Dave Johnson, Speak Out California

Is California’s lottery becoming just one more subsidy for the rich?  

When We, the People of California agreed to have a state lottery it was to pay for extra education for our children on top of the existing education budget.  It was not supposed to make up for other budget cuts for schools, it was supposed to be extra money to improve the educational system.

This has … migrated.  The lottery under the Governor’s new borrowing plan may be fast becoming one more gimmick to avoid taxing the rich and big corporations.  (Not to mention paying out millions upon millions in debt interest for years and years to those with the means to loan the state these billions.)

The California Budget Project has a new report, Borrowing Against the Future: Are Lottery Bonds the Best Way To Close the Budget Gap? (PDF file)  It is well worth taking a look at.  They say the numbers don’t add up, the lottery can’t deliver the needed revenue, the scheme makes it even harder to fix the budget in the future, will have a high interest rate, and has numerous other problems.  On a conference call Tuesday with jean Ross, one of the report’s authors, I also learned that the cost over time of borrowing this money will be between $41.5 and $50 billion — way too high.  The lottery is largely played by low-income people so efforts to drive up lottery purchases increases their burden and will likely come at a cost of other purchases, thereby sacrificing sales tax revenue to the state.

That there are so many things wrong with this latest borrowing scheme might be a good sign.  It might, just might mean that the Republicans are scraping the very bottom of their barrel of anti-government and tax-avoidance gimmicks.  After this wild scheme collapses maybe, just maybe they’ll come to their senses.

Click through to Speak Out California

Cross-posted with Beyond Chron.

The SF Chronicle announced “breaking news” on their website yesterday (and front-page headline today) that Barack Obama is against Proposition 8 – California’s right-wing constitutional amendment to repeal marriage equality.  Too bad the “breaking” news was a letter that Obama sent to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club several days earlier, and was publicly read at their Pride Breakfast on Sunday.  But regardless of how you define news as “breaking,” Obama has been on record opposing Prop 8 for the past six weeks – as he issued a formal statement on the day of the California Supreme Court’s decision.  The Chronicle yesterday referred to Obama’s May 15th statement as “carefully nuanced” – even though his position was quite explicit, and he even used some of the same language.  Obama has always opposed Prop 8, and his pledge to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act gives LGBT couples very strong reason to campaign for him in the fall.

It’s amusing for the Chronicle to treat a letter read to a crowded room of activists two days earlier in downtown San Francisco as “breaking” news.  Spain won the Euro Cup on June 29th – the same day that Obama’s letter was read.  Would SFGate.com announce Spain’s victory two days after the fact on their front page and call it “Chronicle Breaking News”?  Readers would naturally find that strange, so how is this example any different?

Obama’s position against California’s anti-gay marriage initiative – a welcome addition as activists mobilize to defeat it – isn’t “breaking news.”  In fact, it’s not even news.

Six weeks ago, when the state Supreme Court issued its powerful decision on marriage equality, Barack Obama – like most politicians – issued a statement.  While the statement included some wishy-washy language that Obama “respects” the court decision, supports civil unions and that states should make “their own decisions,” he also formally came out against California’s Proposition 8.

“On the issue of constitutional amendments,” said the May 15th statement, “Senator Obama has been on record for some time: He opposes all divisive and discriminatory constitutional amendments, state or federal.  That includes the proposed amendments in California and Florida.” (my emphasis)

Now compare it with Obama’s letter from three days ago: “As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law … And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.” (my emphasis)

Far from accusations by the right wing that Obama has “flip-flopped” on the issue (which the Chronicle quoted without criticisms), Obama opposed efforts to change California’s Constitution six weeks ago – and he opposes the amendment now.  But somehow, the Chronicle dismissed what the Obama campaign released on May 15th as a “carefully nuanced statement.”

Granted, Obama’s letter on June 29th was more forceful – and it also cited his support for axing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act.  The latter is extremely important, because California same-sex couples still don’t have all the benefits of marriage until the federal government treats them equally.  But even that isn’t news: Obama supported repealing both laws back during the primaries, which made his platform more gay-friendly than Hillary Clinton.

On May 15th, Obama’s position was that marriage should be left to the states – but that he opposed any and all state constitutional amendments.  So his allegedly “nuanced” position was that marriage could be legislated as being between a man and a woman – just as long as you didn’t enshrine hate within the constitution.  Obama didn’t change that position with his letter – he just re-iterated his opposition to California’s Proposition 8, in case you didn’t hear it the first time.

After having carefully read (and re-read) Obama’s letter to the Alice B Toklas Club, the only “news” I can see is that he publicly acknowledged the same-sex couples who got married since the Supreme Court decision.  “I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks,” he wrote.  “I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.”  That may be news – but the media completely missed the boat on why.

In All the President’s Men, which details how Washington Post reporters helped bring down Richard Nixon with Watergate, the paper’s editor dismisses a salesman trying to sell him a feature for a weather report for people who were too drunk the day before, with the line: “Send it out to the San Francisco Chronicle – they need it.”  Apparently, the Chronicle still hasn’t learned in the past 35 years that yesterday’s news is not “breaking news.”

