The Field Poll has been surveying Californians’ attitudes on Prop 13, and the broader issues of taxes and spending. What they’ve found is that Californians don’t want spending cuts, prefer spending cuts to new taxes – but also are willing to support new taxes if they’re the only way to prevent health care cuts.

Frank Russo offers an excellent in-depth look at the poll, which suggests that the public is willing to cut prisons (even though we have to INCREASE spending by at least $7 billion), and supports higher alcohol, cigarette, income, and sales taxes top protect health care.

Reading these poll numbers against the Field Poll’s Prop 13 numbers, which indicated ongoing support for Prop 13 and a belief that the state’s problems stem from spending and not tax problems it seems clear that there is a massive disconnect among California voters. They cling desperately to the belief that government waste and overspending is the problem of deficits, otherwise they might have to honestly and openly explain that their support for tax cuts is a desire to get government-sponsored tax shelters at the expense of everyone else in society and our state’s economic competitiveness.

Frank Russo argued the Field Poll numbers might provide a “road map” forward for the legislature. I agree, although that map suggests confrontation will be the first stop on the trip. Something has to give – Californians cannot maintain their low-tax environment without crippling spending cuts they say they don’t want. Republicans will take that to mean a stubborn refusal to increase taxes is popular with voters; they’ll not be inclined at all to seek new revenues.

What is really needed is a strong and persistent argument from Democrats – in Sacramento and in the grassroots – that our state has a structural revenue shortfall – that our problems really do stem from a lack of revenue, that a state ranking 46th in per pupil school spending doesn’t have any revenue to cut. We need to not shrink away when Californians insist that our problems are on the spending side – those Californians are wrong.

It’s especially important to begin with fellow Democrats. The Field numbers suggest that many Democrats are ardent defenders of Prop 13 and believe spending cuts are preferable to tax increases. These Democrats should be the target of a broad-based and long-term campaign to show them the error of this thinking – that their Democratic values are not compatible with these thoughts on budgeting.

It won’t be easy, but it is necessary if we are to fix this state.

I think the dictionary definition of “irony” just blew up.

Before Henry T. Nicholas III donated millions to rewrite California’s crime laws, the Republican billionaire was entangled in his own netherworld of prostitution, drug peddling, bribery and death threats, federal prosecutors say.

The salacious charges against Nicholas – made public in two federal grand jury indictments unsealed last Thursday – allege a pattern of criminal behavior by one of the state’s richest people and biggest political donors.

Nicholas, the 48-year-old co-founder of Broadcom, a computer chip-making company, has donated more than $9.4 million to various California candidates and causes in the past four years. He is a top donor to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

This year, the indicted Republican billionaire is the financial force behind two crime initiatives voters will consider in November – one to stiffen anti-gang statutes and another to bolster victims’ rights. Combined, he has given the measures $5.9 million – critical seed money used to collect signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Proponents are furiously backpedaling away from Nicholas’ involvement – even though he is the largest donor to both campaigns.

This guy was backdating stock options to the tune of $2.2 billion, supplied all kinds of drugs to associates and LISTED THEM ON INVOICES as “refreshments” and “party favors,” bribed a Broadcom employee a million dollars to get him to keep quiet about his drug use, and threatened physical violence to conceal the same.

He’s the one telling California how to manage their crime laws?

The two he’s funded for the November ballot are real doozies, considering that we’re in the midst of a prison overcrowding crisis.

This year, Nicholas is most closely tied to “Marsy’s Law,” which would expand the rights of crime victims and make it harder for convicts to obtain parole.

Nicholas wrote the measure, named it after his sister, and contributed all but $100 of the measure’s $4.85 million treasury […]

The second Nicholas-backed initiative, the Safe Neighborhoods Act, would stiffen penalties for gang members and increase law enforcement funding in the state.

Nicholas donated $1 million to the campaign, sponsored by Sen. George Runner and Assemblywoman Sharon Runner, two Lancaster Republicans.

Hypocrisy among Republicans is nothing new.  But this drive for ever tougher crime laws is fueled by growing the prison-industrial complex and keeping residents scared enough to send “law ‘n’ order” Republicans back to Sacramento.  It’s an insidious game, and the fact that its chief sponsor has committed more crimes BY HIMSELF than any he would address in his initiatives, seemingly, makes it even more unseemly.

We still have a grace period to determine how the state will manage this crisis and avoid a federal mandate to cap the prison population.  Hopefully there will be enough room for Henry Nicholas.

Last week I wrote a post about SB 1096, a bill to allow pharmacies to sell prescription data. Apparently that post got some attention, partially for my rather crass snark, but also for the subject of the bill.  One particular response was noteworthy. I publish the following email with permission of the author; the phone number is for the main line at Calderon's Sacramento office.

