Daily Archives: March 23, 2009

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Health Care

Stimulus Funds Held Back By The Yacht Party Dam

4 Comments

(Assembly Bill 23xxx, the employment benefits extension bill, passed the Assembly. I added the Speaker’s video discussing it. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

There are two bills likely to come up for vote this week that would allow California to receive billions in stimulus funding, both of which have been subject to Yacht Party obstruction thus far of the Mark Sanford, Sarah Palin variety.

First up is the unemployment benefits extension bill which Republicans rejected last week.  There are actually two separate measures, one which would extend benefits and one which would increase the pool of people eligible for those benefits, but the extension is the one that will be voted on as soon as today.  Kudos to the SacBee for noting that the Governor has taken no position on these bills, despite the bromance rhetoric about the President and the stimulus.

The Assembly is expected to vote this week, probably today, on a bill that would pave the way for California to extend its lifeline for out-of-work residents by five months at federal expense.

The measure would ensure an extra $2.5 billion to $3 billion in federal funds for emergency benefits at a time when California is mired in recession, with an unemployment rate above 10 percent.

Passage would mean $6,140 in additional benefits for an out-of-work person receiving the state’s average benefit of $307 per week. Benefits range from $65 to $475, based on previous income earned […]

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger supports both concepts but has not taken a position on specific legislation, aides said.

Schwarzenegger has “no position” because the Chamber of Commerce doesn’t like anything that could lead to higher corporate taxes, and they hold the puppet strings on our last action hero.  The vote on this has yet to be recorded in the Assembly, so we shall see what the Yacht Party decides.

The second bill, currently in the State Senate, concerns Medi-Cal eligibility requirements that would open up even more federal funding.

Although California is slated to receive more than $31 billion in federal money, a change in eligibility rules for Medi-Cal made as part of this year’s budget prevents California from qualifying for more than 25 percent of those  federal funds.

In order to do so, the state must have the same Medi-Cal eligibility rules today as those in place July 1, 2008.

The problem was caused by an attempt to save $70 million by changing eligibility rules for children receiving care from Medi-Cal was contained in the 85-day record late budget signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last September.

Under the change, children must fill out a report every six months confirming their continuing eligibility along with their parents who were already required to fill out such a report prior to the change in law.

Critics of the requirement say that most of the children who lose eligibility do so because they forget to turn in the paperwork, not because they actually lose eligibility. Sorting out such issues increases Medi-Cal costs to counties, who administer the program locally.

To get the federal money, the state must change the law before July 1, 2009 so that kids don’t need to fill out the report. The bill would do that.

Let’s be entirely clear – the Administration was banking on oversights from poor families who qualify for Medi-Cal to save the state money.  That’s borderline immoral and it ought to be addressed.  Elaine Alquist is carrying the bill in the Senate, and on this one, Schwarzenegger has seen the error of his ways and promises to sign it.  Will the Yacht Party follow suit, or prefer budgeting by forcing bureaucratic red tape on the poor?

San Diego

San Diego News Website Launched

The recent sale of San Diego’s Union-Tribune to the Beverley Hills based private equity firm Platinum Equity has left many in the area wondering what the future will bring. Will the paper, which has seen several rounds downsizing of its news staff in recent years, be even less of a source for local news as its new owners seek to shore up their investment?  The answers to their questions will play out over the next year as Platinum partner Black Press, Ltd. takes a hand in shaping the publication once the sale is completed later this year.

Although it may seem serendipitous with its timing, San Diegans woke up Monday morning with yet another source for news.  The San Diego News Network (SDNN.com) launched a beta version this week, with a staff of over fifty reporters, correspondents and editors and twenty eight “partnering” media organizations.  Whether this new media outlet can command enough readership or provide real in-depth local coverage remains to be seen.

In an opening communiqué, CEO Neil Senturia promises over 30 sections will be initiated in coming months, encompassing local politics, sports, movies, restaurants and other topics. With former Sign On San Diego honcho Ron James as Publisher/Executive Editor, the SDNN initial offerings included:

**Associated Press Coverage on the Banking Crisis. And three different AP stories about the drug dealers that threw cash out of their vehicle while tooling up I-15 with the law in hot pursuit. Their reliance on the AP for national coverage suggests that it will mirror the generally conservative slant that news organization has exhibited in recent months.

