All posts by David Dayen

CA-42: Miller Faces The Music

I found it unusual to have this kind of session in the Republican caucus, where one member must defend his actions to the group.  Are they planning on having one of these a day to cover everybody?  It’s more evidence that the GOP considers Rep. Gary Miller’s situation a real problem:

Rep. Gary Miller (R-Calif.) passionately pleaded his innocence before GOP colleagues at a closed-door conference meeting Tuesday, nearly a week after several media outlets reported that the FBI is looking into his land deals.

Miller told colleagues that the press and Democrats had launched a smear campaign against him, singling out The Hill and the Los Angeles Times as perpetrators, as well as a former Democratic mayor of the Southern California city of Monrovia, Lara Larramendi Blakely, who now works for Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.), according to GOP sources.

over…

This is standard Republican scandal deflection, blaming the press and the Democrats for one’s own sins.  That Miller had to employ this tactic to his fellow colleagues is significant.  While they won’t say it publicly, clearly the Republican leadership understands that corruption scandals had a major impact on costing them their majority.  You’re not going to see the leadership line up behind corrupt members.  And that corruption includes practically the entire California delegation:

Also of reported concern to Republicans is a federal investigation into Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif. The probe, an offshoot of the Randy “Duke” Cunningham scandal, was first reported last July. “The Los Angeles Times” revealed that prosecutors suspect Lewis of steering millions in taxpayer money to clients of favored lobbyists.

The congressman’s office did not return a call for comment, but he has previously denied the charges.

An investigation into another serving House Republican is showing signs of renewed activity. New documents have been handed over to a grand jury in the case of Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif., who’s facing scrutiny for misusing his influence to pump up the value of land he owned and later sold, according to California’s Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.

Calvert’s office declined to comment today; in the past he has denied wrongdoing in the affair.

I wasn’t aware that Calvert’s under grand jury investigation as well.

Meanwhile, Miller was getting only tepid support from Minority Leader John Boehner at this meeting, and with the evidence stacking up against him, he’s in danger of graduating to the first step of getting booted out of Congress: losing his committee assignments:

Boehner, however, has not indicated whether he will keep Miller in the top GOP spot on the Finance Committee’s Oversight and Investigations panel.

“I really don’t think Boehner was suggesting that the books have been closed on any of the cases members are concerned about,” the source close to Boehner continued. “If anything, he was underscoring the leadership’s commitment to staying on top of these matters.”

That’s not exactly a vote of confidence.

With Democratic leaders mulling over possible challenges, the GOP brass doing a bit of distancing, and with Miller himself in full blame-game mode, this is something to which everybody should be attuned.

Lonely At The Top

I guess there’s no fun in being post-partisan.  According to the Sac Bee Tom McClintock will NOT ATTEND Gov. Schwarzenegger’s address to the California Republican Party tonight, because he “is so dismayed by the governor’s positions.”

“Many Republicans supported him in 2006 based on the simple, unequivocal campaign promise he made not to raise taxes,” McClintock said. “He broke that promise and proposed the second-largest tax increase in state history. I will never trust another word he says.”

OK, this is the man who ran as the Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor, arguably the second-highest Constitutional office in the state.  It’s essentially Schwarzenegger’s running mate.  This is basically akin to Cheney just leaving the seat behind Bush empty at the State of the Union. (Dare to dream…)

more…

This is just an extension of the disillusionment Republicans have had with Arnold.  Not at the voting booth; the right held their nose and voted him back into office.  But all of his signature achievements last year passed with hardly any Republican support in the legislature.  Tonight he’ll be talking in front of a party which increasingly feels abandoned by him, particularly on taxes.  McClintock is in the dead center of Republican Party philosophy and he doesn’t waver.  He also has lost FOUR statewide races for various offices, and once for the US House.  His vision of the Republican Party is incommensurate with majority opinion in this state.  The CA Republican Party’s idea of a moderate is someone who calls all prison inmates animals.

That’s why there pretty much is no Republican Party in California, and in the post-post-partisan era, virtually nobody appears to be able to mount a statewide run (I mean, who?  Steve Poizner and his $30 million?).  The Democratic Party has its troubles as well, and the progressive movement is trying to fix that from the ground up.  I have always submitted that the increase in “Decline to State” voters here has everything to do with the fact that you have two weak parties, and the one that steps up and starts engaging voters and addressing real needs of the people will have a tremendous opportunity to forge ahead.

Shortfall

A billion dollars is quite a lot for any one state to be short on monthly tax revenue, even a state as big as California.  This is especially true when you have a budget deficit to begin with, and those projections are being used to try and balance it.  The Governor often makes it seem like everything in the state is going great, but this sign (probably due to the slumping housing market) is ominous.  Meanwhile, home buyers in Cali are going deeper into debt, taking out mortgages with no down payment and not being able to keep up.

