Daily Archives: July 23, 2008

San Diego

CA-52: Good news for Mike Lumpkin

According to a press release issued by the campaign, Mike has raised more than any Democratic candidate in the history of the 52nd district, raising more than $300,000. I’ll take it as a great sign, though it is a long road to November. But it looks like this time around, we’ve got a serious candidate in this normally very red district. Keep up the great work, Mike!

Mike Lumpkin’s website

Mike’s ActBlue page

Commander Lumpkin’s historic fund raising effort reached record breaking heights last month when it broke the previous record set in the 2000 Congressional race. Democratic candidate Craig Barkacs raised $267,000 over the course of his entire campaign, a number which Lumpkin surpassed last month just after the primary. “East county’s excitement is telling. Just like the rest of the nation, they want change – they want their country back,” said Campaign Manager Chris Young. “It’s not just Democrats who are coming alive in the district, Commander Lumpkin’s supporters and volunteers include Independents and Republicans as well,” said Young.

Hopefully they can put the money to good use, Mike’s a great candidate, and we really, really don’t need Lil’ Duncan inheriting his father’s seat. Just have to make sure he can’t skate by on name recognition, and force him to actually campaign, something his father managed to avoid almost entirely his last few elections, not bothering to debate, let alone even acknowledge his opponents. But Mike definitely looks like the right candidate for the job.

Uncategorized

Feinstein’s Mukasey Debacle

4 Comments

Full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign

Today the New York Times reports on the continuing failure of the Michael Mukasey as Attorney General experiment. Back in November we at the Courage Campaign didn’t much like the notion of an Attorney General Mukasey, but Senator Dianne Feinstein strongly disagreed. She got a lot of pushback and defended her case in an LA Times OpEd that she might want back at this point given the way reality has actually played out. Let’s play point/counterpoint between Feinstein’s argument in November and the New York Times today:

Feinstein:

During a long career in public service and private practice, Michael B. Mukasey has forged an independent path as a lawyer and federal judge.

Sen. Arlen Specter:

“I don’t want to use the word ‘disappointed,’ but he hasn’t provided the balance that I had hoped for”

Feinstein:

Judge Mukasey is not Alberto R. Gonzales. In our confirmation hearings (and subsequently, in writing), Judge Mukasey’s answers to hundreds of questions were crisp and to the point, and reflected an independent mind.

…

The Justice Department is in desperate need of effective leadership. It is leaderless, and 10 of its top positions are vacant. Morale among U.S. attorneys needs to be restored, priorities reassessed and a new dynamic of independence from the White House established.

Sen. Patrick Leahy:

But Mr. Mukasey is “letting the worst excesses of the Gonzales era stand,” he continued, “and that disappoints me. It’s like saying, ‘I’m going to be a place holder,’ and this is a man who certainly has the ability to be something more than a place holder. He doesn’t want to rock the boat.”

Feinstein:

In the hearing, Judge Mukasey clearly expressed his personal repugnance regarding torture. And in a letter dated Oct. 30, he reiterated his personal views and described in detail the analysis he would undertake if confirmed.

NY Times (emphasis mine):

From fending off calls to investigate accusations of torture to resisting a nationwide strategy against mortgage fraud, Mr. Mukasey has taken a go-slow approach that has surprised even some admirers, who see him as unwilling to break from past policies and leave his own imprint in the closing months of the Bush administration.

Feinstein:

I do not believe a president can be above the law, and neither does Judge Mukasey. In addition, Judge Mukasey explained that his view on executive power is based on an analysis of the Supreme Court’s 1952 decision in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. vs. Sawyer. Justice Robert Jackson wrote in that decision that the president’s power is greatest when he is backed by statutory authority from Congress, and at its lowest ebb when his actions are in conflict with a statute.

NY Times (emphasis mine):

But perhaps his biggest accomplishment has been the expansion of the government’s wiretapping powers under a bill signed into law by President Bush this month. Mr. Mukasey had little active role in the day-to-day negotiations with Congress, Congressional officials said. But he and Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, sent a series of sharply worded letters to lawmakers, keeping the pressure on them to update the surveillance law and provide legal immunity to the phone companies that took part in the eavesdropping program approved by Mr. Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

After a months-long impasse over the surveillance measure, administration officials hailed its passage. But critics saw it as a continuation of the status quo under Mr. Mukasey. “I think he was determined to sustain the administration’s position,” Mr. Specter said, rather than work to scale back the White House’s claims to executive power after the controversy caused by the domestic wiretapping program.

