Daily Archives: June 9, 2008

California

Open Forum For California DNC Candidates

13 Comments

You wouldn’t know this unless you follow these things closely, but this coming Sunday, June 15, is very significant in the future of Democratic politics.  On that day at the California Democratic Party executive board meeting in Burlingame, 19 men and women from throughout the state will be voted in as DNC members.  Those elected will take their positions after the Democratic National Convention in August, and will serve through the DNC in 2012.  Here’s the list (it’s a PDF) of names who will appear on the ballot – 9 men, 9 women and the 19th-highest vote-getter regardless of gender will win the election.

Now, why is this important?  These 19 DNC members will be part of the organization that will need to decide how to reform our completely broken primary process that almost turned a historic nomination season into utter chaos.  There is no other issue – not the war, not poverty, not the economy, not health care, nothing – where DNC members will make any kind of a difference compared to primary reform.  I know a lot of party members read this site, so let this be a jumping off point for discussion.  No California e-board member should vote to elect any of these candidates without knowing their plans for primary reform.  And on the flip, here are a few ideas.

Here’s a brief sketch of some of the necessary reforms, IMO, that I wrote at The Washington Monthly last week:

Now the next challenge, in my view, is reforming this disastrous primary system entirely, reviewing it from top to bottom and ditching the most undemocratic elements. I would move to a rotating regional set of primaries (decided by lottery on January 1 of the primary year so nobody can park in any one place prior to that), superdelegates with no vote until after the first ballot, which is reserved for delegates picked directly by the voters (so they get to go to the party but not have an undue influence on the process), and all delegates selected proportionately based on their state’s popular vote. I would remind those who think caucuses should be thrown out that they are tremendous party-building tools, and many of the states with caucuses this year are swing states (Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, even Texas perhaps), and those state parties captured priceless voter contact information on hundreds of thousands of voters who could be turned into volunteers.

Let’s go a bit more in depth.

Primary schedule – the reason that we ended up with such a chaotic system for delegate selection is that Michigan and Florida jumped the line set by the DNC, and instead of past years where sanctions would be granted on those states only to be lifted after the winner was chosen and the delegate counts no longer mattered, this was a close race.  So that sanction hung over the entire primary season.  Yet the DNC must be able to manage their own nominating process.  So it seems to me that they shouldn’t allow one delegate to be chosen before their set date for the beginning of the primaries, and that states should be grouped by region and chosen by lot.  This breaks the Iowa/New Hampshire stranglehold (and if they don’t like it, really, let them secede), eliminates the penchant for 30 visits to the early states on the calendar, and continues to allow for retail politics through the various regions.  It’s somewhat similar to the American Plan.

Real proportional representation – the current system is kind of a joke, in that congressional districts which allocate even-numbered amounts of delegates have quite a bit less influence on the overall result as districts which allocate odd-numbered amounts.  Simply put, it’s easier to gain an advantage in an odd-numbered district, needing only 50% plus one, as it is in an even-numbered district, needing as much as 63% of the vote.  There is absolutely no reason why the delegate allocation can’t be proportional based on statewide popular vote, with the congressional allocations included later.  Furthermore, the states need to be proportionally represented relative to one another – the system of add-on delegates and rewarding states that kept their primaries later in the process and giving Puerto Rico more delegates than 27 states simply has to end.

Dealing with the superdelegates – all of these DNC members elected will then become so-called “superdelegates,” so I recognize that asking them to renounce their own power and influence is kind of dicey.  But nothing had a more damaging impact on the party than the perception that the process was controlled by party insiders who could subvert the will of the people.  That it “worked out” in the end is of no consequence.  Superdelegates really shouldn’t have such an outsized impact on the nominating process.  I suggest that their votes for President and Vice President at the DNC don’t count on the first ballot, ensuring that they get a ticket to the event but the voters have the first crack at choosing the nominee.  A standard of 50 or even 55% could be set as the necessary threshold to get the nominee over the top, if superdelegates want to hold out the option of having their wise counsel be determinative.

