recent ABC news interview or read a summary of the interview.

San Diego

The Smoke Filled Rooms Don’t Always Work So Well

3 Comments

Down in AD-78 (Bonita, Lemon Grove, East of SD), Shirley Horton is scheduled to be termed out in 2008. Unless, that is, the term limits initiative passes. But, the San Diego Cty. Republican Party and the GOP Assembly Caucus have been working from the notion that it was not going to pass. So, they've been scratching their heads trying to find a nominee.  You see, this is actually a contested seat. Seriously. And it's a seat that Democrats should hold. Registration is 41 percent Democratic to 35 percent Republican, yet Shirley Horton has beaten back fairly strong challengers in all three elections. She most recently defeated Maxine Sherard by 5,000 votes. 

Well, so funny story in the ol' 78th. The Assembly GOP Caucus tried to clear the field for the San Diego Police Chief, David Bejarano. Too bad they didn't really get the all clear from Bejarano. You see, he's not running now that they've cleared the field. And they are left with the guy that they tried to clear from the field as the presumptive nominee. Flip it…

As an aside, if you're interested in learning a bit about how Allen Hoffenblum of the California Target Book knows very little about the Democratice electorate for the primary, check out this story, where he totally ignores Sherard in favor of her primary opponent. Sherard proceeded to win the primary by 17 points.

 

The Assembly Republican Caucus sought to avoid an expensive primary fight and earlier had muscled McCann aside in favor of Bejarano, a member of the Chula Vista Elementary School District board who had also served as U.S. marshal for San Diego and Imperial counties for two years after 24 years in the San Diego Police Department.But Bejarano abandoned plans to run, citing family considerations, giving McCann's candidacy a new lease on life.

Tony Krvaric, chairman of the Republican Party of San Diego County, confirmed the scenario. “The Assembly Caucus tried to do that,” Krvaric said. “They're the ones responsible to raise the money and pick up seats. Hopefully, we're going to try to stay united behind one candidate.” (SD U-T 10/5/07)

So, those primary elections are for what exactly? A show of unity? Sometimes when I get frustrated about the unwillingness in Democratic circles to use the freaking primary process I just have to think about the Republican process too make me feel a little bit more comfortable. Not a lot, but it could be worse. 

At any rate, Auday Arabo, who raised almost $400K by the end of Q2, appears to be the favorite for the Democratic nomination. 

Uncategorized

Just A Hardworking Guy From The Labor Movement

1 Comment

Somehow I think the Speaker’s Office won’t be too happy with this LA Times profile.

SACRAMENTO — As leader of the California Assembly, Speaker Fabian Nuñez has traveled the world in luxury, paying with campaign funds for visits to some of the finest hotels and restaurants and for purchases at high-end retailers such as Louis Vuitton in Paris.

It is not clear how these activities have related to legislative business, as state law requires, because the Los Angeles Democrat refuses to provide details on tens of thousands of dollars in such expenditures.

The spending, listed in mandatory filings with the state, includes $47,412 on United, Lufthansa and Air France airlines this year; $8,745 at the exclusive Hotel Arts in Barcelona, Spain; $5,149 for a “meeting” at Cave L’Avant Garde, a wine seller in the Bordeaux region of France; a total of $2,562 for two “office expenses” at Vuitton, two years apart; and $1,795 for a “meeting” at Le Grand Colbert, a venerable Parisian restaurant.

Nuñez also spent $2,934 at Colosseum Travel in Rome, and paid $505 to the European airline Spanair.

Other expenses are closer to home: a $1,715 meeting at Asia de Cuba restaurant in West Hollywood; a $317 purchase at upscale Pavilion Salon Shoes in Sacramento; a $2,428 meeting at 58 Degrees and Holding, a Sacramento wine bar and bistro; and $800 spent at Dollar Rent a Car in Kihei, Hawaii.

The Speaker characterized these expenses as “not only justified but necessary for the decisions I need to make on a daily basis.”  And the evidence for that was… well, his say-so, having refused to supply the Times with any specifics.  Fine by me, right, Isn’t the word of a politician good enough?  It does give pause, however, that Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata’s expenses include no overseas travel for the last three years.  But hey, they’re in entirely different chambers of the same legislature, right?

Look, I’ve been to Asia de Cuba and managed to keep the check down to $250 or so, but I don’t know how many were in Nuñez’ party.  Plus I was paying for it myself instead of out of my campaign kitty, so I guess I had more of a frugality incentive.

more…

I will point out that this is an insulting and insensitive statement:

In the interview, Nuñez said he wouldn’t need to use his $5.3-million “Friends of Fabian Nuñez” campaign account to offset travel costs if he were independently wealthy. The speaker’s job pays $130,062 a year plus a tax-free $170 for expenses each day the Assembly is in session.

“There’s not too big a difference,” he said, “between how I live and how most middle-class people live.”

What’s the average salary of those who live in his district, which includes downtown LA, Boyle Heights, Maywood and Huntington Park?  I don’t think it’s $130,000.  That’s an amazingly out-of-touch statement, especially in light of these revelations.

You can see a graphic of the expenditures here.

All I’ll say is that I will not be nominating Speaker Nuñez for the Calitics ActBlue list, as he doesn’t appear to need the money.

(and yes, the story is a term limits-related hit piece, but that doesn’t exactly make it false)

Uncategorized

Dirty Tricks Gets Another Hand out of the Coffin

3 Comments

From the AP:

An influential California Republican said Thursday he is attempting to raise millions of dollars to change the way the state awards its electoral votes — a bid to revive a campaign that stalled just days ago.

“I am making phone calls because I think this is a critically important issue in the presidential sweepstakes,” said Lew Uhler, president of the Sacramento-based National Tax Limitation Committee. (AP 10/4/07)

No rest for the weary I suppose.

Blog Roundup, San Diego

October 4, 2007 Blog Roundup

Today’s Blog Roundup is on the flip; only a link dump today, as I’m pressed for time. Let me know what I missed.

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

Uncategorized

Endorsements and Debates

I wanted to thank the editorial board at Calitics for reconsidering their previous endorsement process and clarifying the path towards their endorsing candidates in the future.  I certainly look forward to the chance to offer my views and perspective to the Calitics community as part of your endorsement process.

I also wanted to give everyone at Calitics a chance to look at clips a 2006 debate between two of the current declared candidates in the 26th Congressional district — myself and Russ Warner (the third candidate in that debate, Cynthia Matthews, has not declared any intention to run and is therefore not included in the clips).  The clips cover several topics, including the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, environmental regulation, the possible invasion of Iran and the labor movement and the Taft-Hartley Act.  These clips highlight some of the differences in our policy positions on these important topics and should give you some perspective on our strengths and weaknesses as candidates.  You can watch clips of this debate at ( http://www.youtube.c… )

I look forward very much to the Calitics endorsement process and to discussing my candidacy with all of you and with the voters in the 26th District in a number of forums, including town meetings and debates.  Again, I want to thank the Calitics editorial board and the Calitics community for the vital work you do in providing a public forum for debate and discussion.

With best wishes,

Hoyt Hilsman
Democratic Candidate for Congress
26th CD, California