Essentially, Senator Feinstein’s entire argument has been refuted by Mukasey’s actual performance on the job. While she wasn’t the only one involved, her proactive work to confirm Mukasey has done a major disservice to the rule of law and health of the Constitution in this country. But if we needed any further evidence that Mukasey is actually nefarious as opposed to lazy or incompetent, look no further than the week he’s delivering to us right now. Mukasey has embarked upon a campaign to compel Congress to pass a law altering the Constitutional right of habeas corpus, overruling the courts and the intentions of the founding fathers while also conveniently covering up the abuses delivered by the Bush Administration at Guantanamo Bay. He isn’t just failing to fix the problem, he’s now neck deep in trying to cover it up. The Attorney General is the lawyer for the government, but the law itself is supposed to still come first. Mukasey is actively seeking to subvert the rule of law, and we have, in part, Senator Feinstein to thank.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is exactly what we’ve been talking about all along here at Courage. A fundamental breakdown of leadership. At the very least, she could admit it and try to push back. But instead, we get her rolling over on FISA, just like the anti-Constitution Mukasey told her to. This is not what California elected her to do.

Uncategorized

Lawsuit by SEIU against SEIU-UHW gets tossed

2 Comments

Back in April, I wrote about a lawsuit SEIU was filing against SEIU-UHW.  Today, that suit was dismissed by the federal district court judge (PDF Order here).

In legal parlance, SEIU failed to state a claim under federal rule of civil procedure 12b6.  The rule is basically a frivolous lawsuit screening tool, and not a very high standard to get past this rule. However, SEIU went for something of a legal reach against their rebellious local, and were slapped down.

Ignoring what I felt personally about this case, I never really saw much in terms of a legal claim. I guess sometimes my legal intuition is right. UHW will be able to receive legal fees arising from the litigation.

You can read UHW’s take here

San Francisco

SF: Mayor Gavin Newsom Sides with PG&E Against Sierra Club on Clean Energy Act

1 Comment

I have little doubt that Senator Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic Nominee had it not been for her caving to right wing talking points and voting for the Iraq War. Being on the wrong side the the biggest foreign policy disaster in a generation is what advanced her career from inevitable nominee to junior senator. At the time, many of us in the netroots were flabbergasted, we knew it was a disastrous course of action and came to the conclusion that those who sided with George Bush and the neocons either had no grasp of the situation or were doing it for as a purely political calculation (and a poor one at that as Clinton discovered).

Iraq was the single biggest foreign policy decision, but when it comes to the global climate crisis, I’m getting a sense of déjà vu from the positioning and language used by San Francisco Mayor and 2010 California Gubernatorial hopeful Gavin Newsom as to why he’s siding with PG&E against the Sierra Club on clean, renewable energy.

As was reported this morning on Clean Energy Act getting seven of eleven votes on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and thus qualifying for the 2008 fall ballot:

San Francisco supervisors Tuesday approved the submission of a November ballot measure calling on the city to produce more than half of its energy through renewable sources within a decade, and also explore a move toward city control of its power.

The San Francisco Clean Energy Act calls for the city to fulfill 51 percent of its energy needs through renewable energy by 2017, rising to 75 percent by 2030, and 100 percent “or the greatest amount technologically feasible or practicable” by 2040.

The Charter Amendment says San Francisco wants clean, renewable energy and we need to set our sights on it and figure out how to make it happen. Sounds like something a Democrat facing a Democratic Primary would want to support, especially in light of Al Gore’s bold call to action to act even more aggressively.

Right Wing Talking Points Emerge

Democrats step up to fight against global climate change and you’ll be shocked to know that the polluters fought back using right-wing talking points:

A host of big-name politicos, including several supervisors, Assemblyman Mark Leno and former Public Utilities Commission manager Susan Leal, gathered on the steps of City Hall Tuesday to support the act.