Brian,

You should go back to public policy school and learn how to read a bill. You apparently don’t know how to or are too lazy. If you had bothered to do that, rather than taking the word of others who haven’t read the bill either, you’d have known how inaccurate your misinformed little column is. And accuracy should be important, even for bloggers. If you would like to discuss you can reach me at (916) xxx-xxxx.

Rocky Rushing
Chief of Staff
Senator Ronald S. Calderon
30th Senate District

Perhaps I should go back to school, it was fun after all. But, I think I know how to read a bill pretty darn well. Specifically, I'm pretty comfortable with my analysis of SB 1096.  I called the number in the email and eventually spoke to Mr. Rushing. His principal concern was a quote from the Consumer Federation of California that indicated that SB 1096 would allow pharmacies to sell data to pharmaceutical manufacturers that I quoted from the Chronicle article

“This bill would be a windfall for corporations seeking to track, buy and sell a patient's private medical records,” said Zack Kaldveer, spokesman for the Consumer Federation of California. “This would represent a significant intrusion by pharmaceutical companies into the privacy of patients. By opening this Pandora's box, consumers could wind up receiving mailings designed to look as if they came from the pharmacy yet conflict with what their pharmacist or doctor has recommended. Such a scenario would be a threat to their health.” (SF Chron 5/28/08)

First, he should think about taking this up with the Consumer Fed, but I'll address it as well.  I described the purchasers of this data as “pharmaceutical marketers.” The accuracy of that description is incontrovertible; clearly the people buying this data can be fairly described as marketers. Mr. Rushing was quite keen on saying that the data wasn't going to the manufacturers but rather to these third party data brokers. Now, that might be true in practice, but there is no limitation in the bill as written which would stop the manufacturers from attaining this data to send these letters themselves. 

The nitty gritty and some more details of the conversation over the flip.

Here's the newly crafted language of the relevant law:

Except to the extent expressly authorized by the patient or enrollee or subscriber or as provided by subdivisions (b) and (c), no provider of health care, health care service plan, contractor, or corporation and its subsidiaries and affiliates shall intentionally share, sell, use for marketing, or otherwise use any medical information for any purpose not necessary to provide health care services to the patient. For purposes of this section, a written communication mailed to a patient by a pharmacy shall be deemed to be necessary to provide health care services to the patient and shall not require prior authorization, if all of the following conditions are met:(emphasis added)

There are a bunch of limitations to this broad general exception to the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act that you can see if you check out the bill. There's a requirement that the letters stop when there's no refills remaining or the prescription is canceled and a requirement that only the drug prescribed can be referenced in the reminder letter. There are strict confidentiality provisions in proposed Civil Code 56.10(d)(9). But nowhere does the bill stop manufacturers from purchasing the data from pharmacies. In fact, the bill explicitly contemplates that “manufacturers and distributors” will be paying for these letters by requiring a disclosure on the letter. 

Furthermore, I'm not sure having 3rd party data brokers like Adheris (aka Elansys ) having the data is really that much more comforting than having Merck or Eli Lilly having it. In effect, this bill would moot a court case brought against Adheris for doing this already. Retroactive immunity is in vogue these days I suppose. (Note: It's not clear that this would moot the court case, that would have to be resolved by the courts.)

But to the greater issue, that of privacy. Mr. Rushing makes the argument that 49 other states have this rule to allow sales of pharmaceutical records, and why is California the outlier? There is a simple response to this: Californians value their privacy. We have the toughest privacy laws in the nation, thank you, Representative Speier, precisely because we feel that data warehousers shouldn't have access to every morsel of information about us. As my mother always said, just because everybody else is doing it doesn't mean that we should too.  We needn't join that race to the privacy floor that HIPAA provides.  Our privacy laws are, and should be, a model for other states.

That being said, there are health benefits of reminder communications for chronic conditions. However, they do not need to be sponsored. The pharmacy can send out these mailings now as could the prescribing doctor.  In fact, despite whatever arguments the National Association of Chain Drug Stores and the California Retailers Association makes on the policy arguments that this is substantially better for public health (Rushing gave me a $150bn figure for nationwide savings if everybody took their meds on schedule), the fact is that the risk involved in the sales of these records outweighs the benefits. We can already provide reminders without sales of medical records financed by manufacturers or distributors. Even the California Medical Association agrees that we needn't travel this risky ground in the name of possible results.
 
I had a very enlightening conversation with Mr. Rushing on other issues as well, whereupon he told me that “Ivory Tower/Ivy League” elites just don't get the district. I will point out that I have been entirely educated by public schools, from kindergarten through both graduate degrees.  Nonetheless, it was all the “elites”(like me, I suppose) fault because everybody loves the Calderons in the district.  Well, at least 300 people more than those who liked Rudy Bermudez in the 2006 primary election. (PDF Results here ) Oh, Mr. Rushing also believes that they deserve their success because of their record of service.  I think that really there is too much there to even parse.

