I Am The Veto King, I Can Do Anything

Robert made an oblique reference to it, but the Governor showed his true character with his series of vetoes this week.  Yes, he did allow some valuable bills to pass into law, particularly SB 375, the land use bill.  You will now be able to register to vote online thanks to the signing of SB 381, and your menus at restaurants will have calorie contact and nutritional information.  He also signed two green chemistry bills that will crack down on hazardous industrial chemicals, and in the biggest surprise, he signed AB 583, the clean money bill which would establish a pilot program making the Secretary of State races in 2014 and 2018 publicly financed races.  (It was a bit easier for Arnold to sign this one, because it also must be put before voters on the June 2010 ballot.)

So those are some of the success stories.  But there are hundreds of failures, some of them absolutely inexplicable.  We knew that Arnold would veto SB840, the single-payer bill, but he also vetoed health care provisions that were in his own legislation from last year’s health care reform overhaul, including one that would end rescission (dropping patients after they put in a claim) and requiring that 85% of insurance premiums be spent on health care.  He vetoed the California DREAM Act for the second year in a row, after it was altered to conform to the standards he set in last year’s veto message.  He vetoed a bill which would have done away with the archaic and authoritarian practice of requiring loyalty oaths for state employees, because it’s “our responsibility to ensure that public resources are not used for purposes of overthrowing the U.S. or state government, or for communist activities.”  He vetoed sensible card check legislation for farm workers that would have allowed employees to unionize while resisting employer intimidation.  He caved to Big Business – and Sarah Palin – and vetoed the groundbreaking port cleanup bill that essentially signs a death warrant for families living in and around that toxic stew.

All in all, he killed 35% of the bills sent to him this session, and 45% of those sent in the rush of the final week.  Most of the vetoes I described above reflect the right-wing ideology and fealty to the Chamber of Commerce that I’ve come to expect from the Governor.  But what’s unusual is his contempt for the legislative process itself.  Here’s Frank Russo:

On many of the bills the Governor did not give a clue as to why he did not sign them, and instead employed a cryptic boilerplate veto message: “The historic delay in passing the 2008-2009 State Budget has forced me to prioritize the bills sent to my desk at the end of the year’s legislative session. Given the delay, I am only signing bills that are the highest priority for California. This bill does not meet that standard and I cannot sign it at this time.” How will this look in the future-next year or when history is written? In the hundreds of bills that met this fate there are many that were trivial or could be seen in that light. Some were amended down to the point of a pilot project or study or some other pale shadow of their former selves and the original intention of the legislator that introduced them. Even in this form, to the people involved, some of these were very important.

Some of these bills were passed out of both chambers with UNANIMOUS support.  And he rejected maybe 500 bills with that dismissive message.

It’s not like these bills are foisted upon the Governor after being hidden away in secret.  There is public information on all of them, and I’m assuming he has a staff to read the bill text.  The excuse is not only lame, it’s a final middle finger at the legislature, a disregard for the work that they do.  As Dan Walters noted:

The budget imbroglio, the governor’s threat to veto bills unless it was resolved, the Legislature’s delay in sending him last-minute bills, the hundreds of vetoes, and his drive to change how legislative districts are redrawn every decade worsen his already acidic relationship with the Legislature. The relationship is now so bad that Schwarzenegger was unable to move a single vote from his fellow Republicans on the budget.

There’s really only one thing to do.  Veto overrides are incredibly rare in California, with the last one occurring I think 30 years ago.  But it is incumbent upon California lawmakers to stand up for themselves and immediately move into a session where all unanimous bills are voted on in an effort to override the Governor.  This is as much about checks and balances as anything else.  Schwarzenegger showed his contempt for the process by hijacking the budget late in the game and threatening to veto.  The “detente” against veto overrides should be dead and buried by now.  I’m sure Democrats would welcome the maneuver, and Yacht Party Republicans aren’t too pleased with the Governor in their own right.

