Daily Archives: March 26, 2009

Uncategorized

CA-10: DeSaulnier Solidifies Support While Others Circle

14 Comments

The biggest news out of the CA-10 race today is that, according to Lisa Vorderbrueggen, both Ellen Tauscher and friend of Calitics Rep. George Miller have endorsed Sen. Mark DeSaulnier for the future special election.  That’s a fairly big deal.  There are essentially four power structures in the political scene CA-10, and DeSaulnier has swallowed up three – Tauscher, Miller, and Tom Torlakson.  Considering that he’s the chair of the Senate Labor Committee, the fourth power structure, the local unions, should be his as well.

Nevertheless, other prospective candidates are making news as well.  Joan Buchanan’s operatives clearly dropped a poll to Politico, showing her leading DeSaulnier narrowly:

The poll shows Buchanan leading DeSaulnier 21 to 18 percent, with Republican San Ramon mayor Abram Wilson at 14 percent and former GOP Assemblyman Guy Houston at 13 percent.  

Neither Republican has yet expressed interest in the race.

Despite DeSaulnier’s experience representing the area in the state legislature, both Democrats have comparable name recognition, according to the poll. Buchanan is recognized by 34 percent of voters, while 31 percent offer an opinion on DeSaulnier.

That was a survey of 400 voters with a high margin of error (4.9%), so I wouldn’t take it too seriously.  Buchanan would see institutional support dry up fast, but could leverage an outside group like EMILY’s List.

The insufferable California Blue Dog is floating that former Mod Squad member Asm. Joe Canciamilla, who previously announced he was considering the race for Attorney General, might jump in, but DeSaulnier hasn’t just beaten him in the past, he’s beaten his whole family (DeSaulnier beat Canciamilla’s wife in a Senate primary in ’08).

Meanwhile, there’s “one of SF’s top political minds,” if he does say so himself, Adriel Hampton, who is intent on dropping a press release a day to get reporters to chase coverage.  Yesterday he urged passage of S. 582, the Interest Rate Reduction Act, which is actually a solid policy goal to cap interest rates on credit cards and loans, sponsored by Bernie Sanders.  Today he went hard negative against DeSaulnier:

California 10th Congressional District candidate Adriel Hampton (D-Dublin) is not mincing words in his criticism of State Sen. Mark DeSaulnier considering leaving the Legislature just months after being elected. If Sen. DeSaulnier were to resign his seat, it would result in a minimum of 112 day period where an additional Republican vote would be need to pass a budget or raise revenue under California’s unique 2/3 requirement.

“When DeSaulnier ran for his office, he signed up for a four year hitch, not a few-month fling,” Hampton said. “His fickle recklessness would strengthen the Republican bargaining position and could cost Californians billions in cuts to health care, education, and public safety.”

Restaurant-owner DeSaulnier was sworn in to the state senate just last December. If he runs for Congress, it would be the third different office he has run for in as many years. If legislative Republicans believe he has a chance of winning, it would incentivize them to stall a budget compromise until after the election, further extending the period of gridlock that would result in Sacramento by his candidacy.

There’s a lot about this that is arrogant and ridiculous (“restaurant-owner DeSaulnier” is kind of a lame epithet to put on a guy who’s been elected by these same constituents multiple times), but Hampton raises a point I raised as soon as Tauscher announced she was leaving.  The merry go-round of special elections will put Democrats in the legislature down a body or two well into next year, and in the case of Buchanan threatens the loss of the seat.  Now, this logic maybe appeals to a junkie like me, but my guess is it will have approximately no appeal to those inside the district, who will want to pick the best candidate for the job.  In addition, this is a hard negative message that only argues for someone not in the legislature to be elected, and since the field has in no way assembled fully, I don’t see that as a political winner.  Not to mention the pose that DeSaulnier is a fickle part-time legislator made by someone who apparently is still working a full-time job and thinking he can run for Congress at the same time.

Oh, and Sully Sullenberger won’t run, either.  In case you were wondering.  But there are more candidates who may enter, FYI.

Budget

Undo the 2/3 Rule

X-Posted @ BearFlagBlue

For the last couple of months, Ellis Goldberg, President of the Tri-Valley Dems and Sally Sweetser, of the Diablo Valley Dems, have been working their butts off to draft a ballot measure that would repeal the 2/3rds vote requirement in passing a budget. While, there have been many arguments back and forth about just how we approach this repeal, the solution that I and most of the progressive community have come to support, and which Ellis has been promoting from the outset, is one in which the law would be changed to require a 50%+1 simple majority vote to both pass a budget and raise additional revenues.