There are probably dozens of other ideas, but I want to open this up to discussion.  How would you reform the primary process, and what can potential DNC candidates do to assure you that they will adequately represent the interests of California voters to see the process reformed?

Budget

The Truth About Prop 13

9 Comments

The 30th anniversary of Prop 13 has brought out a raft of commentary in the state media. This commentary tends to split on whether Prop 13 benefited or hurt the state – as if there is still any doubt that it was a disaster – but it rarely examines some of the underlying assumptions of Prop 13, and even more rarely does it explore the deep inequality it has enshrined into our state.

Much of this stems from a fundamental misunderstanding about what Prop 13 was and what it did. Voters convinced themselves it was a populist revolt against rising property taxes. They believe this so fervently that they act as if they willed it into existence.

In fact Prop 13 was an extremist attack on the very practice of state government by a group of far-right activists, with property taxes used as a convenient cover. Those who voted for – and who say they would vote for it again – still seem to believe its primary purpose was to protect homeowners, when its true goal was to destroy public services by starving government of revenue – otherwise why include the 2/3 rule? Why give commercial property the same protection as homeowners?

Further, there seems to be widespread misunderstanding about the level of taxation – especially property taxation – in California. California ranks 38th in property taxes. Somehow homeowners in the 37 states ahead of us haven’t been losing their homes to taxes. One consequence of Prop 13 was a shifting of taxation to sales and income taxes – sales taxes are regressive and income taxes can be volatile. Prop 13 is therefore directly responsible for California’s regressive and unstable budgeting. No Prop 13, no structural revenue shortfall.

Dan Weintraub argued that Prop 13 didn’t devastate government finances. But does he even read his own paper? Peter Schrag pointed out in the SacBee last week that Prop 13 did have that devastating impact:

California’s per pupil school spending, which was among the top 10 states in the 1960s, is now among the bottom 10. Proposition 13 alone is not responsible, but along with two major court decisions that preceded it, it helped decouple school funding from the local tax base and thus undercut voter incentives to fund education generously, as it had been in the generation after World War II. Our roads, once a national model, are an embarrassment. …

California once had a communitarian ethic. That’s been turned into a market ethic. It once did serious planning for the future. For now, that’s a nearly forgotten hope.

Prop 13 helped create a “homeowner aristocracy” – where those who bought their homes before 1976 are given preferential treatment and tax shelters while everyone else has to pay market rates. Some argue that those on fixed incomes deserve protection from rising tax bills, but it is difficult to have sympathy for this when the method of protecting them – Prop 13 – has produced a generation of inequality that leaves most folks under 35 unable to ever own a home in California.

Why should some homeowners get government subsidies and others do not? Why is it that under Prop 13 we protect some homeowners at the expense of future generations? If we are to right the state’s finances, provide economic security for all Californians, deal with the energy price and global warming crisis, and have a competitive 21st century economy, we need to reexamine our priorities, and be willing to move past obsolete 1970s faux populism.

Uncategorized

CA-04: Gen. Wes Clark coming for community service event!

1 Comment

(Cool! – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

The results have been announced in the “Serve with the General” contest, and Gen. Wes Clark will be heading to CA-04 to participate in a community service project with Congressional candidate Charlie Brown and other area Democratic volunteers.

Competition was fierce. To secure the prize supporters of CA-04 had to take on tough competitors in over forty districts around the country.

Democrats Work soon announce the time and location of the event where you can roll up your sleeves and “Serve with the General”! You can register at the site for updates so you will not miss this chance to participate.

The official press release follows after the jump. . .  

Democrats Work and WesPAC announced today that California’s Fourth District has won the “Serve with the General” competition – an innovative, national contest that will send General Wesley Clark to California to participate in a community service project organized by Democrats Work.  California’s Fourth District, where Lt. Col. Charlie Brown (Ret.) is the Democratic nominee, edged out four other districts in the final round of voting.    