When I asked Mr. Rushing if he happened to know how many individual contributions Sen. Calderon took in last year, or at least a general comparison to how much money he had received from interests opposed to consumer privacy. He was unable to answer, but I am. Sen. Calderon over $20K  from corporations and PACs that would be benefitted by SB 1096. As to the other side of the equation, let's just say that last year Senator Ron Calderon took in no personal contributions, no contributions from privacy groups, etc. But, I suppose that's all chump change compared to what Ron Calderon took in for his “Legal Defense Fund” that he used on his recount in the 2006 election.

I'll agree that the 30th Senate District isn't a bastion of wealth, and that it needs legislators that put in effort and facetime.  It's great that people know the Calderons. But it would be even better if elections were determined not by family relationships, but by the issues and accomplishments that each candidate brings to the table. Mr. Calderon eeked out his election against Rudy Bermudez, a former Assemblyman who fought for ethics reform, and he next faces voters in 2010. I'm sure Senator Calderon will use the opportunity to discuss his achievements. We'll see if allowing pharmacies to sell prescription data is in the stump speech.

Oh, and if Mr. Rushing is interested in a policy school, I highly recommend Berkeley's Goldman School.

XPosted on MyDesert.com

As I reported in an earlier blog, Dale Wissman, California School Employees Association, wrote a piece that disrespected Julie Bornstein, Democratic Nominee for the 45th Congressional District, Greg Pettis, former-Democratic Candidate for the 80th Assembly District, Pettis’ supporters and bloggers, The Desert Sun, and the TDS’ editorial staff and reporters.  Rather than focus on the Victor Manuel Perez victory Tuesday in the Democratic primary for the 80th AD and on solidifying support for Perez amongst the West Valley Democrats and Decline to States, Wissman chose to go beyond the pale, to gloat about his responsibility for the victory, and to slam all of his perceived opponents.  Wissman’s email was then published on his cousin’s blog, sending shockwaves through the Coachella Valley.  (BBBz note: blog has now deleted the offensive post.)

Wissman, in response to intense public pressure from local Democratic club leadership, including President of the Desert Stonewall Democratic Club George Zander, and to the increasing dismay of the Perez camp for the resulting alienation of local Democratic Club leadership, Democratic electeds in the West Valley, and the local Democratic activists and bloggers (soyinkafan’s “West Valley elite”), apologized for the publication of his offensive email.

More below the flip…

Although assuming responsibility for his inappropriate missive, Wissman, did not apologize for the tenor or the content of his writing.  The following is the email Wissman sent out to local Democrats:

I would like to apologize for putting everyone through this.  I can’t tell you how bad I feel about this.  It was never my intention for anyone other than CSEA staff to see this email.  Written with high spirits on the morning after election night, the email went out only to top CSEA staff.   No CSEA members received this email, and only about two dozen CSEA staff members actually received it, one of which is married to Randy Bayne, my cousin.  It was a kind of “insider baseball” email that wasn’t supposed to see the light of day, but of course it did.  

The email/blog certainly does not reflect well on me or CSEA, and as long it stays that way I’m fine with that.  But, please don’t let this reflect poorly on Manuel, who had absolutely nothing to do with this email, does not condone it, and will no doubt let me know just how pissed off he is about it.  Once again, my email to CSEA staff, in no way reflects the sentiment of Manuel Perez’s camp, which is very much focused on solidifying Democratic support in all areas of the AD80, especially in the much needed and hugely important Westside.  

Once again, I would like to apologize..  It was never my intention that Greg, or anyone outside of CSEA staff, see that correspondence.

Dale Wissman

Labor Relations Representative

California School Employees Association

(760) 564-1141 office

(760) 564-2241 fax

Fallout from the offensive blog continues as apparently one of the unions linked to Wissman is not at all amused by the email, by the blog posting, or by its impact on local Democratic leaders.

Ethics, honesty, fair play, honor, common sense, intelligence and truthfulness. Some, or all, of these were missing from several of the various campaigns leading up to the June 3rd primary election. Has politics always been a nasty business? Sorry, there are no answers in this blog.

——————————————————————————–

More than that, at least for now, I cannot promise….

    I consider myself a Yellow Dog Democrat and 80th Assembly District candidate Manuel Perez will have my vote in November. More than that, at least for now, I cannot promise.