Well, Ellis and his crew can only do so much, and now they are asking for our help in pushing this proposition forward.

To qualify a ballot measure that will undo the 2/3 requirement to pass the budget and deal with revenue legislation, a petition campaign is being launched to put the 2/3 rule issue on the ballot in mid-2010.  Almost 700,000 signatures on petitions will be required before the initiative can be put on the ballot.  Democratic clubs, PTAs, labor unions and those affected by the budget crisis are asked to help get those signatures. Your help is needed

In support of the TriValley Democratic Club, the Diablo Valley Democratic Club, and the San Ramon Valley Democratic Club…the Contra Costa County Central Committee has passed the following resolution

SUPPORT FOR SIMPLE MAJORITY RULES FOR BUDGET AND REVENUE

WHEREAS, the state of California requires a 2/3’s vote of the legislature to pass all budget and revenue related legislation which results in unequal representation with NO votes counting twice as much as YES votes;  

WHEREAS, this has resulted in rule by a minority of the legislature that has consistently blocked the will of the majority of the citizens of the state of California, delayed annual enactment of budget and revenue related legislation beyond the June 15th deadline, reduced the credit rating of the state, and forced the state to rely on borrowing which burdens future generations of California citizens;

WHEREAS, the 2/3’s rule has resulted in a fiscal catastrophe for the state of California and has caused undue harm to the health and welfare of its citizens;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the __________________________  supports amending the constitution of the state of California to allow a simple majority of the Legislature to pass both budget and revenue related legislation; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the ____________________________  will distribute copies of this resolution to the California Senate and Assembly, California County Democratic Central Committees, as well as other Democratic clubs, and work to support legislation that will overturn the 2/3’s vote requirement.

Here are some things that you can do to help

  • Ask your club or organization to pass the resolution above.
  • Delegates PLEASE attend the Resolutions Committee meeting Friday April 24 at 3 PM in the Sacramento Convention Center to make sure the resolution gets voted on and passed by the full convention.
  • Propose the resolution to your county central committee.
  • Encourage delegates to vote for it.  Petition for delegates signatures will be presented to the Resolutions Committee.
  • Ask PTAs, labor unions and other sympathetic organization to pass the resolution.
  • Get ready for a major petition drive by organizing tabling, precinct walking and promotional activities
Uncategorized

Arnold: Cruel or Clueless?

1 Comment

The New York Times continues its coverage on shantytowns today, highlighting a Bushville in Fresno that has suddenly popped up.  First of all, given that Los Angeles County has 70,000 homeless people and that number has remained durable for quite some time, I welcome the national media to the issue about the homeless but don’t necessarily think that because this new class puts up tents (they do the same on LA’s Skid Row, BTW) that somehow it’s novel.  The recession clearly has exacerbated this problem and brought it to new areas in the state and the country, but that doesn’t mean homelessness didn’t exist before.

Second, our Governor is either America’s stupidest person or he thinks you are:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Wednesday that he has teamed up with Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson to help the homeless and has lobbied the president to speed the flow of federal dollars to address the problem […]

U.S. Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, in February announced that the city and county of Sacramento each are in line to receive $2.4 million in stimulus money to prevent homelessness.

The money will be managed by the city-county Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.

In addition, Proposition 63, the ballot measure voters approved in 2004 to provide mental health funding, will provide “a lot of help” for some of those living on the streets, the governor said.

That would be Prop. 63, the fund which the Governor and the legislature are trying to RAID through Prop. 1E, to the tune of $230 million a year diverted to other purposes.  You can debate the pluses and minuses of that, but promising Prop. 63 funds to fight homelessness at the same time as running a campaign to take Prop. 63 funds away is either cruel or clueless.

You decide.

California

LGBT supportive CA legislators win out 61 to 18

1 Comment

(Someday this won’t be an issue, but until then, it’s good to see stats like this. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Based on Monday’s post about the Capitol Resource Institute’s attacks on EQCA legislation, Alice Kessler, our legislative advocate, pointed out to me something else about the anti-LGBT extremist lobby’s legislative score card.

If you compare theirs to ours, you’ll notice that both rate the legislators based on their performance on key votes. EQCA only endorses candidates who score 100% on our scorecard, which means they support the entire LGBT community 100% of the time—they go all the way on the freedom to marry and trans inclusivity.

Even though we refuse to compromise, we’ve still managed to get 100% scores for 61 legislators on our last scorecard. The Capitol Resource Institute only gave 18 legislators a 100% score.