**A feature by Joseph Pena profiling SD City Councilmember Carl Demaio. Political consultant Larry Remer is quoted as calling DeMaio a political “bomb-thrower”. Others interviewed for the piece  aren’t willing to pass judgment yet, including Remer’s long-ago consulting partner (and now partisan opponent) Tom Sheppard.  Bottom line:  meh?

**Reflections on the sale of the Union-Tribune by SDNN deputy editor Eric Yates in which he poses the question: “why would a private equity company, with no prior history of owning a major news publication, suddenly pounce to acquire a daily metro that has had a 40 percent reduction in ad revenue since 2006?”

**A lengthy article on the urban farming by Eric Glass.  The most “new media” of all the initial offerings, complete with a video and background story links.  While informative and well written, it falls short when it comes to placing the story in the context of the national and local interest in locavorism.

**Coverage of the local prostitution business by Political Editor Hua Quach. The price of oral sex has fallen along with property values, we’re told.  And I guarantee that his story will generate the most hits on the site, since anything mentioning s.e.x. on blogs and news websites always generates huge traffic.

A screenshot displayed on the SDNN website promises that the limited offerings on the beta release will significantly increase in the future.

SDNN appears to understand the collaborative future of web-based news reporting by virtue of their partnerships with other organizations, including radio stations, community newspapers and San Diego Magazine.  What remains to be seen is whether they can wield that collaboration into an actual point of view.  The issue here is not partisanship or even necessarily agenda.  But if you try to be all things to all people, you end up being nothing to nobody.  

Uncategorized

ActBlue Looking for Your Ideas

“I believe candidates with strong, sound stances deserve our support, and this is a race where your dollars can make the difference. Please make a contribution to this critical cause.”

Sound familiar? If you have any experience with our fundraising pages you will have seen this (and perhaps fallen asleep to it) a few too many times. It is the default text for ActBlue’s fundraising pages. ActBlue’s customizable fundraising pages allow progressive activists to raise money for the best Democratic candidates out there easily and effectively, and the fifty state blog network has taken advantage of this feature to support state and national candidates with customized, targeted pages. But while the original blurb did help Democrats use our pages, we’re in year 5 of ActBlue, and this is definitely year 3-4 material. We’ll be working with thousands of new fundraisers this cycle, and we want to make sure they have the best language. And, well, this isn’t it.

So, we need ideas.

We know you’re best equipped to know what language will appeal to your friends and neighbors, so we wanted to give all of you an opportunity to create the next fundraising page blurb. If we pick yours, it will show up automatically on almost every fundraising page created on ActBlue. To show our appreciation, we’ll send the winner and two runners-up an ActBlue Ice Cream Scoop! (No, we’re not kidding. And trust us, it’s a high quality scoop – The Original Zeroll.)

Okay, here are the guidelines:

  1. The blurb must be fewer than 50 words.
  2. It has to be fairly generic (no specific issues or names), but still get across the basic reason for the fundraising page. This is something our current text does fairly well, if you are looking for an example.
  3. If you can make it apply to pages for candidates and/or committees, all the better. If not, at least make it appeal to people looking to donate to candidates.
  4. We are Democrats, and our pages are for Democrats. If your message would appeal to Democrats, that would probably earn points.
  5. Humor is a big plus, but only that universal humor that works for everyone.
  6. Effective fundraising is personal. Think about what kind of language would help you be a better fundraiser, and think about why your friends and family might feel compelled to give.
  7. All entries must be received by 3/25.

Fill out your entry form right here! Thank you for your participation!

ActBlue is active in all 50 states, helping Democrats raise money for their chosen candidate from the comfort of their living rooms and offices. We believe that your voice should be heard everywhere from your state capitol to the Senate floor, and we’re working to make sure it is. Please support our work with a $15 recurring contribution today!

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Budget

Skelton takes a look at how Sacto works (or doesn’t)

On occasion, Skelton’s villager columns get it dead wrong.  And on occasion, he nails one.  And then there’s the columns that have you nodding your head in agreement until you smack dab into one of his Villagisms. That’s where he’s at today.

Today, he starts off on a tear, ripping into Arnold’s arbitrary distinctions between “special interests” and “partners.” Other people know these two groups as “people who oppose Arnold” and “the business lobby”:

But Schwarzenegger’s pattern — the pattern of most politicians — is to use the tag “special interest” as a synonym for “enemy.” Schwarzenegger refers to allies as “partners.” Several special interests are Schwarzenegger partners, notably the state Chamber of Commerce and the California Business Roundtable.