This is about asserting the ability to carry out a core job function.  If unanimous bills can be vetoed with no consequences the legislature just diminished greatly in stature.  Stand up for yourselves.  Stand up to this bully of a governor.  Override.

Former Chief of Dermatology at Cedars-Sinai Calls on McCain to Release His Medical Records

Cross-posted from Open Left. The author, Ron Bronow, M.D., is the former Chief of Dermatology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in L.A., and one of over 2,700 doctors across the country who signed an open letter from Brave New PAC (disclosure: my employer) calling on John McCain to issue a full, public release of his medical records.  Dr. Michael Fratkin of Eureka and Dr. Noah Craft at UCLA are featured in this video explaining the importance of the issue.

Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly are screaming foul about an effort on the part of 2,768 doctors (myself among them) to get John McCain to release his medical records. After a 30-second TV ad spot on the issue went up on MSNBC for two days last week, O’Reilly even managed to bully the network into pulling the commercial off the air. Apparently, asking very real questions about McCain’s health is deemed by the right wing punditocracy to be just another disgraceful partisan attack, even when the questions come from thousands of medical doctors all over the country.

I know it’s a lot to ask of Limbaugh and the like, but let’s consider the facts:

Nobody disagrees with the fact that the melanoma removed from Senator McCain’s temple in 2000 was aggressive, requiring radical surgery. But there are two conflicting reports out there in need of resolution.  In May, when the McCain campaign allowed 20 reporters three hours each to review almost 1,200 pages of McCain’s medical records (no cell phones, internet access or photocopying allowed), one particularly disturbing piece of news emerged from the speed reading contest. While the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale had called the lesion on McCain’s temple a Stage IIA melanoma when it was resected eight years ago, it turns out that two pathologists at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology had reviewed the same slides at the time and reached a different conclusion.  They reported that the lesion was “highly suggestive of a metastasis of malignant melanoma and may represent a satellite metastasis.” That would be a Stage III melanoma.

So what’s the difference? The survival rates for Stage II melanoma are 79% for five years and 65% for ten years. For stage III melanomas the 5 and 10 year survival rates are 55% and 38%.

In general, if a melanoma recurs after the initial treatment, the five year survival rate is 7-19%, depending on the site of metastasis. It’s agreed that Senator McCain’s surgery in 2000 consisted of a 2.5 x 2.5 inch excision of the forehead tumor and the removal of 33 lymph nodes, followed by reconstructive surgery. Many experts feel that this indicates that the Senator’s tumor was Stage III.  The report from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology only bolsters that suspicion.

The right wing pundits can – and will – kick and scream and cry foul about this call from the medical community for full disclosure.  That won’t change the fact that we have a right to know the stage of the disease of a man running for the most important job in the world.

LET’S HAVE THE TRUTH.

Amidst the Insane Vetoes, Arnold Revolutionizes Land Use Law

Arnold has been making some rather shocking vetoes of important legislation this week, including a cave-in to Sarah Palin on port air quality and the veto of the anti-rescission bill. On balance his record on bills this week is atrocious.

But there are a few bright spots, including a bill that has the potential to revolutionize land use in California. Arnold has signed Sen. Darrell Steinberg’s SB 375, a bill that links land-use planning to the AB 32 global warming targets. The intent is to eliminate sprawl by limiting sprawl and favoring infill development.

The logic is clear – sprawl creates more auto traffic, and more auto emissions, which worsens global warming. 38% of greenhouse gas emissions in California come from transportation. The obvious solution is to crack down on sprawl and encourage infill development – urban density served by mass transit. SB 375 includes language streamlining CEQA review for infill development that meets carbon emissions reduction goals.

That’s an important element of an anti-sprawl, anti-global warming effort. It’s the Portland model – you can’t stop sprawl merely by limiting growth on the edge of a metro area. You must also encourage infill, dense development and provide the mass transit to serve it.

It’s also vital to California’s economic recovery. As I have argued before, we must redefine the California Dream by using urban density to provide for affordable living and economic security.