Obviously one side is doing better. This is testament to the work EQCA has done in the legislature making sure that our issues are front and center, that senators and assemblymembers get the facts about how their votes will affect their LGBT constituents, and that LGBT supportive candidates get elected to office and keep their seats.

This is why we rate legislators and endorse LGBT-supportive candidates, to help educate voters and empower them to vote for equality, every time. Go to www.eqca.org/legislation to learn more about this year’s legislative package.

In other good news, Curren Price won the Democratic primary in my district Tuesday, taking this EQCA-endorsed, LGBT ally another step to office.

–Reposted from the California Ripple Effect

California

Anti-LGBT lobby goes after EQCA legislation

Now Announcing… Capitol Resource Institute versus EQCA!!

Arch-conservative anti-LGBT lobbyist Capitol Resource Institute is all in a tizzy over EQCA-sponsored legislation. Their Legislative Scorecard is much like EQCA’s own guide.

But it’s an uncanny mirror image in terms of values and priorities, scoffing at the real needs of our community and describing LGBT people in offensive, retrograde terminology.

Their framing is really quite breathtaking in its bald defamation.

Wanna go for a spin?

Now Announcing… Capitol Resource Institute versus EQCA!!

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • Laird’s Civil Rights Act of 2007 which expands existing nondiscrimination protections to include LGBT people: “Changes over 50 areas of state law to grant privileged status to homosexuals.”
  • Leno’s groundbreaking marriage bill, AB 43, which made California’s the first legislature in the country to grant the freedom to marry: “Legalizes homosexual marriage. Bypasses the people's decision in 2000, via Prop 22, to preserve marriage between one man and one woman.”
  • Levine’s AB 394, which prohibits discrimination and provides resources for education about LGBT people: “monitoring of student attitudes on sexual orientations.”
  • Leno’s Harvey Milk Day Bill: “A resident of the infamous Castro district in San Francisco, Milk was one of the first homosexual elected officials in America, and is considered a martyr for the homosexual cause.”
  • Migden’s Senior healthcare bill which helps address some of the unique concerns facing LGBT seniors: “establishes a special class of patients based on sexual choices.”
  • And the granddaddy of them all, Safe Schools legislation, the target of a pending federal lawsuit, the alleged ban on “Mommy and Daddy” in public schools, Kuehl’s SB 777, which actually is a relatively minor clarification of existing laws:”normalizes homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality in public and private schools. Bans all teaching and activities that ‘promote a discriminatory bias against’ these lifestyles. Likely to impact textbooks, instructional aids, restroom use, gender-specific sports teams, and more.”

I get it, LGBT people are SICK, and public schools should let them know it. In fact, schools have no obligation to protect students from discrimination or bullying. Maybe teachers should take the first swing? Sheesh…

What this all begins to show is that for our detractors, it’s NOT just about marriage, and marriage is not where they’ll stop. They want to round it out by taking away jobs, civil rights, proper healthcare, safe schools, you name it. Know thy enemy.

Marriage is such a hot topic right now that these other sorts of bread and butter issues often get left out of the discussion. EQCA’s legislation isn’t about wheeling and dealing at the Capitol, but about problems facing real LGBT Californians.

The guide also includes some bizarre objections to sensible legislation protecting youth, saying that a ban on cell phone use by teen drivers “Suggests that the state sees itself as better equipped than parents to make family decisions” and that a bill to prevent minors from going to cancer-causing tanning salons “displaces their parents with a ‘nanny government’.”

Wingnuts. I’d love ‘em if they weren’t so dangerous.

–Reposted from The Ripple Effect

Uncategorized

NH House Passes Gay Marriage

According to the Union Leader gay marriage just passed the NH house with a narrow margin. http://unionleader.com/article…

The final vote on HB 556 was 186-179, and came after nearly three hours of debate.

The bill now moves to the Senate.

Those who pushed for passage of the bill said it was a matter of equal rights and that it will bring an end to discrimination against homosexuals. They said the state’s civil unions law, passed in 2007, is not the equivalent of marriage.

HB 436 now moves on to the State Senate where democrats enjoy a 14-9 (one vacancy) majority. My guess is this bill is headed to the Governor’s desk. Democratic Governor John Lynch has come out in the past against gay marriage, so he probably won’t sign the bill. But he could allow the bill to become law without his signature.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Budget

PPIC Poll: The Special Election Is Going Down

I think the state legislature and the Governor might want to try the tactic of opposing the May 19 ballot initiatives, because apparently, anything they support, the public does the opposite.

When read the full text of the ballot measures, likely voters express these preferences:

Proposition 1A: About four in 10 support the measure (39% yes, 46% no, 15% undecided) to change the

budget process by increasing the state “rainy day” fund. Less than half say the measure would be very (7%)

or somewhat (38%) effective in helping California avoid future state budget deficits.