“This is our time,” Supervisor Tom Ammiano said. “We’re going to win, and we’ll keep the lights on for you.”

Opponents, including Pacific Gas and Electric Co., say voters would see their utility rates spike if the city turns to public power. In mailers sent to voters last week, PG&E also says city government can’t even fill potholes and shouldn’t be granted another responsibility.

Look at the language in the mail. It didn’t defend PG&E, it attacked the very concept that government can deliver services. To defend PG&E’s monopoly profits, they are going after the very fundamentals of government. So did Mayor Gavin Newsom defend his city’s government, of buy into the right-wing talking points:

“Let’s call it what it is, it’s a public power initiative to take over PG&E … who are by any objective standards doing more than any other utility in the United States of America [to reduce greenhouse emissions],” Newsom said.

A campaign to defeat the initiative has already been formed through Newsom advisor Eric Jaye’s political consultant group.

There is so much, so wrong with that that I think it needs a list:

  • It is not a takeover of PG&E, it is a push for 100% clean, renewable energy.
  • If he’s right that PG&E is the best vehicle to move beyond fossil fuels, they will be the vehicle. However, when on the same day PG&E announces a $850-million carbon-based plant a few miles from San Francisco it might look ridiculous
  • The right-wing talking points in the misleading mail cited above against San Francisco government being able to get anything done is being sent by the Mayor’s own chief consultant?

Why is Gavin Newsom trying to make Al Gore cry?

Uncategorized

CA House Races Roundup – July Edition

1 Comment

Greetings and welcome to the latest installment of the California House races roundup.  We’re just around 100 days to go until the election, and things are starting to take focus.  There are about a half-dozen seats where Democratic challengers have an outside shot at dumping the incumbent, and another six on the watch list in case something spectacular occurs.  One thing to note is that the Cook numbers are tied to the 2004 election, and given the demographic changes and cratering of the Republican brand I think they mean significantly less now – it’ll be interesting to see how all these districts change in November.

We have plenty of new information to judge these races, including 2nd quarter fundraising reports, national ratings from Charlie Cook and Swing State Project, additional DCCC targets, and the appearance of many challengers at Netroots Nation.  So this list is really about who I think has the best chance to retain or take over a seat, not necessarily who should (though that may come through in the writing).  Here are some helpful bits of information that I used to help judge.

FEC disclosures (you can search by candidate name)

Voter registration by Congressional district.

Swing State Project fundraising roundup

On to the report…

DEMOCRATIC SEATS

1. CA-11. Incumbent: Jerry McNerney.  Challenger: Dean Andal.  Cook number: R+3.  % Dem turnout in the Presidential primary: 53.7%.  DCCC defended.  This remains the only opportunity for Republicans in the state, and it is starting to slip away.  Dean Andal is proving to be incredibly weak at fundraising, having raised under $200,000 for FOUR STRAIGHT QUARTERS.  He’s not going to be able to get up on TV, and his opponent has not only outraised him but will get about a million dollars in ad help from the DCCC.  Freedom’s Watch threw in a few anti-McNerney robocalls, but that’s really no match for the political muscle of the D-Trip.  Plus, there’s a brewing Andal scandal over his participation in passing privileged information and securing developer contracts for a San Joaquin Delta College contractor.  As for McNerney, his vote for the FISA bill has caused outcry in the district, and national groups like Blue America won’t be lending a hand.  He has changed his position on medical marijuana in response to constituents, a symbolic piece of support with activists.  But I think he’s largely on his own in this race.

McNerney: raised $416K in the second quarter, $1.37m cash on hand

Andal: raised $174K Q2, $663K CoH

REPUBLICAN SEATS

I’m going to do four tiers in setting apart the top seats where we have challenges to Republican incumbents.