News of events surrounding the 80th Assembly District Democratic primary continue to surface and some reports have proved troubling. Serious concerns have been aroused by recent revelations of CSEA labor relations representative Dale Wissman’s role as a campaign strategist in the Manuel Perez primary election campaign. It’s now clear that without him some $500 thousand in outside PAC money would not have been available. Wissman’s efforts were responsible for the influx of paid staff and volunteers from San Diego, Rancho Cucamonga and elsewhere outside the district who walked on Perez’s behalf. In an in-your-face victory blog address to those volunteers, while slamming the opposition, Wissman also rightfully claimed credit for the Perez victory and there’s little reason for doubt. Manuel Perez owes his primary win to Dale Wissman! Of the four candidates competing in the Democratic primary, Manuel Perez was the only one so beholden to the support of a single individual. The money, the out-of-district volunteers, and, let’s not forget, the nasty campaign mailings smearing candidate Greg Pettis, were made possible through Dale Wissman’s participation. It’s probably a bit much to classify Wissman as Perez’s Svengali, but the “alter ego” title certainly seems to fit.

Will Dale Wissman continue as a key adviser to an elected Assemblyman Manuel Perez? If so, what will be the affect of his involvement and what will it mean to the constituents in this district? These are questions similar to those one could ask about George Bush or Hillary Clinton. Would one have done a better job had it not been for the presence of a Cheney, Rove or Rumsfeld? Would Hillary Clinton have been a more effective candidate without Bill? The relationship of these principals to their alter egos was such that the latter seemed to exercise positions of undue significance and influence. That’s certainly basis for similar concern over the candidacy of Manuel Perez and his alter ego, Dale Wissman.

These are issues and questions that are troublesome. As for answers, I think both time and further reflection will be needed before I’ve reached conclusions appropriate for me. Until then, I’ll have to stand aside and watch the parade form up and move off without me, for I’m not yet ready. So, “More than that, at least for now, I cannot promise.”

Bond Shands

Palm Springs

(Cross-posted at Living in the O.)

UPDATE: It looks like the AC Transit Board of Directors may not be voting tomorrow on a fare increase! Instead, they're looking into a putting a parcel tax initiative on the November ballot. So tomorrow at their hearing, they'll likely vote to postpone discussing fare increases until after the November election. (BTW – last time I'm relying on the SF Chronicle as a source.) Also, the Board will be considering sending a letter of opposition to the FTA's proposal on nixing school buses from public transit.

This morning, I sat down on the bus to be greeted by a flyer with red, bold writing, proclaiming:

Rider Alert!
Governor’s Budget Cuts $19 Million from AC Transit.
Phone calls needed to protect your bus service!

So I knew I’d be writing about the need to take action for transit this evening. At the time, I hadn’t realized that transit’s being attacked by all levels of government this week. Luckily, there are three ways you can take action to stop these attacks.

1. LOCAL – Remember last month when I reported on the AC Transit public hearing about fare increases? Well, that was just a hearing to take public comments. This Wednesday, the AC Transit Board of Directors will be discussing the four plans and likely voting to implement one of them. This may be your last chance to speak out against fare hikes – especially the increases for monthly passes. Here’s the hearing info:

AC Transit Board of Directors Meeting
2nd Floor Board Room
1600 Franklin Street, Oakland, CA 94612
Wednesday, June 11, 2008 @ 5:00 p.m.

2. STATE – While AC Transit will almost certainly raise fares, the agency’s not content to sit by while the Governor takes $1.4 billion away from public transit, including $19 million from AC Transit alone. This just doesn’t make sense – at a time when gas prices are rising and commuters are finally realizing it makes sense to take public transit, our state is defunding public transit agencies. AC Transit sent out an email, put out flyers, and is featuring an action alert on their front page. I hope other transit agencies are doing the same. If you care about transit, take 30 seconds to call Governor Schwarzenegger:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
(916) 445-2841 (phone)
(916) 558-3160 (fax)
online comment form

It’s simple – just call and say your name and what city you live in. Then, say that you oppose any cuts to public transit funding. Really – it takes 30 seconds so pick up your phone and call now. And if you’re too freaked out about calling, send in a fax or make a comment online.

3. FEDERAL – Thanks to OaklandNews, I found out that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is trying to prohibit public transit agencies from offering special bus routes to school. I had to read the article twice because it was just so hard for me to believe. I know the Bush administration FTA hasn’t been too friendly to transit, but this is outrageous! Ostensibly, the FTA is trying to protect private school bus companies (in other words, just like with everything else, they want to privatize, privatize, privatize). Congresswoman Barbara Lee is standing up to the FTA about this proposal, and she could use the support of others to urge the FTA to back off from forcing students to walk or forcing parents to shell out even more gas money to drive their kids to school. The Education Report tells us how to chime in:

Want to give the feds feedback on the proposal? You can submit a comment online at: http://www.regulations.gov, or fax it to: 202-493-2251. The proposal is listed under Docket No. FTA-2008-0015.

Well, that’s it for now on the transportation front. Hopefully next time I’ll have some better news, but for now, don’t sulk – take action!