But it wasn’t just the Chronicle that got this story wrong — even liberal blogs treated the Alice B Toklas letter as a break from Obama’s prior position.  But Barack Obama has opposed changing the California Constitution to discriminate against same-sex couples for quite a long time – which gives the LGBT community more reason to enthusiastically support his candidacy.

EDITOR’S NOTE: In his spare time and outside of regular work hours, Paul Hogarth volunteered on Obama’s field operation in San Francisco. He also ran to be an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

Under current law, prosecutors can incarcerate domestic violence victims to make them testify against the perpetrator.  Unfortunately, this has the effect of scaring many victims out of testifying. The practice was previously banned for sexual assault victims. Well, today, consider that practice an historical one for domestic violence victims as well:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Los Angeles) today signed into law a bill that victim advocates believe will result in more women coming forward to law enforcement after falling victim to domestic violence.  Senate Bill 1356, authored by Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo), protects domestic violence survivors from the threat of incarceration when they refuse to testify against their abuser in court.   The law mirrors an existing statute for sexual assault victims.

Full Press release over the flip

SACRAMENTO – Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Los Angeles) today signed into law a bill that victim advocates believe will result in more women coming forward to law enforcement after falling victim to domestic violence.  Senate Bill 1356, authored by Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo), protects domestic violence survivors from the threat of incarceration when they refuse to testify against their abuser in court.   The law mirrors an existing statute for sexual assault victims.

“I am very pleased to see the Governor and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support this commonsense and much-needed legislation,” said Yee.  “Domestic violence survivors have been through enough; the last thing they need is to be re-victimized by our legal system or be exposed to threats of incarceration.  This law is not going to result in fewer prosecutions, but instead just the opposite.  Survivors are more likely to report incidents of domestic violence when they trust law enforcement and our system of justice.”

In fact, in a letter regarding another bill before the Legislature in 1991, then Los Angeles District Attorney Ira Reiner agreed with Yee and victim advocates.  The letter from Reiner’s special counsel John Lovell stated, “Prosecutors who raise the spectra of possible incarceration of victim/witnesses diminish the credibility of the criminal justice system as an effective instrument in combating domestic violence.  The unintended consequence of those types of warnings is a chilling constraint on victim/witnesses to come forward in these types of cases at all.”

“SB 1356 ensures that victims of domestic violence have the same statutory protections as sexual assault victims and exempts them from the threat of being incarcerated for refusal to testify against their perpetrators,” said Schwarzenegger.  “Domestic violence victims, like many sexual assault victims, are victimized by perpetrators they know, and experience similar psychological trauma and fear of retribution from the abuser or the abuser’s family members.”

“Coercion is a draconian practice that should not be used in getting a victim to testify after just facing a similar control tactic from her abuser,” said Yee.  “Instead, prosecutors should work with advocates in getting the victim to a place where she is comfortable and willing to testify, which in turn will result in a much more successful prosecution.  SB 1356 also rightfully considers the children in domestic violence cases, who will no longer be put at risk of losing both parents and being unfairly pushed into foster care.”

Since 1991, sexual assault victims have not faced imprisonment if they decide not to testify in a criminal case, whereas domestic violence victims under a second contempt charge have been subject to incarceration.  This law was tested in 2005, when the district attorney in San Mateo County pursued and a judge ordered jail time to a victim for refusing to testify against her abuser.  The state appeals court later dissolved the contempt charge due to the fact that the case was already prosecuted and resulted in a guilty verdict without the victim’s testimony.

“I felt that the system had given up on me,” said Katina Britt, the victim in the case.  “The district attorney did not protect me, even though I was a victim of a serious bodily injury crime.  The DA wanted to victimize me once more and the court willingly obliged.  I wish I had the protection sought by Senator Yee’s bill.”

“It is improper and unjust to hold the victim personally responsible for winning a guilty verdict against the batterer,” said Yee.  “There is no evidence to suggest that forced testimony leads to higher conviction rates.  It is unconscionable that survivors of domestic violence have faced such threats and even more disturbing that some have been dealt jail sentences after falling victim to something out of their control.”

“As the state domestic violence coalition, our primary concern is for victims’ safety,” said Marivic Mabanag, Executive Director of the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence.  “It is the victims themselves who are in the best position to judge when testifying against their abusers might pose a serious threat to themselves or their children.”

In addition to the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, the bill was supported by the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, California Psychiatric Association, California Protective Parents Association, California Public Defenders Association, Crime Victims United, Equality California, Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety, and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), as well as over fifty other prevention advocacy organizations throughout the state.

SB 1356 is Yee’s first bill signed by the Governor in 2008.  SB 1356 officially becomes law on January 1, 2009.

Because of the OC Register, I hate being alive.  I hope they’re happy.