But never mind, it’s always sunny in the Golden State!

CA-30: Waxman’s Great, But He’s Trying to Skate on Iraq

I watched a little of today’s hearing on Iraq war profiteering and contracting.  It’s really nothing short of amazing.  It’s like watching the movie Iraq For Sale in Congressional hearing form.  They’re focusing on Blackwater Securities today, whose contract for Iraq couldn’t even be found until today, and who were sending out truck drivers without proper equipment to save money, while pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars through overcharging the government.  It’s great to see these bastards nailed to the wall.

And the man who’s putting this all together is my Congressman, Henry Waxman.  He is nothing short of heroic for bringing the spotlight to this war profiteering in his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.  And he’s a dogged investigator and questioner.  He painted the picture in yesterday’s session with Paul Bremer of the Federal Reserve packing 363 tons of cash in palettes onto military aircraft to be sent to Iraq to simply be passed out.  Today, Waxman repeatedly asked a spokeswoman from the Army how many security contractors they have hired, and she dodged and dodged and finally had to answer that she didn’t know the precise number.  And finally, there was his brilliant smackdown of GOP attack dog Rep. Patrick McHenry, who spent the entire session trying to blame profiteering on the Clinton Administration and calling it a show trial: he said “I suggest the Congressman return under his rock.”

Waxman deserves a lot of credit for his pursuit of lawbreaking and official corruption.  And his reputation in this district is gold sterling.  He was right there on the front page of the New York Times the other day.  And he’s a great, longtime champion for liberal values.  He took on the cigarette companies.  He wrote the Clean Air Act.  And on and on.

However, it’s important to note that Waxman voted for the war, is not part of the Out of Iraq caucus, and while he has finally come out against the escalation, is “on the fence” about de-funding the war and bringing the troops home.

On the flip…

He keeps this incredibly quiet.  You would be hard-pressed to find anyone in this district that knows this.  I was talking to a few friends about this very topic recently, and they looked at me like I was nuts.  They actually couldn’t believe it.

You have to dig, but you can find Waxman’s statement about Iraq at his website.

On October 10, 2002, Rep. Waxman voted for resolution H.J.Res. 114, authorizing the use of military force to ensure Iraq’s disarmament of weapons of mass destruction. He did so with the expectation that a strong bipartisan stand in Congress would pressure the United Nations to carry out its responsibilities to enforce its own resolutions and because he believed it was necessary to send a tough message for Saddam Hussein to understand he would have to comply.

On March 17, 2003, Rep. Waxman called for an investigation of the revelation that the President relied on false intelligence sources to present the case for war with Iraq to the American people and the United Nations. On June 26, 2003, he introduced H.R. 2625, which would establish an Independent Commission on Intelligence about Iraq – modeled after the September 11 Commission – to examine pre-war intelligence and the representations made by executive branch officials about Iraqi efforts to develop and deploy weapons of mass destruction.

In addition, Rep. Waxman has initiated an intensive investigation of the Bush Administration’s process for awarding post-war contracts in Iraq to ensure fairness and accountability in U.S. funded projects for Iraq reconstruction. He remains deeply concerned about allegations that Halliburton, a company with close ties to Vice President Dick Cheney, has received special treatment from the Administration in the awarding of Defense Department contracts, including some related to Iraqi reconstruction.

Waxman’s actions about intelligence – almost immediately after voting for the war – are noble.  He also cosponsored legislation to ban permanent bases in Iraq or a “long-term or permanent” military presence.  But he is not committed to stopping funding on this war, and he has been allowed to coast on his reputation and give no definitive answer on the conflict.  This came to a head a couple weeks ago at the Palisades Democratic Club:

Addressing a crowd of 200 at a Palisades Democratic Club meeting in Los Angeles Sunday, Congressman Henry Waxman said he opposes the US occupation of Iraq but may continue to fund it because “I don’t want to make any promises before I see what the (funding) proposal will be.”

Greeted by grassroots Democrats holding a banner that read “Liberals do not fund occupation,” Waxman acknowledged there were members of the audience who would like to see him support bills calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops, but said he was not sure bringing the troops home now was the answer […]

Waxman, now Chair of the Government Reform Committee, told the standing-room only crowd he opposes the Bush troop escalation and wants to conduct vigorous investigations into the 8-billion US dollars missing in Iraq, but said he is not convinced it is time to use the power of the purse to end the war or even co-sponsor legislation that would bring the troops home within six months. Waxman said a civil war could develop when US troops leave Iraq. “But there already is a civil war,”
said one audience member, whose objection went unanswered.

And I have to add this, which gave me quite a bit of pause.

