Bill Clinton to Speak at UCD Rec Hall Tonight

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.

Bill Clinton to Speak at UCD Rec Hall Tonight

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.

A Budget Shock Attack

(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.

Hillary’s Victory

Senator Hillary Clinton’s victory in New Hampshire was the first time in our history that a woman won a presidential primary. Her win was a momentous achievement that the early suffragettes could only dream of.  It was a triumph for all women – a giant step forward in the drive for equality.

The nation’s political attention has wrongly focused on why Senator Clinton won New Hampshire.  The most important fact, that she is the first woman ever to win a primary, has been lost.  Does it matter that Hillary Clinton won the primary – YES.   Senator Clinton’s victory cannot be brushed aside with political positioning or media downplay.  Make no mistake, it was an historic moment.

 

As the founder of the CALIFORNIA LIST, an organization dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women to California state government, I have dedicated my life to building the pipe-line of future leaders and helping support Democratic women running for office.  When a woman becomes a candidate she brings a different voice to the conversation and valuable diversity to the political process.  She will inevitably face challenges because of her gender.  After all, it took more than 40 years for California women to gain the right to vote.  In 1912 when suffrage finally passed in California, it did so by fewer than 3,600 votes – an average of one vote per precinct!!! Women’s rights have been born out of struggle not privilege.

In 1994, the year of the woman, the number of elected female Democratic officials in California was at an all time high.  Twenty per cent, or 24 out of 120 elected officials, were women.  Today we have only 16 elected Democratic women, over 30% less than ten years ago.  In California we lose 2 or three elected women per election.  It’s the slow drip process. Elected women and candidates are in decline – a frightening trend that must be reversed.  

The full impact of Hillary Clinton’s win in New Hampshire on her run for President is as yet undefined, but I hope it will at the very least encourage more women to run for office.  Seeing a Democratic woman governor in California is a dream.  When Hillary Clinton won the primary she moved us closer to that goal.

Women need to run and win on every level of the political pipeline, from the local school board to the presidency.  Their voice is critical to the balance of decision-making and the future of our state, our country and our world.  Reversing the decline in the number of women candidates and office-holders, not only in California but across the country, is essential to the health of our political process.

I see it as our moral opportunity as well as our moral obligation to continue the fight for individual liberty.  It is my belief in Democracy – a Democracy that is made stronger by diversity – that motivates me to encourage you to applaud Hillary Clinton for her achievement.

Hillary’s Victory

(I’m promoting this diary due to the problems with the database. This promotion does not infer any preference towards one candidate or another on my part. The Calitics editorial board, however, is on record. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Senator Hillary Clinton’s victory in New Hampshire was the first time in our history that a woman won a presidential primary. Her win was a momentous achievement that the early suffragettes could only dream of.  It was a triumph for all women – a giant step forward in the drive for equality.

The nation’s political attention has wrongly focused on why Senator Clinton won New Hampshire.  The most important fact, that she is the first woman ever to win a primary, has been lost.  Does it matter that Hillary Clinton won the primary – YES.   Senator Clinton’s victory cannot be brushed aside with political positioning or media downplay.  Make no mistake, it was an historic moment.

As the founder of the CALIFORNIA LIST, an organization dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women to California state government, I have dedicated my life to building the pipe-line of future leaders and helping support Democratic women running for office.  When a woman becomes a candidate she brings a different voice to the conversation and valuable diversity to the political process.  She will inevitably face challenges because of her gender.  After all, it took more than 40 years for California women to gain the right to vote.  In 1911 when suffrage finally passed in California, it did so by fewer than 3,600 votes – an average of one vote per precinct!!! Women’s rights have been born out of struggle not privilege.  

In 1994, the year of the woman, the number of elected female Democratic officials in California was at an all time high.  Twenty per cent, or 24 out of 120 elected officials, were women.  Today we have only 16 elected Democratic women, over 30% less than ten years ago.  In California we lose 2 or three elected women per election.  It’s the slow drip process. Elected women and candidates are in decline – a frightening trend that must be reversed.  

The full impact of Hillary Clinton’s win in New Hampshire on her run for President is as yet undefined, but I hope it will at the very least encourage more women to run for office.  Seeing a Democratic woman governor in California is a dream.  When Hillary Clinton won the primary she moved us closer to that goal.

Women need to run and win on every level of the political pipeline, from the local school board to the presidency.  Their voice is critical to the balance of decision-making and the future of our state, our country and our world.  Reversing the decline in the number of women candidates and office-holders, not only in California but across the country, is essential to the health of our political process.

I see it as our moral opportunity as well as our moral obligation to continue the fight for individual liberty.  It is my belief in Democracy – a Democracy that is made stronger by diversity – that motivates me to encourage you to applaud Hillary Clinton for her achievement.