His current enemies include Health Access California, a liberal advocacy group that detests the spending cap offered by the budget package’s linchpin, Proposition 1A, and the conservative Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., which staunchly opposes 1A because it would extend temporary tax increases an additional year or two. (LA Times 3/23/09)

Health Access California is, of course, a friend of this blog. They have the temerity to fight for the “special interests” of children’s health care and equal access.  How dare they fight to improve Medi-Cal? And the audacity of reducing health insurance? Screw those jerks!  

(Although, I’m with Arnold on HJTA.)

Skelton’s argument continues with what any keen observer of California politics knows: the special interests know how to wag the dog of California. He even got one of them to go on the record with how he subverted democracy:

David Ackerman, a highway construction lobbyist, acknowledges that he relied on the two-thirds budget vote to leverage passage of some hotly debated bills. They softened diesel emission requirements for construction equipment, exempted some highway projects from environmental hoops and — over the opposition of Caltrans engineers — allowed some road projects to be designed by the builders.

“These probably wouldn’t have happened in a ‘functional’ legislature,” Ackerman concedes. (LA Times 3/23/09)

This won’t surprise anybody who saw more than 20 minutes of the last budget battle, but Republicans and conservative use the fact that we have a broken system.  I know, how very cynical, but it happens.  Gasp! But, at least Skelton said it.  It needs to be said in one form or another regularly, so that Californians understand just how messed up Sacramento really is.  So, right on Mr. Skelton.

And there I am, at the very end of the article, and all content to be like Amen. And then, Skelton had to, just had to close with David Brooks-ian nod to the mushy middle about Prop 1A.

Prop. 1A will help control spending. But it will take a lot more than that to make the Capitol once again functional.

Well, that’s the understatement of the year. Not only will 1A not make the Capitol functional, it will do just the opposite. It will permanently set the state backward, block any sort of permanent investment in our labor or physical infrastructure. Forget about health care reform, forget about improving our K12 education.  Flush it all down the toilet.

I guess, with Skelton, you take the good with the gross understatement.

Uncategorized

Campaign News: CA-32, CA-10, CA-48

4 Comments

Through a series of vacancies and some early action, California has suddenly become ground zero for Congressional elections.  Here’s the latest news on some of the races.

• CA-32: The special election for Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis’ seat will coincide with the statewide special election on May 19th.  The major candidates, Board of Equalization member Judy Chu, State Sen. Gil Cedillo and Obama transition official Emanuel Pleitez, actually met in a forum last week sponsored by the Southwest Voter Registration Project,  and the Latino Professional Network.  I didn’t learn about it until a press release popped up in my inbox from Cedillo’s press flack touting “Cedillo is Victorious in First Debate”.  Seeking a somewhat less biased opinion, I struggled to find a news report until coming across this in the Whittier Daily News.

Immigration issues dominated the agenda when three of the leading Democratic candidates to replace new Labor Secretary Hilda Solis met face to face for the first time at a forum Thursday night.

“Today I met with the president … I could have said anything … what I said was, ‘Mr. President, please stop the raids. Please stop the raids now,’ ” Cedillo said of a meeting with Barack Obama during the president’s town hall meeting in Los Angeles on Thursday.

Cedillo is known for repeatedly introducing legislation to allow undocumented immigrants to obtain drivers licenses, but he said that his legacy goes far beyond: “In 11 years of the legislature … I have written 80 bills signed by three governors. I have fought to defend immigrants, because I believe it is the right thing to do.”

Chu discussed being raised by an immigrant mother in South Central Los Angeles, fighting against an English- only movement in Monterey Park, and pushing legislation in Sacramento to protect outdoor migrant workers and require contracts negotiated in a certain language to be printed in that language.

“I support bills that will bring justice to immigrants. Many times immigrants do not have a voice in the political system, and it is up to us, who are in elected positions, to be able to speak up for them,” she said.

Pleitez, too, was born to an immigrant mother, who crossed the border from Mexico while pregnant with him. He said his childhood growing up at the “mercy of the generosity of the people of my community” in back rooms and back garages of neighbors created a debt that he owes to the district.

“I was able to move on to Stanford University, Goldman Sachs … but I will never forget … this debt that I have,” he said.

“I will leverage my youth to organize around the country … to really pass immigration reform.”