Online voters narrowed the field from forty three districts – districts where Democratic challengers are fighting to change the direction of the country – in the first round to the final five districts: California’s Fourth District, Colorado’s Fourth District, Minnesota’s Third District, North Carolina’s Tenth District, and Washington’s Eighth District.  Final round votes poured in at www.democratswork.org until midnight on Friday; in total, over 20,000 votes were cast in the contest.    

“It was a hard-fought contest with votes pouring in from across the country from people who are making community service an integral part of political activism in their neighborhoods,” said Thomas Bates, co-founder and executive director of Democrats Work.  “This contest showed that there is a real hunger for grassroots Democrats to put their values into action through service and to serve with General Clark.  We look forward to coming to the Fourth District to work with residents to show the community how Democrats get things done.”

The “Serve with the General” community service project will be announced soon.

“Service is a cornerstone upon which our country was built.  It is central to what makes America great. I was proud to serve my country in the United States Army for 34 years; now I want to make sure that our values as Democrats are shown in our actions in addition to our campaigns,” said General Wesley Clark when the contest launched on May 22nd. “In America, we work arm-in-arm with neighbors, families and friends to take care of our communities, and our politics should reflect that tradition. I’m looking forward to continuing to make a positive impact through service.”

The Fourth District starts at the Oregon border in the state’s northeast corner, then moves down along the Nevada border to Lake Tahoe in the east and near Sacramento in the district’s southwest corner.  Last September, Brown, who served 26 years in the Air Force, created the “Promises Kept Veterans Charity Challenge,” which commits 5 percent of every dollar raised by his campaign to organizations serving veterans and families in need.

The first round of voting took place from Thursday, May 22, until Friday, May 30. The field was narrowed to the top five vote getters, and the final round of voting took place from Monday, June 2, to Friday, June 6.

Democrats Work, a national organization dedicated to connecting grassroots Democrats with community service projects, has mobilized over 1800 Democratic volunteers at more than 80 service events in a dozen states since it was founded in late 2006.  General Clark serves on the advisory board of Democrats Work, along other national leaders, including President Jimmy Carter, Congressmen John Lewis (GA) and David Price (NC), former U.S. Senators Max Cleland (GA) and Gary Hart (CO), former Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater, and former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb.

During thirty-four years of service in the United States Army, General Wesley Clark rose to the rank of four-star general and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. After his retirement in 2000, he became an author, commentator, and businessman. Formed by General Wesley Clark, WesPAC: Securing America’s Future is founded on the belief that a truly secure America demands sound, wise leadership and a renewed commitment to the values that have made our nation great: service, integrity, and accountability. WesPAC is committed to working for candidates who embody these ideas. You can find out more information at www.securingamerica.com.

Uncategorized

AB 1819 – GOP Blocking the Youth Vote

5 Comments

(It’s great to see Mike Connery posting here – and his point about AB 1819 is excellent. – promoted by Robert in Monterey)

Cross posted from Future Majority.

The level of douchebaggery exhibited by the California Republican Party is astounding.  The SacBee reports that a recent bill brought before the state assembly would seek to allow 16 and 17 year olds to “pre-register” to vote, making them automatically eligible to vote when they turn 18.  Not a single Republican voted in favor of the bill, and many seem to have over-exerted themselves in trying to explain why it’s such a bad idea:

The bill passed the Assembly and was sent to the Senate last month on a party-line vote, 45-31, with no GOP support.

Assemblyman Anthony Adams, R-Hesperia, criticized the bill as a Democratic power play.

“For all their sweet-tongue talk about doing what’s right for the country, that’s baloney,” Adams said.

“The truth is, when you’re young you tend to think like a liberal,” he said. “As you get older and wiser … you tend to become more conservative.”

Aside from the fact that the last statement is utter nonsense (pdf), how cynical, and how wrapped up in your own personal power do you need to be before you can make these statements without a little piece of your soul dying with them?  I know that Republicans like to suppress the vote, but I never expected them to be so blatant about their motives.  Usually they at least try to cloak it in their own “baloney” about “voter fraud” or some other fantasy menace.  