First Tier

1. CA-04.  Last month: 1.  Open seat.  Dem. challenger: Charlie Brown.  Repub. challenger: Tom McClintock.  PVI #: R+11.  % Dem turnout in Feb. primary: 44.7.  DCCC targeted.  Tom McClintock actually raised quite a bit of money in the second quarter, but it all got plowed into the divisive primary with Doug Ose.  Plus, he was able to go above individual spending caps because of the “Millionaire’s Amendment,” which was recently ruled unconstitutional, putting constitutional literalist McClintock in a bind over what to do with that money.  We’ve seen real awkwardness from McClintock over how to handle disgraced incumbent John Doolittle, with shows of support and rejections happening on alternate days.  Meanwhile, Charlie Brown is humming along.  He has a 6-1 cash on hand advantage, and he’ll also be the recipient of some ad love from the DCCC.  His courageous stand against the FISA bill, outreach to parts of the district harmed by wildfires, and the release of a good energy plan which stresses tax credits for alternative energy and government fleets going renewable (and opposing opening up new lands for offshore drilling, in line with the “Use It Or Lose It” plan from Speaker Pelosi).  Brown was beloved at Netroots Nation and looks good in polling.  This is obviously our biggest-priority pickup.

Brown: raised $355K, $675K CoH

McClintock: raised $1.27m, $117 CoH

Second Tier

2. CA-46.  Last month: 4.  Incumbent: Dana Rohrabacher.  Challenger: Debbie Cook (Responsible Plan endorser). PVI #: R+6.  % Dem. turnout: 47.2.  I’m still concerned that the numbers aren’t quite there in the district, but I’m upping Cook this high because I have to acknowledge her achievements.  First, she’s outraised Rohrabacher two quarters in a row, and from what I’m being told, this has a lot to do with Dana and his wife (also his fundraiser) calling Republican backers and getting the phone slammed in their ears.  The Cook Political Report moved the race to Likely Republican, the only such move among competitive California races.  And there are indications that the D-Trip is at least taking a look at this race.  Most of this is happening because Cook is a compelling candidate.  Read her interview with Open Left or watch her interview with Talking Points Memo and you can see why.  Her environmental activism, competent fiscal management in Huntington Beach, and the fact that she’s not a ridiculously corrupt nutjob like Dana Rohrabacher makes for a fantastic profile.  This is probably too high, but there are some great signs here.

Cook: raised $110K, $97K CoH

Rohrabacher: raised $86K, $388 CoH

3. CA-50.  Last month: 5.  Incumbent: Brian Bilbray.  Challenger: Nick Leibham.  PVI #: R+5.  % Dem. turnout: 50.8.  DCCC targeted.  Nick Leibham outraised Brian Bilbray in the second quarter, and took in a nice haul of $245K in his own right.  He’s been gaining some attack points for criticizing Bilbray on wanting to debate on the radio and not in the district, and calling on other states to drill offshore but not California, an incoherent position.  The D-Trip put Leibham on their Red to Blue emerging races list, and dropped radio ads in the district tying him to Bush (MP3 here).  Leibham needs to articulate an agenda rather than just slam Bilbray forever, and that agenda needs to be a true contrast, but there is some movement here.

Leibham: raised $245K, $267K CoH

Bilbrary: raised $210K, $528K CoH

4. CA-26.  Last month: 2.  Incumbent: David Dreier.  Challenger: Russ Warner.  PVI #: R+4.  % Dem. turnout: 50.2.  DCCC targeted.  Warner was very focused on fundraising in June and yet came up short of beating David Dreier in the second quarter.  The problem is that Dreier has nearly two million dollars in the bank, so there’s a nearly 40-1 cash disadvantage, including campaign debts.  And despite the positive signs in the district, that’s tough to overcome.  Warner is going to need outside help, and the Bush Rubber Stamp project is a step in the right direction, but I don’t know if they’ll have the kind of money needed to meet the challenge.  There’s not much here to get me excited at this point.

Warner: raised $161K, $125K CoH

Dreier: raised $247K, $1.9m CoH

5. CA-45.  Last month: 3.  Incumbent: Mary Bono Mack.  Challenger: Julie Bornstein.  PVI #: R+3.  % Dem. turnout: 51.3.  The district is ready for a Democrat, and the symbiosis between Manuel Perez’ hotly contested Assembly campaign and Bornstein’s is going to help her in ways that aren’t being respected by the experts.  I still think this race is being undervalued.  However, Bornstein has been fairly invisible, from what I can tell, since the June primary.  And Bornstein got significantly outraised in Q2 as Mary Bono recognized the challenge she is facing can only be overcome with money.  In cash on hand she’s not far out of sight, however, and if Bornstein proves to be a solid and aggressive campaigner and benefits from increased Latino turnout in the Eastern Coachella Valley, there’s still a shot here.