This was the last scheduled debate where every major candidate has committed to attend, and judging from the article, observers found little differentiation between the candidates on the issues.  Cedillo vowed not to vote for any health care system that didn’t include immigrants “regardless of immigration status,” but given the audience I would expect that kind of rigidity.  I hope there will be a wider range of issues discussed in a public way, and as I have in the past I invite all the candidates to share their views here on Calitics.  We should have at least one response in the coming weeks.  Meanwhile, PowerPAC, a new group targeted at youth of color which aided President Obama in California and across the nation last year, endorsed Gil Cedillo.  He also received the endorsement today of former Assemblyman Ed Chavez.

• CA-10: The field is still assembling after last week’s announcement that Ellen Tauscher will leave Congress to work on arms control policy in the State Department.  While Sen. Mark DeSaulnier has not formally announced, such an announcement is expected.  In the meantime, Adriel Hampton, a municipal investigator for the San Francisco City Attorney’s office, is among the first to formally announce.  Hampton clearly seeks to leverage social media and Web 2.0 (he has a Ning site, in addition to Facebook and Twitter) to create buzz for his outside-the-establishment campaign.  Hopefully he’ll pop up around here as well.  I’m not seeing a lot of substance behind the “hey kids, let’s put on a Government 2.0 show” announcement, but I’m sure that will come.  Perhaps others can fill in the missing pieces here. (Actually, Robert did, below.

Meanwhile, the Yacht Party still must believe that this seat holds the same demographics as it did when it was represented by a Republican in 1996, because they continue to trot out names to contest the seat.  Melanie Morgan is touting someone.  Yes, Spocko’s Melanie Morgan.

Conservative activist, author and former radio talk show host Melanie Morgan sent an e-mail yesterday saying she’s “squealing like a schoolgirl” to announce that Catherine Moy – executive director of the Move America Forward group of which Morgan is chairwoman; co-author with Morgan of “American Mourning;” and a Fairfield City Council member – will run in the special election to succeed Rep. Ellen Tauscher, assuming Tauscher is confirmed to a high-ranking State Department post.

“The conservative counter-insurgency has begun, and I’m going to do everything in my power to get Cat elected,” Morgan wrote. “Cat has terrific name recognition in the area, a devoted following and she is entirely capable of running this race and winning it – as a rock-solid conservative who has never voted to raise a single tax, and has a solid record on national defense working relentlessly with the largest pro-troops grassroots organization in the country.”

I don’t think Morgan knows what the word “counter-insurgency” means.  Will she be seeking out groups inside the district to reconcile differences and win hearts and minds with a movement of primary resistance?

Other Republican names are floating out there, but the one that brings a smile to my face is tom Del Beccaro, Vice Chairman of the Yacht Party and recent founder of a PAC dedicated to stopping the Fairness Doctrine, which has already been stopped by a full vote in the US Senate.

• CA-48: It takes two years to run for Congress at the least, if not multiple cycles.  So I appreciate Irvine City Councilwoman Beth Krom’s kickoff in CA-48 to unseat John Campbell, bringing 300 people to Shady Canyon for the affair.  Both Steve Young (the most recent candidate in the district) and Rep. Loretta Sanchez enthusiastically endorsed Krom’s candidacy, so expect the field to clear.  It’s quixotic, but we need more windmill-tilters taking back red districts.

Uncategorized

CA-10: Adriel Hampton Announces

8 Comments

The first official candidate announcement in the race to replace Ellen Tauscher in CA-10 comes from Adriel Hampton, who not only works for the SF City Attorney’s office and has a background as a political reporter but has become a leading progressive on social media such as Twitter and what he has called “Gov 2.0”. In his campaign announcement Hampton indicated his desire to build his campaign around using the Internet to produce more democracy in DC:

I am just a guy, but I am a guy with a dream. I want to take aspirations of everyone like me to Congress. It is time for “just folks” to take back the reins of government.

As our country has grown in population, it has grown more and more difficult to stay connected to our elected leadership. The founders intended the members of the House of Representatives – the People’s House – to represent no more than thirty thousand people, yet CA-10 has more than twenty times that number. While the gulf between The Hill and the Bay Area is wide, our tech revolution can bridge that gulf.

Each major media revolution has allowed a new generation of leaders and politics – from FDR and radio to JFK and television to President Obama and the internet.