One of Assemblyman Adam’s GOP colleagues was more subtle:

Assemblyman Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks, said his opposition to AB 1819 has nothing to do with partisan politics. The state should excite teenagers about voting, not play a useless numbers game by amassing forms from disinterested students who can’t cast ballots for two years, he said.

“(I want) to have a citizenry that is informed, engaged and interested,” Niello said. “If you have that, they’ll register to vote – and they’ll vote.”

So the state should “excite teenagers about voting” (whatever that means), but shouldn’t actually allow them to register to vote.  If the state GOP really believes that youth will naturally vote Democrat (not necessarily a given; see: Ronald Reagan), in what way is this not playing the numbers game?

The state should do whatever it can to increase registration rates among all voters, including youth who participate at lower rates precisely because many lack a valid registration.  Anything else is playing politics with the voting rights of the electorate.

Uncategorized

Feinstein’s Lies Are Not Helpful

3 Comments

Senator Feinstein was in the midst of a legitimately big bit of the primary recently, hosting the one-on-one meeting between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that helped resolve the race.  Feinstein remains a strong Clinton partisan and loud proponent of the so-called “Dream Ticket” which would give Clinton the VP spot on the ticket; which is fine except that she’s lying to sell it.

Feinstein appeared on “This Week” yesterday continuing to push the outright lie that Sen. Clinton won the popular vote in the primary.  This is hardly the first time that Feinstein has pushed this dishonest notion (also here) and as kos (among others) continues to point out, only by ignoring the caucus states and giving Obama zero votes from Michigan does this math work. Of course, there are very few elections where you get to 1) claim victory despite not winning the actual contest in question or 2) choose after the fact which votes count and which don’t. Or so goes the “democracy” notion.

First and foremost, every time this dishonest talking point gets trotted out, it makes everyone involved look stupid. Senator Feinstein is by no means stupid, so it’s troubling that she would debase herself and the candidate she supports by throwing this garbage around. It doesn’t (or at least shouldn’t) actually help if the goal is to get Clinton into the VP spot. It comes off as being the last resort when there are no merits to run on.

Which is the second trouble: there’s a perfectly strong and reasonable case to be made for Clinton as VP. I don’t personally support the notion, but it’s a debate with merit that can be engaged in honestly and directly and can make the party stronger by speaking passionately about the strengths of our Democratic leaders. Instead of focusing on Senator Clinton’s actual strengths though, we get these lies that should be insulting to Clinton and continue to undercut Obama’s general election campaign by implying weakness.

Finally, the myopic focus on Obama and Clinton, while serving during the primary process to dramatically expand the party’s base and participation, is now at the point where it’s sucking all the air out of the room and is detrimental to moving forward with a wider focus. It’s distracting from downticket races that have been waiting for attention, it’s detracting from expanding and unifying field organization, and it’s undercutting the Democrats vs. Republicans debates that need to be the full focus across the country.

I understand full well that this is all posturing for the VP slot. But it’s not the first time that posturing for personal gain from the Clinton camp has undercut broader opportunities. As far as I know this is not coming from Senator Clinton; I thought her speech on Saturday was excellent and that she’s striking the right chords for party unity and healing. I’ve been on the side of tough primary and general losses and I fully appreciate the passions that can linger after the votes are counted and don’t begrudge anyone for that or presume to tell anyone to “just get over it.” But the least we can do for the candidates, the party, and the country is to be honest and constructive going forward.  And Feinstein’s lies are not helpful.

Uncategorized

Democratic Unity in Monterey County

The following was written by Shawn Bagley, Central Coast for Hillary 2008, California Democratic Party Region 9 Director and Vinz Koller, Monterey County Democrats for Obama, Monterey County Democratic Party Chair. They asked me to post it here and I was happy to agree – it’s a wonderful model of how Democrats are united for the fall.

We had a deal, and now we’re honoring it. Way back when the presidential campaign was just getting started, Shawn decided Hillary Clinton was the best choice, and Vinz decided on Barack Obama. Each of us threw himself into organizing for his candidate, joining many other volunteers on the Central Coast in working with one of the national campaigns.