Budget Follies

“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.

One Progressive’s View of Prop 93

(This post (and the comment in the Arnold 93 diary) is from Mal Burnstein, who currently serves as the NorCal Co-chair of the Progressive Caucus of the CDP. His beliefs are, of course, his own rather than from any group that he is affiliated with.   – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Some of my progressive friends have come out against Prop 93, arguing that because it is really designed to save the jobs of some current legislators, it must be flawed.  In my opinion that is a very short sighted way of looking at things, and it risks swamping the public policy baby with the self-interest bath water.  The argument for Prop 93 is really very simple, to wit:

(Edited by Brian for space, see the extended).

 Term limits bad

           Prop 93 weakens term limits.

           Therefore, Prop 93 good (despite the blatent self-interest of some who are responsible for it being on the ballot).  The bottom line is that it leaves better public policy than we have now.  We need to look beyond the small down-side and recognize the benefits to all of us of legislators who have a chance to learn their job and have the time to accomplish their legislative goals.

Of course, if you support term limits – an anti-democratic method of telling people who they can and can’t vote for – then I suppose you oppose Prop 93.  And we simply agree to disagree.  But if you recognize the pernicious effects of term limits, Prop 93 is a way to loosen their iron grip and allow legislators to gain sufficient experience and longevity in their job to be able to accomplish something.  For example, Loni Hancock, assembly member for the 14th AD, is termed out this year.  She is the legislative author of clean money.  If we lose her fervor, knowledge and experience in working that legislation, how will it ever become law?  Sheila Kuehl is now termed out of the senate.  If we don’t have her in the senate, who can effectively fight for single payer health insurance?  Do we really want to leave the legislative process to staff and lobbyists?

With respect, I think for progressives it should be an easy decision.

Presidential Primary Polls

UPDATE2: Datamar has released their data now too. Interestingly, they have John Edwards moving up since their last poll in the fall. But the big story is Obama tightening from an enormous lead to a more manageable 12ish.  Dems:

A poll released today by Datamar Inc, shows that U.S. Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, 42.6%, is still the leader in the California Democratic Presidential primary. U.S. Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, is second with 30.6%, and former U.S. Senator from North Carolina, John Edwards, 14.5%, is third. Findings are based on a January 11 – 14, 2008 survey of California voters.

Reps:

A poll released today by Datamar Inc., shows U.S. Senator from Arizona, John McCain in

first place in California with 24%; Former Governor from Massachusetts, Mitt Romney continues in second place with 20.4%; Former U.S. Senator from Tennessee, Fred Thompson is still in third place with 15.4%; Former Governor from Arkansas Mike Huckabee moves to fourth place with 13.4%; and Former Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, drops to fifth place with 11.1% in the California Presidential primary.

UPDATE:Over the flip, find S-USA’s #s, h/t dKos.

I’ve not been posting too much on California presidential primary polls, mostly because they didn’t really diverge from the national polls. Oh, and they don’t have a whole lot of meaning because nobody had really done significant campaigning in the state.  But, with Obama’s first ad going up this weekend, perhaps now is a time to start looking at them.  So, today we get the LA Times poll PDF here.

In the GOP Primary McCain is riding the New Hampshire wave.  With today’s Rep primary in Michigan, much will change. That being said, McCain leads, but is within the poll’s margin of error (a hefty 6% for the Rep. primary).  Among likely voters, Arizona Sen. McCain was ahead with 20%. Fmr. Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney was at 16%, Former NYC mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani at 14% and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 13%.

For the Dems, Clinton has a sizeable lead over Obama. Clinton has 47% to Obama’s 31% and Edwards trails at 10%, with a MOE of 5%. “Someone else” (Kucinich?) limped in at 2%.

At this point it seems clear that none of the Republicans can really afford an air war that would be required to really run away with California. Perhaps Mitt could throw in a pot of money to buy some spots, but I’m not sure if he’s willing or able to put in as much money as would be required to buy this state convincingly. Both Clinton and Obama have money to pay for TV time. I suppose the question that remains is whether anybody will be able to see the presidential ads between the 24/7 barrage of ads coming from the 4 Tribes on Props 94-97.

California. 1/11-13. Likely primary voters. (12/14-16 results)

Democrats. MoE 3.5%

Clinton 50 (49)

Obama 35 (30)

Edwards 10 (14)

Republican MoE 4.4%

McCain 33 (14)

Giuliani 18 (28)

Huckabee 14 (20)

Romney 13 (16)

Thompson 9 (13)

Arnold Jumps Aboard The Prop. 93 Train

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.