President Obama showed us what loose networks of concerned citizens can do, becoming the first “social media” candidate. I want to use these new tools to join him in Washington DC to transform a government that has become strangely disconnected from the everyday realities of people in District 10. We have much work to do, starting with building a 21st century economy. But in this time of great challenge, I have great hope.

I really like this, a lot, and I think it can be a powerful message for a candidate in an era when populist democracy is becoming a more important part of American politics. Hampton has the right ideas about how to channel that and turn it into an effective organizing force.

What Hampton will need to do is articulate his policies, his stance on the issues, in a way that directly addresses the economic crisis. Voters in CA-10 will want to hear about his ideas on Gov 2.0, but they’ll also want to know where he stands on the bailouts, on jobs, on Obama’s budget, and on other important issues like global warming and marriage equality.

Especially considering that Mark DeSaulnier, should he run, will have a commanding position given the broad support and admiration he has from many Democrats in the district, especially the grassroots – as well as strong labor connections.

Brian Leubitz pointed out to me that this may well resemble the race last year in CA-12, where Michelle McMurry offered an interesting and innovative platform but had no chance against Jackie Speier, who brought strong progressive credentials to a district where she was truly beloved by many voters.

Still, it’s good to see Hampton in the race and let’s hope we can have a substantive campaign about how the Congress can chart a more progressive future for our country.

Adriel Hampton’s campaign site

Uncategorized

Is Ken Starr Hurting Pepperdine University?

2 Comments

According to many of the university’s alumni, he is.

With the infamous lawyer’s long track record, ranging from being the prosecutor that impeached President Bill Clinton to Solicitor General, and now his position as lead counsel for the supporters of Proposition 8, many who attended Pepperdine are not comfortable having Ken Starr as the current dean of the university.  They feel his stance on Proposition 8 is “a disgrace.”

So they’ve decided to take action.  They’ve formed a Faceebook group, Pepperdine Law Alums in Support of Repealing Prop 8 and have addressed a letter to be sent to the dean.

In the letter, they urge the school to underscore the difference between the university’s beliefs and that of its figurehead.  “. . . you and the school have a responsibility to clarify where the line between your personal beliefs and the school’s position differ regarding the issue of equality.”

Holding degrees from a university that does not support equal rights threatens not only the school’s reputation, but also their reputation and the respect that said degrees may hold.

“We believe that your representation of supporters of Proposition 8 has the potential to irrevocably damage much of the good work those who have gone before you have done in building equity in the Pepperdine University School of Law reputation unless the School of Law clearly and unequivocally states its commitment to history’s move toward diversity and equality regardless of your personal position on these issues.”  The alumni also acknowledge that in fact LGBT students do exist at the conservative university and empathize what they must be feeling.

“Not only does your public position and active support of Proposition 8 offend and embarrass many alumni, one must imagine that the LGBT students at the School of Law are feeling even more marginalized being subjected to their dean’s public support for discrimination against them. Moreover, you are sending a very clear message about Pepperdine’s culture to prospective students, not only LGBT students, but also their straight allies, and all other minority groups. Unless the School of Law clearly states its commitment to equality, prospective students will no doubt view the school as having an environment where contrasting opinions are suppressed and anyone who supports diversity and equality will be ostracized.”

The school’s paper, the Pepperdine University Graphic, has confirmed that Starr has received the letter but doesn’t know how to respond.  Until the alumni are satisfied with the university, they plan to withhold donations and instead, give to organizations that actually support equal rights.

Not surprisingly, many of the alumni that have signed the letter have only recently graduated from the school, underlining the generation gap on this issue.   Salted throughout are very few who graduated more than just a few years ago.

However, one can feel encouraged that the younger generation, despite having been schooled in Ken Starr’s thought and philosophy, still believe in equality for all, and in very little time, will soon be the majority.

H/T Gay Rights Change.org

Budget, California, education

Resolutions for California Democrats

1 Comment

The Northern Solano Democratic Club has posted five resolutions on their web site that will be submitted for approval at the state convention next month.

They are:

A Resolution for Improving Higher Education Accreditation Practices

A Resolution for Relief from No Child Left Behind Expenditures

A Resolution Opposing the Open Primary in 2010

A Resolution for majority Rule Initiative Reducing the Threshold for Passing a State Budget

A Resolution on Contesting Elections

The full text of each is below the fold and can be adopted by local clubs by inserting your club name in the “Resolved” clauses at the appropriate place.  