Bornstein: raised $125K, $121K CoH

Bono: raised $336K, $421K CoH

Third Tier

6. CA-03.  Last month: 6.  Incumbent: Dan Lungren.  Challenger: Bill Durston. PVI #: R+7. % Dem turnout: 51.8.  This remains my sleeper pick in California.  The fundraising numbers were close, with Dan Lungren raising $173K to Durston’s $125K.  Lungren is trying to pivot to the center, coming out for nuclear warhead reduction with Russia, and the “X Prize” for battery technology promoted by John McCain.  But he’s firmly in the drill now, do nothing camp (despite voting against the “Use It Or Lose It” plan), and he’s lying about Democratic plans for tax increases.  Then there’s this bit of hilarity:

At a town hall meeting a few months ago Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Gold River) was adamant about denying citizenship to babies born in the United States to non-citizens. He lumped the infants into the same category as immigrants who cross the border illegally. He went so far as to sponsor a bill to deny citizenship to babies born to non-citizens.

In a classic flip-flop, Congo Dan “is backing the bill giving the Department of Homeland Security 30 days to process visas for entertainers,” says the Los Angeles Times.

Durston has publicly challenged Lungren to debates, and has a nifty comparison chart on his website that shows he’s truly running a campaign of contrast.  Keep an eye on this one.

Durston raised $125K, $189K CoH

Lungren raised $173K, $615K CoH

7. CA-52.  Last month: 7.  Open seat.  Dem. challenger: Mike Lumpkin.  Repub. challenger: Duncan D. Hunter.  PVI #: R+9.  % Dem. turnout: 47.2.  Calitics got to chat with Mike Lumpkin at Netroots Nation, and we were fairly impressed.  He talked up all the “Conservative Republicans for Lumpkin” signs he’s seeing in the district.  One thing he mentioned worried me, however: well over half of the voters in the primary thought they were voting for Duncan Hunter’s father, the incumbent.  That makes this almost not an open seat, and with Hunter’s fundraising advantage, it’s going to be an uphill battle.

Lumpkin raised $129K, $54K CoH

Hunter raised $338K, $198K CoH

Also Noted

8. CA-44.  Last month: 8.  Incumbent: Ken Calvert.  Challenger: Bill Hedrick (Responsible Plan endorser).  PVI #: R+6.  % Dem. turnout: 49.3.  Bill Hedrick tried to hit Ken Calvert over earmarks, and certainly there’s still a lot of smoke surrounding Calvert’s dirty dealings.  But in a low information district, Hedrick needs a lot of money for name ID, moeny he doesn’t have.

9. CA-42.  Last month: 11.  Incumbent: Gary Miller.  Challenger: Ed Chau.  PVI #: R+10.  % Dem. turnout: 44.0. Ed Chau has only $12,000 in the bank compared to Gary Miller’s $950,000.  That’s game, set and match, but questions have been raised once again about Miller’s potentially criminal actions (like his financial stake in getting an OC tollway built), so indictment is still on the fringes of possibility here.

10. CA-48.  Last month: 12.  Incumbent: John Campbell.  Challenger: Steve Young.  PVI #: R+8.  % Dem. turnout: 45.1.  Young is touting a poll (and I like that he’s touting it on ActBlue) showing that he’s up six points after biographical and issue information is distributed.  The problem is he has no money and lots of campaign debt, so how will that information get out there?  

11. CA-24.  Last month: 9.  Incumbent: Elton Gallegly.  Challenger: Marta Jorgensen.  PVI #: R+5.  % Dem. turnout: 50.6. Marta Jorgensen has a fairly nice website, but the money isn’t there to make this all that competitive, and she’ll need an Elton Gallegly slip-up. (Of course, she spent $1,375 on the primary and won, so ya never know…)

12. CA-41.  Last month: 10.  Incumbent: Jerry Lewis.  Challenger: Tim Prince.  PVI #: R+9.  % Dem. turnout: 46.3.  Tim Prince is also challenging Jerry Lewis on earmark requests, but Lewis has been pretty adept at escaping scrutiny in the district.