Proposition 1B: They are divided (44% yes, 41% no, 15% undecided) on the initiative that would require future

supplemental payments to local school districts and community colleges to address recent budget cuts.

Proposition 1C: Half oppose (37% yes, 50% no, 11% undecided) the measure to modernize the lottery and

allow for $5 billion in borrowing from future lottery profits to help balance next year’s state budget.

Proposition 1D: Nearly half support (48% yes, 36% no, 16% undecided) the proposition to temporarily transfer

funds from early childhood education to help balance the state budget.

Proposition 1E: Nearly half favor (47% yes, 37% no, 16% undecided) the measure to transfer money from

mental health services to the general fund to help balance the state budget.

Proposition 1F: An overwhelming majority (81% yes, 13% no, 6% undecided) support the initiative that would

block pay increases to state elected officials in years of budget deficit.

Keep in mind that the first poll, taken about a month ago, showed all six measures passing by a fairly decent margin.  And there has been no coordinated opposition.  So what changed?  I’d gather the confidence in the legislature and the Governor has completely collapsed:

Eight weeks before the special election-called as part of the 2009-2010 budget agreement between the governor and legislature-those Californians most likely to go to the polls are feeling grim about the state of their state: The vast majority (77%) say it is headed in the wrong direction and see its fiscal situation as a big problem (85%). They give record low ratings to the legislature (11%) and to their own legislators (29%). Their approval rating for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (33%) has dropped to a new low among likely voters. For the first time, a majority of Republican likely voters (54%) disapprove of the job performance of the Republican governor.

The results are striking when compared to rising approval ratings for Congress and California’s senators and to  

a strongly positive view of President Obama-despite a challenging economic climate.  

“Californians are clear that the budget situation is serious, but most disapprove of the leadership in

Sacramento-the people who are providing the solutions,” says Mark Baldassare, PPIC president, CEO, and

survey director. “These leaders have their work cut out for them if they want to persuade voters that the ballot

measures are necessary to address the problem.”

If you want to know why the Governor had to explain that he’s not running for future office, that would be because nobody likes him.  And the legislature, obviously, is even worse – the 29% rating for people’s local legislator is absurdly low and quite dangerous.  In a normal world, that would spell lots of primary challenges.

Let me stress that this election is not over – the opposition still isn’t well-funded, and the CTA just put $2 million into Prop. 1B.  The Governor has already started funding the other measures.  With an unbalanced funding war, these measures could bounce back.  But the rule of thumb is that measures in this position right now lose.  I see 1A in particular in the situation of the mountain climber from The Price Is Right, with just a little opposition sufficient to send him over the cliff.

Uncategorized

We’re up on Our New Server

2 Comments

I thought I would hijack this test post to celebrate our transition to a new server.  The site should now be far more stable. Yay!

The software got a few tweaks as well. You’ll notice cute URLs and a few other features as you stroll around the site.

Uncategorized

Wednesday Open Thread

4 Comments

Here’s a sampling of hypertext “links”, which can be clicked on to view the full story:

• In the continuing Verizon/EDD saga, the two sides have reached a deal so that Verizon will cut the EDD’s bill for offering answering machine messages (to the tune of millions) but not eliminate the deal.  Verizon will basically give the EDD credits toward future payments.  The state is charged 5 cents a pop every time an unemployed resident calls the line and gets an answering machine because all operators are busy.  Seems to me like hiring more operators would be cheaper, given the raw numbers of how much we’re paying Verizon.

• An update on Pete Stark’s tax snafu with the state of Maryland – it turns out a number of Congresscritters, Democrats and Republicans alike, took the same deduction on their Maryland residences, which was legal until the law recently changed.  None of this has stopped former Laura Bush press secretary Andrew Malcolm from accurately reporting the truth by following up his breathless item on “liberal Democrat Pete Stark” with the fuller context.  I know Malcolm reads this space because I get a congratulatory email from him anytime I attack a Democrat, so Andy, buddy, punim, do your job.

• This is a great move by the LA County Board of Supervisors – beatings against the homeless have increased significantly in recent years, and they ought to be charged as the hate crimes that they are.  The violence against this vulnerable group should end.

• In DiFi’s world, a time of tremendous energy challenges, when we need to set aside space that would be perfect for solar and wind energy projects also means a time to develop national monuments and put desert lands off-limits.  I know this is contentious, but I respectfully disagree that we can shield the Mojave Desert to solar sites.  I am happy to be disabused of this notion.