In a column from last week that would have escaped me if Jesse from Pandagon hadn’t seen it, Hank Adler decides that the best way to attack Barack Obama’s spending plan is to remind everyone what professional athletes will lose out of the deal.

It was fortunate for Tiger that his most-recent U.S. Open win occurred in 2008. Under twin tax proposals from Obama to 1) remove the “cap” from Social Security taxes for individuals earning over $250,000, a plateau Tiger has long since surpassed in 2008, and 2) eliminate the “Bush” tax cuts, thereby raising the top marginal federal income tax rate to 39.6 percent, Tiger’s taxes on his winner’s check would have increased to approximately $776,000, a boost of almost $190,000. Instead of Tiger keeping 57 percent of his earnings and the government taking 43 percent, under the twin Obama tax proposals, Tiger’s federal and California taxes would have amounted to 57 percent of his winnings, leaving Tiger with just 43 percent.

I know when California families are deciding between air conditioning or meat, when they muse about using a rickshaw to get to work because gas is as out of reach as gold, they are actually upset because they know Tiger Woods is being deprived of $190,000 out of the eleventy billion in his bank account.  What, his new baby has to get silver-plated starter clubs now instead of the expected gold?  Can you look yourself in the eye and say that doesn’t eat you up inside?

Adler continues:

Prefer baseball to golf?

The New York Yankees have a 2008 payroll of approximately $208 million. Under the twin Obama tax proposals, the 24 Yankee players would be hit with an aggregate increase in federal income taxes of just over $22 million, with slugger Alex Rodriguez single-handedly getting dunned with $2.6 million in additional federal taxes.

The owner of the Yankees would owe an additional $7.5 million of federal taxes. Ticket prices would need to be increased by about $65 million so that the owner and players could have the same after-tax income as before. The increase in ticket prices would amount to an average $16 per ticket. Given that the least-expensive ticket in Yankee Stadium currently is $14, this would more than double the cost of a seat in the bleachers.

Adler hit upon the two most sympathetic characters in all of sports, maybe all of Christendom, to single out as martyrs: Alex Rodriguez and George Steinbrenner.  Incidentally, with the Yanks 7 1/2 games out of first, I don’t think anyone’s going to feel too bad about them losing money.  Then there’s the part where Steinbrenner is entitled to his after-tax earnings and simply must fleece the hardworking fans, because the Yankees have no other revenue streams to speak of.

You can go on to dispute Adler by mentioning the top-level tax rate in 1960 (it was 90%), the tax rates under Clinton which Obama would restore and how that affected business (the largest peacetime expansion in history), etc., etc.  But someone with the insight to use the plight of enormously wealthy ballplayers to rally the middle-class public to his cause isn’t really worth the time.  Only the mockery.

This week’s edition of the SF Weekly has an article on Stealth Bloggers which argues that our work is “compromised” because some Calitics writers were paid by campaigns this last cycle – specifically, Bob Brigham and Brian Leubitz were paid by Mark Leno’s campaign. The Weekly wants to believe this is some sort of scandal, perhaps to deflect from the Weekly’s own criminal practices.

But there’s no there there. As the article notes, Brigham and Leubitz were completely honest about their affiliations. Brigham repeatedly explained that he was proud to do work for Mark Leno. Leubitz said the same. How is it stealth when there is open and prominent disclosure?

There was nothing to prevent Joe Nation and his supporters from writing their own pieces here at Calitics. A blog such as Calitics encourages such contributions – the front page has prominence, sure, but other diaries can get recommended and even promoted.

The problem is that the Weekly author, Matt Smith, wants to put blogs in the same category as journalists, who supposedly maintain neutral objectivity about what they cover. We have NEVER made such a claim to objectivity. Our biases and positions are open. That’s the real difference between us and other journalists, who hide their affiliations and biases and pretend to be objective. Smith holds up traditional journalism as pure and ideal, when it is clearly no such thing – witness their fawning support for John McCain.

There are no hidden affiliations here. Some Calitics writers, myself included, work for the Courage Campaign. Others have worked for candidates and ballot proposition supporters or opponents. And many aren’t paid by any political group at all.

Our writing is positional. You know that going in. Anyone who reads Calitics and who is shocked to know that we espouse progressive Democratic causes is either not paying attention or being intentionally misleading.

Bloggers believe that the reader is intelligent enough to come to their own opinions on the matter. We disclose our affiliations so that the reader can make up their own mind about whether to take our opinions seriously or not. Matt Smith implies an intent to deceive that simply isn’t there – it’s a dishonest article.

Finally, there’s nothing to stop someone from starting their own blog to cover California politics. We believe more bloggers should be credentialed to the CDP convention, to the state legislature, to press conferences. The more the merrier. We’re not afraid of it, no matter what the position or opinion is of the blogger.

Of course, this IS the same Matt Smith who told his readers a few weeks ago to ignore who was backing Prop 98 and focus instead on its supposed benefits. Consistency doesn’t seem to be a strength of his.