Budget

Steinberg Hits All the Right Budget Notes

Yesterday’s SacBee has a Q&A with Darrell Steinberg on the budget. His answers are brief but brilliant – along with Speaker Karen Bass it is clear we now have leadership in Sacramento that finally understands not just what is wrong with the budget but how to properly frame it:

Q: Why would the Democrats roll out a tax plan that they knew ahead of time the Republicans wouldn’t vote for?

A: There’s actually some consensus that has developed over the past several years. It’s clear from even the way the Republicans are acting in the budget negotiations, there is a common recognition that we cannot cut our way out of this problem. The Republicans aren’t putting $15 billion of cuts on the table, for good reason. … That would implicate the department of corrections and law enforcement, public education, transportation, a whole host of other policy areas that are not necessarily partisan in nature, so now the debate is framed very clearly.

This is very good framing. He’s pointing out that Republicans tacitly accept that spending cuts are not a realistic option – that even Republican programs like prisons would be crippled. California voters need to hear more of this – that spending cuts are just not possible.

Q: Are the Democrats concerned that the increase in taxes would have a negative effect on business retention in California?

A: I think the Democrats are approaching the tax question in an intelligent way. Look at the upper-income tax. This was a tax that (Pete) Wilson, a Republican governor, pushed through. I know the claim is made that wealthy earners would leave California, but that belies the facts. I did Proposition 63, the mental health initiative, which was just a surtax on earnings over $1 million, and there hasn’t been some great flight out of the state. … People choose to live in California for a lot of good reasons, and ensuring that we have the resources to properly invest in education and health care and an infrastructure, I think, is more important to the business community.

These are excellent evidence-based arguments and build off of what Speaker Bass and John Laird have been saying – that California has previously turned to taxing the wealthy without cost to our economy. The lie that taxing the wealthy hurts the overall economy has been the cornerstone of conservative anti-tax sentiment for decades, and it is long past time for Democrats to be rejecting it.

Further, Steinberg touches on a point that should be made more explicit. It’s not just the business community that finds more value in good government services over low taxes – it’s working Californians. Most of us understand that Californians get far more in value from affordable, quality schools; affordable, quality education; affordable, quality mass transit, etc – but that message hasn’t been truly embraced by Democrats ever since Jerry Brown’s notorious “born again tax cutter” emerged the day after Prop 13 passed in 1978.

California owes its current economic prosperity – such as it is – to the legacy of Pat Brown. We’ve been living off of earlier government spending. Even Ronald Reagan increased taxes when faced with a similar crisis (in 1967). If Democrats can make that argument loudly and as often as possible they will undermine the Republicans.

Q: Does the state of California have a revenue problem or a spending problem?

A: That’s a question that is always asked in the political context, and I believe we have a revenue problem. … The governor went through the stage of blowing up the boxes … he didn’t find a lot of the waste, fraud and abuse. We have a very complex state, with a growing population and with significant unmet need, and so I think we have both a revenue problem, and we have a major structural problem. … We’re misaligned, for example. Local government has significant responsibility to provide services and little authority over the revenue side of the equation.

This is pure gold. Steinberg points out that Arnold’s own performance review failed to find the “waste, fraud and abuse” that we were told we’d find in the budget. It no longer exists, if it ever did. You cannot cut something that isn’t in the budget. Plus it’s nice to see him using the structural revenue shortfall framing I’ve been using for months.

Q: Why is it that the state always seems each year to spend more money than it takes in?

A: The system of public finance that we have in California is not keeping up with the public demand for public education, for more and better quality transportation, for improved access to health care, and for first-rate local government public safety and other services.

Steinberg refuses to be baited by the Bee’s leading question here, and insists that the problem is a government that cannot play the central role it needs to play in guaranteeing economic stability to all Californians.