There are still some outstanding issues regarding SB 375 – business groups were lobbying to have urban commercial projects given the same CEQA streamlining as residential projects:

Some business groups remained critical because the bill did not allow commercial development to benefit from CEQA changes. And some local officials said it overreached by allowing the state to dictate greenhouse-gas reduction goals for each region.

Steinberg said he promised the governor that next year he will clarify that projects funded by the 2006 voter-approved transportation bonds will be exempt. But Steinberg said he agreed only to have “good-faith” discussions about the commercial development issue.

“The balance we struck was so precarious, we couldn’t pile anything more on top of the bill,” Steinberg said.

California cannot afford sprawl. SB 375 is a big step forward in our efforts to redefine the California Dream and follow Portland’s successful model into a prosperous 21st century future.

Polling Data on the Props































Prop Yes % No % Undecided %
Prop 2 72 10 17
Prop 4 52 36 12
Prop 8 44 49 8
Prop 11 27 25 49


With a kind hat tip to Shane at  CapitolAlert, we have some new data from SurveyUSA on a few of the propositions.  Keep in mind that I’m not in love with the data from SurveyUSA, and proposition numbers can be particularly volitile.  So, here they are.

For the good news, we see Prop 8 trailing, and Prop 2 leading.  That 62 point lead for Prop 2 is actually quite staggering. It’s rare to see such agreement on any issue, let alone one that has been blocked by big farming interests for so long.  Other polls have showed 8 trailing more substantially, but this again confirms what we’ve been seeing.

On the not so good side, we have Prop 4.  While we’ve beaten this twice before, it’s been close both times.  And there’s nothing in this version that is any better than Props 73 or 85.  One hope is that the turnout model that S-USA used for this poll has under counted youth voters.  And that may be true for many of these polla, but a lot of work will (and $) will need to go to Prop 4 if we are to beat this once again.

Finally, Prop 11.  Oh Prop 11, does anybody have a clue what you are? Not so much, as almost 50% of voters are undecided.  I’d expect there to be a bunch of voting-day decisions on this one as many voters just don’t have the time to analyze these things.  

By the way, NO ON 11! It’s fake reform opposed by minority organizations and labor that simply gives too much to Republicans that haven’t earned it at the ballot box. Just in case you haven’t heard that enough around here…

Guess who’s coming to Los Angeles!

John McCain and Sarah Palin are heading to the Los Angeles area this week.

You know you want to come out and, um, let them know how you feel.

WED. OCT 1ST:

John McCain in Los Angeles

When: Wednesday, October 1, from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM

Where: Corner of Constellation Blvd. and Ave. of the Stars, Century City

Hyatt Regency, 2025 Ave. of the Stars, Los Angeles, CA 90067

How: Signs will be provided. Public parking available at the Westfield Century City Shopping Mall

SAT. OCT. 4TH:

Sarah Palin in Los Angeles

When: Saturday, October 4, from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM

Where: ADT Tennis Stadium, The Home Depot Center

18400 Avalon Blvd., Carson, CA 90747

How: Parking will be available at 10:00 AM

Please arrive as early as possible

For More Information:

Email – [email protected]

Yes on Prop 8 Called ME today

This is going to be a semi-quick one for several reasons, but today I had a funny thing happen.  Considering today was my man’s splenectomy, I wasn’t expecting anything really funny.  But then, the world being what it is, something had to happen to lighten the mood and it did.  

I got a phone call from a Yes on 8 volunteer.

This morning I’m rushing to the hospital (just running late as usual).  Today was Robert’s surgery and I wanted to get there an hour before they took him away.  As I’m pulling into Mercey General (here in Sac town), my phone rings.  Not wanting to risk violating California’s laws on phone use, I pull to the side when I see a (916) number thinking it might be one of his coworkers.  Nope, I heard a nice female voice saying

“Hi, my name is blahblah and I’m a volunteer with the Yes on 8, urging people to help protect California’s families, protect our children from being taught about homosexuality in our schools…”

More below the fold.