A Resolution for Improving Higher Education Accreditation Practices

WHEREAS, under the previous administration, the Department of Education has asserted that the accrediting agencies for higher education have failed in their duties and has consequently demanded that accrediting agencies assert themselves and take action against our community colleges, and

WHEREAS, notwithstanding the fact that real and important issues do exist for our community colleges and those issues need to be resolved, it is a fact that the accrediting agency in California has acted capriciously and has issued negative findings that too often are not related to educational issues but to trivial matters that lack sufficient import to be cited as a reasons for withdrawing accreditation, and

WHEREAS the negative findings of the accreditation agency in California seem to follow a pattern that gives the appearance of selective findings repeatedly invoked in support of a predetermined outcome rather than the findings of an honest inquiry,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] proposes that the accreditation agencies for higher education be instructed that the time frame for compliance, currently set at two years, be defined as commencing when the educational institution receives a set of clearly stated accreditation issues to be resolved along with clearly defined criteria for the resolution of those issues,

AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] calls upon the California Democratic Delegations to the United States Senate and House of Representatives to bring their combined influence to bear on the higher education accreditation process so that it might function in a proper manner.

A Resolution for Relief from No Child Left Behind Expenditures

WHEREAS, the California State budget reduces education funding by 7.4 Billion dollars this year and the Federal Stimulus money allotted to California to stabilize educational funding amounts to only 6 Billion dollars, leaving a deficit of 1.4 Billion dollars , and

WHEREAS the common consensus is that the sanctions imposed by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) have failed to produce positive results, and

WHEREAS it is well known that NCLB imposes requirements on schools districts and demands actions from those districts while providing no funding for those mandates, there has been no public focus on the fact that the cost to implement programs designed to bring under performing groups up to NCLB compliant standards have been estimated to be Thousands of Dollars Per Student and would require massive increases in funding,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that in these financially difficult times, with our public schools in dreadful financial straits, the [insert the name of your club here] recognizes that it is unconscionable to require our schools to continue funding NCLB compliance activities, and, for this reason, [insert the name of your club here] proposes that public schools be given relief from the mandates of NCLB for the period of one year, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the [insert the name of your club here] calls upon the California Democratic Delegations to the United States Senate and House of Representatives to introduce and to work for the passage of legislation that will suspend, for one year, all NCLB compliance activities that require the expenditure of local school or district funds.

A Resolution Opposing the Open Primary in 2010

WHEREAS passage of Senate Constitutional Amendment 4, not only lacks legitimacy, but also encourages the minority party to commit acts of political blackmail and extortion in the future, and

WHEREAS it is a fundamental right of political parties to choose their nominees for office in accordance with the constitutionally protected right of Freedom of Association, and further, the open primary clearly violates that right by forcing political parties to admit nonmembers into the nominating process and thus enabling the election of candidates who do not support their party’s philosophy or platform, and

WHEREAS the proposed open primary will increase campaign spending, strengthen the influence of special interests, weaken party cohesiveness, and expand the opportunity for manipulative and deceitful electoral practices such as concealing party affiliation, the running of stalking horse candidates, and the gaming of results through organized crossover voting,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] opposes approval of Senate Constitutional Amendment Four, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] calls upon all members of the California Democratic Party, especially our elected officials, to campaign to defeat the measure at the polls.

A Resolution for Majority Rule Initiative Reducing the Threshold for Passing a State Budget

WHEREAS the State of California has adopted a budget that neither fulfills the needs of the people of California nor reflects the values of a majority of the people and their representatives in the state legislature and,

WHEREAS the approval of the state budget was inexcusably delayed in the State Senate for more than seven months by a few members who chose loyalty to ideology over a commitment to common sense, the good of the State, and the needs of their constituents, and

WHEREAS this inexcusable travesty was due solely to the current state constitutional requirement that two-thirds of the members of the state legislature are required to approve a budget,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] supports lowering the threshold for passing the state budget to 50-percent-plus-one, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] calls upon all members of the California Democratic Party, especially our elected officials, to campaign actively for the adoption of the 50-percent-plus-one threshold for budget passage.