Overall Steinberg is pushing out some great frames that attack the heart of the Republican nonsense that we can cut wasteful spending that does not actually exist. The Republicans are left to propose massive cuts to core services which they are of course unwilling to make. All they have left is a dogmatic stance that everyone now sees right through. If Niello is an emperor then he’s clearly got no clothes.

Environment, Los Angeles Area

L.A. bans plastic shopping bags.

4 Comments

The City of Los Angeles is joining San Francisco in putting into effect a ban on all plastic shopping bags. The Los Angeles City Council announced today that the plastic bag ban will go into effect July 1, 2010. The L.A. Times reports that the ban is at all grocery stores as well as retail markets. The regulation will only go into effect if the State fails to charge customers a $.25 fee for requesting plastic bags. San Francisco passed a similar ordinance back in 2007.

The City Council is hoping to cut the number of bags that wash into the Los Angeles river every year. The plastic bag industry, which has a lobbying group, filed a lawsuit last week challenging the plan. We’ll see what happens in the next two years.  

Marriage Equality

St. Joseph’s v. SEIU-UHW is all about teh gays

6 Comments

Dave Johnson sent over this really pretty amazing article in the Catholic News Agency after seeing my post on SEIU-UHW’s battle to unionize workers in the St. Joseph Health Care System.  Sure it is a few months old, but it is too good not to blog.  The article is titled innocently enough “Catholic health workers’ effort to unionize could crowd out Catholics”.  Crowd out Catholics they say?  How?

Well…it is all about the homos you see, as the lead tells us.

A complex labor dispute between a Californian Catholic healthcare company and its employees could end in an agreement with a union that promotes homosexual rights, the California Catholic Daily reports.

And what do they use to base this claim?

Well, they go right after Sal Roselli, the leader of SEIU-UHW.  No, not like SEIU International has gone after Sal, but because, gasp, he is gay!  Going way back to 1984.  Oh my goodness.

In 1984-85, Roselli was president of a Lesbian/Gay Democratic Club.  A grand marshal for the 2006 San Francisco LGBT Pride Parade, Roselli has introduced domestic partner compensation into the UHW member benefits.

This bit is my favorite.  They use an anonymous source to attack Sal and SEIU-UHW.

A political activist in Sacramento, who requested anonymity, told the California Catholic Daily that Roselli’s union is trying to become the exclusive bargaining agent for some St. Joseph employees.

“This is a very contentious union, and if they get what they want, there will be a full homosexualization of everything. Domestic partner benefits and the like will come from worker dues, and the full muscle of the union will be put behind the homosexual agenda,” the activist said.

Yes, that is exactly what SEIU-UHW does.  They are all about advancing the homosexual agenda and homosexualizing EVERYTHING.

But wait.  There is more.

The activist alleged that allowing UHW into St. Joseph’s, the Catholic health provider “would be agreeing, in effect, to fire any Catholic who does not agree to support the Culture of Death with his dues. The average nurse pays around $1,000 a year in dues for this, and that money goes to supporting candidates and propositions that support abortion and homosexuality. What kind of Catholic institution would agree to this for their employees?”

Woah, woah, woah.  How did we get to “Culture of Death” (note the capitalization) from homosexualizing everying?  Ah you see, SEIU-UHW endorses candidates and gives them money so that they can get elected and pass policies that help their members.  And yes, those politicians sometimes are pro-choice and vote for things like civil unions and even gasp….marriage equality.

But what the anonymous source conveniently fails to mention is that any union member by law is able to opt out from having their dues go to politics.  Remember the Prop. 75 fight?  That was over whether it should be opt in to political giving or the status quo of opting out.  So, a SEIU-UHW member who happens to be Catholic and anti-choice and anti-gay can continue being both things without having their dues go to politicians they disagree with.

So you see, all the author and the anonymous source are left with A) Sal Rosselli is gay. B) SEIU-UHW dues will go in a very small part to paying for domestic partner benefits for their staffers.

See, this is why the workers shouldn’t be allowed to have a union that can argue for fair pay and safe working environments for the staff and their patients.  I think they may have me convinced.  What about you?

Central Valley

A Bush Dog Revels In Poverty

4 Comments

Considering all of the rural areas and dirt-poor urban centers in the country, you have to be a little surprised that Jim Costa’s Central Valley district is the worst in the country for quality of life.