She went on for a good thirty seconds with the standard spiel we’ve been seeing on television and their website.  I didn’t hear anything new as far as wacked out charges of pedophilia or the like, but they sure did seem worried about children in school learning it was okay for gay people to marry.  

She closed by asking “Can we count on your support to protect California’s families?”

Seeing my opening, I decided to go ahead and stretch the truth a bit.  Robert and I won’t get married until next July, but we do have our DP so I replied:

“You know, I am on the way to the hospital right now where my husband is about to have surgery to remove his spleen.  You can count on the fact that I am going to be protecting OUR family by voting NO on Prop 8.

Her reply was actually kind of nice:  “I hope everything goes okay.”

That is nice, hoping everything goes okay, ’cause beating Prop 8 is going to be a part of making sure everything DOES go okay.  ðŸ™‚

(For those wondering, a huge malfunctioning spleen was removed today with no complications and he’s recovering well, sleeping just a few feet away from me.  The worst thing has been the pain for him – but pain should be expected when something as big as a skinny watermelon weighing over 10 pounds is taken out of you.  Doctor says this should really help with the general recovery.)

Now, let’s just take Prop 8 down…

BTW, I’ve been wondering why the heck I was on the Yes on 8 call list.  Unless they are just calling every likely voter, they might be going after Dem Males Age 35+.  Interesting theory when I start thinking about it…but they should have at least taken out the  males who live with other males, or maybe gotten the state DP list and taken those folks out (I know I’m on the list).  

It’s just nice knowing they aren’t spending a lot of time targeting and are wasting a whole lot of money calling folks like me.  

CA-02: Unions endorse Jeff Morris’s fair trade approach

(Go Jeff! – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Jeff Morris is running an impressive grassroots campaign to replace Wally Herger in California’s Second Congressional District. Last week, Jeff earned the endorsement of United Public Employees of California, LIUNA Local 792 — the first congressional candidate endorsement in the local’s history.

Jeff has also received endorsements from the Five Counties California Labor Council; Carpenters Local Union #1599, Redding; the California Labor Federation AFL-CIO Committee On Political Education; the Operating Engineers Union No. 3, District 70, Redding; and UAW, Region 5.

Meanwhile, Wally received an embarrassing 4% rating from the AFL-CIO in 2007, just a baby step up from his truly dismal 0% rating in 2003.

Wally Herger has spent the last 22 years doing everything he can to help wealthy business interests and doing almost nothing to help the hard-working citizens of District 2. He has consistently voted against raising the minimum wage, citing its effect on small business owners — yet, when a 2007 minimum wage bill also contained tax breaks for small businesses, Herger still voted against it. Herger is also an outspoken supporter of the Bush administration’s “free trade” policies, which have had dramatically negative effects on job security and wages for America’s workers.

In fact, Herger has frequently voted against bills that would help workers, such as the Employee Free Choice Act of 2007 (would have established a system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, and provided for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts); Trade and Globalization Assistance Act of 2007 (would have allowed service sector workers and public workers to be covered by trade adjustment assistance); a House Resolution supporting a bill to require the Secretary of Labor to issue interim and final occupational safety and health standards regarding worker exposure to combustible dust; and the Paycheck Fairness Act (would have provided more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex).

Not exactly a worker-friendly fellow, that Wally.

Jeff Morris, on the other hand, understands the critical difference between free trade and fair trade, which he explained to Wally in an op-ed piece last spring:


Trade agreements are not a bad thing, but unfettered free trade is a race to the bottom … True fair trade, on the other hand, works to balance out subsidized industries with our own to ensure that all factors are considered when agreements are struck. Free trade is always about the bottom line. Fair trade is about a combination of profits and philosophical values and goals.

The only use of the word “fair” that I would use when it comes to unfettered free trade would be that the American economy, jobs and workers are fair game under free trade.