A Resolution on Contesting Elections

WHEREAS State Senator Abel Maldonado, the leading hold-out in the budget impasse, was reelected without a Democratic opponent in 2008, and his seat was one of six Congressional, State Senate, and Assembly district seats that were uncontested by Democratic candidates, and

WHEREAS it gives the appearance of “back room deal making” when Republican held districts remain unchallenged, as has occurred on more than one occasion, and

WHEREAS it is un-American to discourage any qualified citizen from seeking elected office and irresponsible of Democratic leaders to let any seat go uncontested,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] strongly condemns any and all efforts, past, present, or future, to discourage Democratic candidates from challenging Republican incumbents, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] demands that no Democratic Party member or elected official ever discourage a qualified Democrat from seeking elected office and insists that the California Democratic Party vigorously contest every office by recruiting and supporting qualified Democratic candidates.

California

Where’s the California Economic Recovery Plan?

5 Comments

Dan Walters examines the obvious in today’s Sac Bee, pointing out that the economic forecasts for California are becoming dire:

Consider, for example, this dark, but perhaps realistic, projection by University of California, Santa Barbara, economists:

“The … economy will likely continue to decline for another two years, perhaps longer. We expect the number of California jobs … economic output … retail sales (and) tourism revenues will fall throughout the forecast horizon. There is no measure of economic strength that provides even a glimmer of hope for California’s economy in the near term, none.”

The UC Santa Barbara forecast has California’s unemployment rate, now over 10 percent, nearing 14 percent by next year, which means another half-million workers would join the jobless ranks.

The UCSB forecast (for which I’m unable to find a link, unfortunately) jibes with what leading economic observers like Nouriel Roubini are saying – that we will see a recession into 2010 and then a slow recovery from there.

All of that begs the question, of course, of exactly what’s supposed to drive that recovery. If we look back at the last three recoveries, we can see a pattern of dependence on one or two sectors of the economy to produce a boom, but little long-term planning beyond that:

1980s recovery: Driven mostly by defense spending (especially in Southern California, a major beneficiary of the Reagan arms race boom) and, later in the decade, by a housing bubble. High tech began to make its presence felt later in the decade in the Silicon Valley. All of this masked the effect of the beginning of neglect of basic government services, including schools, which began in the immediate aftermath of Prop 13’s passage in 1978.

Core weaknesses: Defense spending and housing boom were both unsustainable. When Cold War ended in 1989, which was perhaps coincidentally the peak of the ’80s housing boom, CA’s economy had no real safety net to avoid a recession. Much of this was fueled by debt, but at far smaller levels that what we have seen recently. Economy began shifting away from manufacturing.

1990s recovery: The 1980s boom turned into a particularly nasty bust by 1991-92, with unemployment in Southern California pushing 10%. This recovery was led primarily by the high tech sector, which spread throughout the Bay Area and into Southern California (former defense industry workers turned out to be very good at high tech). Tax increases at the outset of the decade helped support this growth by arresting the decline of the UC and CSU system into unaffordability and loss of quality, sending a steady stream of qualified workers into the high tech field. Additionally, CA became a center of the deregulated financial industry. Housing did not actually become a major part of this boom until much later in the cycle.

Core weaknesses: High tech work could be easily outsourced. The manufacturing decline that began in the ’80s accelerated in the early ’90s recession. Late ’90s spike in tax revenues led politicians to recklessly cut taxes to unsustainably low levels, endangering the state’s ability to recover from the next crisis. By decade’s end housing was becoming a larger part of the economy, and much of this was based on sprawl dependent on debt and cheap oil.

2000s recovery: Based almost wholly on housing and deregulated financial products – and on a pile of debt. Soaring cost of UC/CSU led to exacerbation of a generation of inequality – high cost of higher ed combined with fewer high-wage job options limited upward mobility of millions. Government recovery was anemic at best. Health care costs began to spiral out of control, as did housing costs. Often known as a “jobless recovery”.

Core weaknesses: Required endless supply of debt and cheap oil to sustain what little growth there was. When cheap oil vanished after 2005 entire economy was imperiled. Erosion of government and safety net meant that next recession would not only be nasty, brutish, and long but that government would not be in a strong position to lead recovery.

As you can see, the recoveries of the ’80s and the ’00s were fundamentally weak, whereas the ’90s recovery had somewhat of a stronger base but was susceptible to underlying problems (free trade, anti-tax policies, loss of manufacturing base, increasing tendency toward dependence on sprawl and housing markets to produce consumer spending). And I haven’t even mentioned the enormous environmental costs of these recoveries, which should further suggest the undesirability of repeating any of these models.