Poverty, poor health and low graduation rates have put the San Joaquin Valley’s 20th Congressional District dead last in a new national scorecard that ranks the well-being of residents.

Even notoriously grim Appalachia fares better than the congressional district that sweeps in Fresno, Kings and Kern counties, the study made public Wednesday shows. The assessment of health, education and income ranks the district 436th out of 436 districts nationwide.

CA-20 has the lowest rate of college graduates in the country, just 6.5%. The median annual salary is just $16,767, and life expectancy is 4.5 years lower than in rich, high well-being areas like the Upper East Side of Manhattan.  It’s an appalling set of numbers.

We know the challenges in this district.  Factory-style farming has lowered the air quality and increased the public health risks.  As income inequality stratifies, places like the Central Valley get left behind, even more so in a California with a 6.9% unemployment rate.  A lack of development into 21st-century jobs causes a brain drain, and higher energy prices cripple rural America.

And there’s a residual benefit.  A dirt-poor district is a district that doesn’t vote heavily or pay much attention to politics, paradoxically so since they need to the most.  And so we get Representatives like Jim Costa, whose district has the lowest participation rates in the entire state.  Which means he can vote the wrong way on issues like FISA or war funding and not get much feedback about it from a constituency that’s struggling to survive.  In this context, his desire to return federal funds to the district or improve quality of life would seem to be low, at best.  It’s a vicious circle: poverty breeds inattention, inattention breeds bad lawmakers, bad lawmakers have trouble improving poverty.

We need less legislators like Jim Costa who seem more interested in pleasing their corporate contributors than the suffering citizens in their own districts.  The problem is how to reach a low-information constituency, and how to make that connection, that sustained political power and engagement is vital if we want to end poverty and build the post-carbon, post-agrarian economy that would lift up whole regions like the Central Valley.

Uncategorized

Sisters of St. Josephs it’s time to make peace with your workers

2 Comments

It is a dirty little secret, but often times the more virulently anti-union employers are religious orders that run health systems.  Such is the situation with the Sisters of St. Joseph who run the St. Joseph Health System.  They have been resisting the efforts of their service employees to join SEIU-UHW for the past three years.

SEIU-UHW is organizing a series of events this week in support of their organizing efforts.  Today Delores Huerta of the United Farm Workers wrote a HuffPost piece on the struggle.

This week I’m joining St. Joseph Health System workers, Attorney General Jerry Brown, Father Eugene Boyle, actor Ed Begley Jr, and community and religious leaders to call upon the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange to make peace with their workers.

For decades, the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange have fought for justice for California’s workers. In the summer of 1973, they marched in solidarity with Cesar Chavez and farm workers during the brutal Grape Strike. I witnessed the Sisters putting their personal safety at risk. They walked picket lines and even went to jail with more than 3500 striking farm workers. I was inspired by the Sisters’ commitment to stand with the farm workers, even in the face of violent provocation.

But now, these same sisters are refusing to show their own workers the same justice they once fought for.

Flip it for more and a video.

When I write that the nuns are resisting the organizing, I mean it.  They have been using heavy-handed and it appears illegal tactics to stop their employees from forming a union.  Workers have been threatened that they will lose their jobs is they continue to push for a union.  Delores Huerta writes:

Public records show that SJHS has hired some of the most notorious union-busting firms to fight their employees. Meanwhile, government officials have cited SJHS for violating its employees’ basic labor rights, including illegally firing, spying on, and intimidating workers who want to form a union. These heavy-handed tactics leave workers feeling threatened, intimidated and disregarded.

How can the Sisters support farm workers’ efforts to form a union, but fight their own employees for seeking this same basic right? Is there such a big difference between the people who feed us and the people who heal us? Clearly, there is not.

It is great to see a community coming together to support the workers, including Huerta nad Jerry Brown.  More importantly at least IMHO, 20 former members of the Sisters of St. Joseph’s wrote a letter to the current members, urging them to find peace with their service employees.  Here is a video of the delivery of that letter to the nuns.  No, they did not come receive the letter personally.