As a small business owner and local government official, Jeff Morris truly understands the needs and concerns of both business interests and workers. He has personally experienced the financial hardships that threaten the Main Streets of our small towns and rural communities. He’s been there in the trenches, facing the problems at the local level and working hard to make real differences in the lives of the hard-working people of District 2. He understands that profitable businesses and fairness for workers are not incompatible concepts — that we can have beneficial trade agreements while protecting local jobs and ensuring that rural economies stay strong.

Please go to Jeff Morris for Congress and give my brother your support! If the economy is hitting you too hard to allow a donation to his campaign, you can always write a letter to a District 2 newspaper supporting Jeff, or post a diary on this site or at a blog in your local community. Every person you reach is potentially one more vote, and in this election, every vote is going to count!

(cross-posted at DailyKos)

The Fight for Main Street

Yesterday I voted against H.R. 3997, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA), compromise legislation to bailout financial institutions saddled with large debts.

While the Bush Administration worked with Congressional leaders to fast-track this legislation, it was indifferent to the needs of Main Street. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for legislation that gives $700 billion to the same firms that helped cause the current financial crisis through irresponsible lending without providing meaningful help for homeowners who are in danger of foreclosure.

The economic crisis facing our nation began with bad mortgage and lending practices, including the use of predatory and sub-prime mortgages. It was these sub-prime mortgages which were then transformed by the market into securities and sold around the world. In the 32nd Congressional District of California which I represent, housing foreclosures have nearly tripled in the past few months. Over 1,500 families have lost their homes and over 2,300 are going through the foreclosure process.

The impact of such widespread foreclosures on our local economy and community is devastating. Homeowners living near foreclosed properties could see their property values decrease by an average of $5,000. It is expected that nationwide more than $100 billion in housing wealth will be lost through 2009 in foreclosures and their effects on neighboring properties. $166 billion in gross domestic product could be lost as a result of foreclosures, a loss that will lead to 524,000 fewer jobs being created.

Homeownership is a foundation that strengthens our families, stabilizes our communities, and boosts our economy. Yet, this bill lacked needed reform of bankruptcy laws to allow consumers to renegotiate the terms of their mortgage in bankruptcy courts to help keep their homes. Without addressing bankruptcy, provisions in the bill aimed at stemming foreclosures are not enough to provide real relief to struggling homeowners.

Homeowners on Main Streets should have the same rights to renegotiate their loans, especially those for their primary residence, as Wall Street. That is why it is critical that any solution to this financial crisis address the underlying instability in the housing market and provide relief for homeowners struggling under the burden of excessive mortgage debt. In addition to changes in the bankruptcy laws, I believe there should also be a mandatory moratorium on foreclosures for the limited period of time before the rescue plan takes effect.  If we are going to help keep banks solvent, we should also consider creating a fund to help families facing foreclosure stay in their homes.

I agree with civil rights organizations which today called on the leadership to also include an aggressive approach that will allow parties to modify the terms of their loans before these loans are purchased by the federal government. This approach would not only help keep families in their homes but would keep taxpayers from acquiring unnecessary debt.

I also believe working families deserve enactment of the Main Street Economic Stimulus Package, which I was proud to vote for last week. This bill would have extended unemployment benefits for the growing number of Americans looking for work for an additional seven weeks. It would have helped to sustain the safety net of services for our country’s neediest families by providing additional Food Stamp and Medicaid assistance.  It is incredibly disappointing that in the face of skyrocketing unemployment and increased need for food and healthcare assistance, the Bush Administration is instead prioritizing a huge cash infusion for Wall Street instead of needed investments for our country’s working families.

Congress and the Administration need to focus on real regulatory reform on Wall Street and real help for homeowners who face foreclosure.  We must enact bankruptcy court protections for foreclosures on primary residences.  We must pass comprehensive financial sector reform to restore integrity and stability to our financial system.  We must address the root of this financial crisis in order to prevent future problems. And we must grow jobs by investing in our nation’s infrastructure and funding green collar jobs training.

These are the actions that Congress must take to produce widespread and meaningful reform in our financial sector, provide a lifeboat for the thousands of families facing foreclosure, and provide economic security for families across our nation. These are the actions that I will support.