Ultimately the problem was that at no time in the last 30 years did California plan for the future. Each recovery just sort of happened, partly by federal design and partly due to state laws, from Prop 13 to land use, favoring sprawl. Each recovery was dependent on debt in one form or another, and each recovery failed to fix the long-term decline in government resources (although the ’90s recovery began to address this before Pete Wilson and Tom McClintock got their hands on the till).

What this means is that California needs, desperately, to start thinking about how it can produce long-term sustainable growth and not just try and inflate a fourth bubble or a recovery whose bases are fundamentally weak. Over the flip I propose some elements of what this strategy might look like.

1. Fix the structural revenue shortfall. California cannot have economic recovery without more government support of the economy and its workers. This ranges from universal health care to restoring the lost quality of K-12 education to restoring the promise of a free higher education to those who qualify. It also includes a reconstruction of the safety net, which has so many holes that most Californians feel like Man On Wire. Many of the solutions proposed below depend on a government that has the ability to spend money without the conservative constraints put on it in 1978 and in the following years.

2. Prioritize energy independence. As more and more people are starting to realize, if we have not taken dramatic steps to reduce our dependence on oil, then our recovery will be strangled as gas prices again rise with demand. California needs to see the high speed rail project through to completion, restore the insane elimination of state funding for local mass transit. A higher gas tax can help fund this – now is the time to do it, as gas prices hover just about $2/gal.

California is also in a commanding position to develop alternative energy. We have more potential solar and wind power that could be developed than almost any other state. That can bring green jobs as well as help provide a more sustainable energy base for our economy. Of course, it does not help when Dianne Feinstein wants a blanket ban on Mojave solar projects – if we want to arrest global warming and improve our environment as a whole, some currently wild regions will have to be developed for solar and wind and transmission lines to serve them.

3. Emphasize sustainable and locally-grown food. California is still one of the best places in the nation for growing food – we have good soil and a climate that allows us to grow virtually anything. We are also growing a strong local and sustainable food movement. Unfortunately California also has a huge corporate agriculture sector that is increasingly using unsustainable practices, especially for water. Government can support local agriculture through proper regulation, by encouraging cities to provide community gardens, and by encouraging the in-state production of the implements used in urban farming.

4. Stop writing checks mother nature can’t cash. This applies particularly to our water resources, which have been overstretched for decades. Now, thanks to contracts written like a subprime mortgage – promising to deliver more water than mother nature can actually deliver – California faces a water crisis even though the current drought isn’t as severe as some have said. Local food production can help ease the demand on the Central Valley for our food and can help better distribute stressed water resources. Ultimately the state will have to further regulate water usage and encourage localities to follow Orange County’s lead in water recycling. Desalination should be considered as a last resort, and only to be implemented under strict conditions.

5. Channel growth toward urban density and end sprawl. I’ve been hammering this point since 2007 – that if we are to restore the California Dream we have to stop sprawl and start building more urban density and the transit to support it if we are to have a hope of providing housing security and a sustainable economy. Sen. Darrell Steinberg’s SB 375 was a great start down this path.

6. Find ways to encourage the growth of a sustainable manufacturing base again. The state ought to consider pursuing various forms of subsidy to products made in-state and if possible taxation of imports. This may bring California into conflict with the various, stupid free trade agreements the US has signed over the last 20 years, but it is a fight someone needs to pick.

I would also note two more fundamental goals that we ought to keep in mind and pursue as we consider long-term recovery:

Sustainability is the key. Everything we do must be sustainable – whether in terms of economic security and broadly shared prosperity, or in terms of environment and use of natural resources. The lack of sustainability is directly responsible for the collapse of the last three recoveries. It is time for us to place sustainability at the CENTER of every economic policy we adopt as a state.

Reduce or eliminate finance from core social needs. A major problem with the present economy is that so much of what we need to survive and thrive – from housing to health care to an education – is dependent on a financial economy. One should not have to depend on loans or debt to have a roof over their head, or get health care, or to eat, or to learn. One might include energy in this as well. While it may be impossible to remove finance entirely from the equation, we should find ways to reduce its place in the provision of those core services, and start seeing a home or health care as fundamental rights we all receive as a condition of being alive, and not privileges we get for playing a market or being willing to take on debt.

Finally, I recognize that the state of California is quite limited in how much long-term economic planning it can do, and that many of the keys are actually held by the federal government. However, an assertive economic recovery plan can create its own momentum in Washington DC, and can force the hand of both Congress and the White House when they might be more inclined toward inertia or, as Obama appears to be, inclined to try and refloat yet another bubble.