Finally, the primary comes to Davis. Former President Bill Clinton will be speaking tonight at the ARC Pavilion (that’s the Rec Hall to you old timers) at 9pm, in his second trip to UCD campus. The speech will be free and open to the public, doors will open at 8:15pm, with an opening performance from the Cal Aggie Marching Band-Uh (have they endorsed Hillary?).

I’m not much of a fan of Bill, and even less of Hillary, but a speech in town is always worth going to. California’s going to be contested in a serious way this time around, the first time in several decades (and in my political lifetime). Given that delegates will be apportioned in part by congressional district as well as at-large,this means that we may see some campaigning here in Davis, seeing as we’re the second-biggest city in the first congressional district (the biggest, if one lumps UCD’s on-campus population in with the city of Davis). Combined with Mike Thompson’s recent endorsement of Hillary Clinton, it looks like the Clinton campaign may spend some effort here.

Which is a good move for them, considering that they have a grand total of 6 people on their “Davis for Hillary” group on the Clinton campaign website (as contrasted with 79 for Obama’s UCD group alone (55 in Davis), and 38 for Edwards). Of course, the Clinton campaign’s relying more on ads, endorsements and party-level support than online grassroots organizing, so the number disparity isn’t all that surprising.

Last time around, we got a visit by Kucinich and Kerry’s son at the Farmer’s Market. In 2000, I think Nader spoke at the Varsity Theatre. Hopefully we’ll see a bit more from all the campaigns this time around. There are Democrats (and Decline-to-Staters, who can vote in the Democratic Primary) east of the Carquinez Straits and Coastal Range, after all, 50,000 of them registered in Yolo County alone.

Finally, the primary comes to Davis. Former President Bill Clinton will be speaking tonight at the ARC Pavilion (that’s the Rec Hall to you old timers) at 9pm, in his second trip to UCD campus. The speech will be free and open to the public, doors will open at 8:15pm, with an opening performance from the Cal Aggie Marching Band-Uh (have they endorsed Hillary?).

I’m not much of a fan of Bill, and even less of Hillary, but a speech in town is always worth going to. California’s going to be contested in a serious way this time around, the first time in several decades (and in my political lifetime). Given that delegates will be apportioned in part by congressional district as well as at-large,this means that we may see some campaigning here in Davis, seeing as we’re the second-biggest city in the first congressional district (the biggest, if one lumps UCD’s on-campus population in with the city of Davis). Combined with Mike Thompson’s recent endorsement of Hillary Clinton, it looks like the Clinton campaign may spend some effort here.

Which is a good move for them, considering that they have a grand total of 6 people on their “Davis for Hillary” group on the Clinton campaign website (as contrasted with 79 for Obama’s UCD group alone (55 in Davis), and 38 for Edwards). Of course, the Clinton campaign’s relying more on ads, endorsements and party-level support than online grassroots organizing, so the number disparity isn’t all that surprising.

Last time around, we got a visit by Kucinich and Kerry’s son at the Farmer’s Market. In 2000, I think Nader spoke at the Varsity Theatre. Hopefully we’ll see a bit more from all the campaigns this time around. There are Democrats (and Decline-to-Staters, who can vote in the Democratic Primary) east of the Carquinez Straits and Coastal Range, after all, 50,000 of them registered in Yolo County alone.

(Promoted due to database problems. This post originally appeared at Speak Out California – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

California is said to be having a budget “crisis.”  Last week the Governor signed an emergency proclamation forcing the legislature to meet and act on the budget within forty-five days.

“Crisis” and “emergency” are serious words, and the public is upset about hearing them.  This is, of course, the intent of those using the words — to get the public upset and demanding action.  When people are shocked and worried they will accept solutions that might not be what they would accept if they had time to think, consider all reasonable alternatives and weigh all the consequences.  In an “emergency” the public just wants the problem solved.  (This is a  “Shock Doctrine” approach.)

So having created a crisis atmosphere the Governor is asking for “across the board” cuts in state government spending.  This is a tactic that let’s him avoid specifying any particular cuts.  The reason the Governor does not want to specify any particular spending cuts is because people will realize that such cuts are not a good idea.  

Asking for cuts “across the board” sounds so fair.   But not specifying also means not prioritizing.  By setting no priorities for spending cuts the Governor is saying that one area of spending matters to him no more than another.

Let’s be clear about what the Governor is doing.  He is cutting police and other law enforcement and public safety.  He is cutting schools — when California already is 43rd in spending per pupil.  He is letting prisoners out onto the streets.  He is cutting disaster assistance.  He is letting roads and bridges deteriorate.  That is what government spending is — and we are who it is for.