This meant that throughout the primaries we would be opponents – working for the success of one candidate inevitably meant working for the defeat of the other. But at the same time, we would be working closely together on the Monterey County Democratic Central Committee. Furthermore, we were friends.

What to do? Was it possible to be opponents and allies at the same time?

Absolutely it was. Early on, we came to an agreement, with these terms:

  • By far the most important objective was to elect a Democrat for president. Especially at this point in US history, any other outcome was unthinkable.
  • And so we agreed that throughout the primaries we would compete vigorously but never destructively.
  • And when it was all over, whoever was the nominee would have our full and enthusiastic support.

That is where we are now. Barack Obama has won the nomination, and Shawn will put all his energy into getting him elected president. And if Hillary Clinton had won, Vinz would have done exactly the same thing.

This is not to say that it’s easy, because it isn’t. Shawn put his heart into the Hillary campaign, helping to organize thousands of volunteers into one of the most effective operations in the state, and even arranging for a visit to Salinas by the candidate herself. Watching Hillary concede, Shawn’s heart broke.

But as the candidates themselves have each said many times, in the end this is not about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

It is about the future of our country. And it has seldom been more clear that the best future for our country is with a Democrat in the White House.

We are not the only two who have this deal. Friday evening, local Obama organizer Quinn Gardner drove with Shawn to Oakland to meet with the Northern California Obama campaign staff. They welcomed Shawn warmly, and he made the same promise to them that he had made to Vinz: he will do everything he can to help elect the nominee.

And, after all, it’s the same deal that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama made, and that they are now honoring: a vigorous competition, followed by unity.

Of course Shawn is deeply disappointed that his candidate didn’t win, just as Vinz would be. But while Hillary didn’t win, it would miss an important truth to say simply that she lost. Because no candidate who has mobilized as much support as Hillary has can really be said to have lost. Hillary’s supporters, in their millions, have made their voices heard. And so the influence of Hillary’s ideas and of Hillary’s supporters will live on in a unified general election campaign to elect Barack Obama President of the United States.

As Hillary said in her speech Saturday at the National Building Museum, “The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand, is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama the President of the United States.”

And as Barack said following that speech, “Senator Clinton… has inspired millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to causes like universal health care that make a difference in the lives of hardworking Americans. Our party and our country are stronger because of the work she has done throughout her life, and I’m a better candidate for having had the privilege of competing with her.”

As we come together in unity, the competition has made us stronger. Locally and nationally, the Democratic Party is larger, more focused and more organized than ever before.

We are more likely than ever to win in November, so that starting on January 20, 2009, we can start putting this country back on the right course: the course of peace, prosperity, freedom and justice that we all believe in.

And that is the best deal for all of us.

Uncategorized

Tobacco Money in California SD-19

Big tobacco is pouring money into the crucial California Senate  District 19 race!  See: Tobacco firm funds county GOP : Local News : Ventura County Star,

The nation’s largest tobacco company has donated $50,000 to the Ventura County Republican Central Committee as the local party gears up to help GOP candidate Tony Strickland in what is expected to be a multimillion-dollar campaign this fall in the 19th Senate District.

[. . .] “There’s an alarming trend of the tobacco industry increasing its influence by ramping up its political contributions,” said Jim Knox, vice president of the American Cancer Society Action Network.

Knox noted the tobacco industry played “a major role in killing healthcare reform in California last year. They don’t issue press releases, they don’t testify at hearings, but they’re hard at work in the halls of the Capitol.”

Senate District 19 is the potential “flip” seat in the senate.  If Hannah-Beth Jackson wins it could mean the vote that lets Democrats finally pass budgets.

So why is tobacco interested in keeping Republican ability to block budgets?  Why did they fight to block health care reform?

Part of the financing of the healthcare plan was to have been a $1.75 per-pack tax increase on cigarettes.

Please go read the rest of the article if you care about health and politics – and the health of politics – in California.

Disclaimer – I do some work for Speak Out California, which was founded by Hannah-Beth Jackson, but this post comes from my own concern over this and is not related to that work.