Each and every thing the Governor is asking to cut is important to all of us, the people of California.  We, the people need and want what the state spends its money on.  We need our police and public safety departments.  We want our children educated in good schools.  It is rare to find a person who claims that the state “spends too much” who can tell you just what we, the people of the state actually spend our money on.  (Try it yourself – see if you can get specifics from anyone who claims that the state spends “too much.”)  That is why the Governor is calling for “across-the-board” spending cuts and not specifying where he thinks cuts should be made.

Meanwhile the Governor is not presenting the public with alternatives to spending cuts.  There ARE alternatives, but they are only going to be part of the process if people pay attention to what is going on.  Here are just a few examples of alternatives that should be considered:

Alternative: Restore the vehicle license fee.  This would bring back $5 billion that we, the people should be collecting and using.

Alternative: Tax oil as it is taken out of the ground.  The oil belongs to the people of California but we don’t ask companies to pay us when they pump it.  A California oil-severance tax would go a long way toward helping solve our budget problems.  Alaska, for example, has no income tax, and in fact the state instead sends a check to citizens each year because they understand that the oil is a common resource and tax the companies that pump it out of the ground.  

Alternative: Impose a surtax on upper incomes to balance the budget and pay off the bonds.  Consider that the reason some people receive so much more income is because the infrastructure we Californians have built and the benefits that we the taxpayers have granted to corporations helps build prosperity.  And one effect of having very high incomes is that they have large amounts of disposable income with which to pay taxes and still have plenty left over.  This money can also be used to pay off the bonds that the Governor has issued to avoid making touch choices in the past.  Currently we pay approx. $4 billion each year toward interest on these bonds.  Paying down these bonds and reduces these interest payments and THAT is a spending cut we all want to happen.

Click to continue.

“Budget Nun” Elizabeth Hill’s pessimistic report about Governor Schwarzenegger’s budget stressed the need for more revenue to close the $14 billion dollar gap and maintain a professional level of services.  But if the money boys on Wall Street are to be believed, even that $14 billion dollar shortfall represents a number borne of outsized optimism.

Deep spending cuts proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last week were followed yesterday by more bad news – a Wall Street firm placed the state’s bond rating on “negative watch” amid fear that a $14.5 billion budget shortfall could get bigger.

The governor’s budget is based on data from November and early December that assumes tax revenue will grow 2 percent next year. But in recent weeks, some economists have begun to warn that the economy may slide into a recession, which would shrink tax revenue and widen the budget gap.

Fitch Ratings placed California’s bond rating of “A+,” already one of the lowest ratings of any state, on “negative watch” because of lawmakers’ inability to close a chronic budget gap and revenue forecasts in the governor’s budget that may be outdated.

By the way, the bond rating becomes slightly more important when you finance the government by, you know, floating bonds.  Boy, do we ever need a governor with a strong fiscal background to ensure our bond rating doesn’t go to crap!  Where d’you think we should get one of them?  Do we need another recall?

(over)

What choice did I have but to reach for the phone and dial three ringleaders from the 2003 recall of Davis? […]

Ted Costa, the anti-tax crusader and the man who drafted the Davis recall petition, was on the horn right away.

“We’ve got to get it going again,” I told him.

Costa seemed confused.

The recall, I said. The recall.

All the same conditions are there again, I told Costa, and there has to be another “throw the bum out” campaign.

“There probably should be,” Costa agreed, warming to the idea.

(that article is hilarious.)

The point is that if you have to use creative accounting just to get to a $14 BILLION dollar loss, something is fundamentally wrong.  And cutting spending is not going to produce a satisfactory solution.  For one, it will result in forfeiting $1.5 billion dollars in federal matching funds, doubling the real-world impact on Californians.  For another, it will not make up for shrinking revenues that will necessitate more cuts, and on and on.  I know that the Governor, and really the whole Legislature too, has a speech impediment where the word tax comes out sounding like the word fee.  But fixing the revenue side is unavoidable, and Sacramento is not a movie set.  Welcome to reality, Governor.

Well that’s… interesting.

oftening his past opposition to changes to California’s term-limits law, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is endorsing a February ballot measure that would allow many sitting lawmakers to run for office again this year rather than be forced to leave the Legislature.

Schwarzenegger, who as a candidate in 2003 supported California’s existing term-limits law as a shield against “special interests” obtaining too much power, reversed himself in an essay released today that said the original law “went too far.”

“Under the current system, our elected officials are not given the time they need to reach their full potential as public servants,” Schwarzenegger wrote in an essay to be published in The Times on Tuesday. “Imagine what would happen if we told a big-city police chief or a sheriff he could stay in the job just long enough to start mastering it and then had to move on.”

The op-ed announcing the endorsement is here, and it amusingly includes the line “It takes time to learn how to govern effectively.”  You said it, Arnold, not me.  Also, considering you’re in your fifth year, what’s your excuse?

The No on 93 campaign is kind of freaking out about this, calling it the result of a “deal on healthcare.”

Discuss.