Asked if he would oppose US military use of Israel as a proxy to bomb or invade Iran, Waxman said he opposed a war against Iran, though added, “If you want to lose sleep, think of a nuclear-armed Iran.” The Congressman said he favored economic sanctions over the use of force, referencing the enormous impact of world economic sanctions against the apartheid government of South Africa.

There’s more here and here.

Waxman, simply put, is trying to skate on this war, and furthermore is buying in to right-wing frames about Iran which do nothing but enable war hawks who would like nothing more but to come up with any pretext to attack Iran.  In fact, now is the time to stop this drumbeat toward Iran in the US Congress.

Congress should not wait. It should hold hearings on Iran before the president orders a bombing attack on its nuclear facilities, or orders or supports a provocative act by the U.S. or an ally designed to get Iran to retaliate, and thus further raise war fever.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has warned the administration that it had better seek congressional authorization for any attack on Iran. But we need Senate and House hearings now to put the Bush administration on notice that, in the absence of an imminent military attack or a verified terrorist attack on the United States by Iran, Congress will not support a U.S. military strike on that country. Those hearings should aim toward passage of a law preventing the expenditure of any funds for a military attack on Iran unless Congress has either declared war with that country or has otherwise authorized military action under the War Powers Act.

The law should be attached to an appropriations bill, making it difficult for the president to veto. If he simply claims that he is not bound by the restriction even if he signs it into law, and then orders an attack on Iran without congressional authorization for it, Congress should file a lawsuit and begin impeachment proceedings.

Anyone that is throwing up belligerent and fearmongering rhetoric on Iran gives the President more leeway to do the same and manufacture a conflict.  Waxman may have his reasons for doing so, all of them perfectly sincere.  But starting another war in the Middle East right now would be the height of insanity and would continue to fuel hatred in that part of the world for generations.

There are going to be street actions soon around this issue, to both thank Rep. Waxman for what he’s doing, but to pressure him to do the right thing on denying the appropriation of funds and bringing this war to an end.  Waxman seems like he doesn’t want to come to terms with this issue.  He’d rather do what he’s very good at doing, investigation and oversight.  But this vote matters and it’s a major priority.  If liberal lions like Henry Waxman cannot represent the views of his district and the vast majority of the American people, then I don’t know what it will take.  I don’t want to psycho-analyze Waman and try to understand why he’s being so noncommital on this issue.  I just want him to do the right thing.

Feb. Primary Will Happen: Time to Put Pressure on REAL Election Reform

It’s increasingly apparent that the 2008 California Presidential primary will be moved to February 5.  The Senate bill moved through the appropriate committee today unanimously, and the Assembly will move their version as well, which the Governor has indicated he will sign.

This bill says nothing about possible initiatives on redistricting or term limit relaxation that are rumored to be tied to the primary shift.  But Fabian Nuñez, who under current law will be termed out in 2008, doesn’t have $7.1 million in his campaign account for no reason.  Last week he put forward a redistricting plan that was short on details.  And Senate President Pro Tem Perata appeared cool on the idea, at least publicly.  But it’s clear that somebody is gearing up for something.

I would offer that if you REALLY wanted to change how we choose a President and how California can impact that, if you actually wanted to see candidates in this state both before and after Feb. 5, 2008, there are far more effective ways to do so beyond moving up a primary to the very moment when the nominee will have already been all but selected.  Therefore I challenge everyone who supports this plan to also advocate full support for the National Popular Vote.

The real travesty with California’s role in the Presidential process is not in the primary election, but in the general.  By virtue of the antiquated electoral college system, a Californian’s vote is about 3.6 times less valuable than a vote from a resident of the state of Wyoming.  We’ve seen over the past two close elections that states like California are completely taken for granted in the general election, with all the money and all the focus going to a select few swing states.  This state with the most voters really does have practically no effect on who gets elected.

The National Popular Vote would change all that.  Under this legislation, every state pledges to deliver its slate of electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote.  It would not kick in until states with a majority of electoral votes make it law, therefore essentially doing an end run around the electoral college.  It is completely constitutional (apportionment of electors has always been left up to the states; Nebraska and Maine give them out be electoral district) and would mean that the winner of the popular vote could never be denied the Presidency.

The practical effect of this would be that Presidential hopefuls would not be able to concentrate their campaigns in one or two states.  It would open up the playing field entirely, and we would see a number of new and innovative strategies to round up votes.  Nobody’s vote could be taken for granted, and therefore political participation nationwide would be widespread.  Some think that candidates would just park themselves in major urban centers.  They pretty much park themselves in a handful of states right now, so I don’t see that as a fair or even coherent criticism.

46 states have introduced bills for the National Popular Vote.  It has passed the Colorado State Senate, and has cleared committee in Montana and Hawaii with bipartisan backing.  Last year both houses of the legislature in California passed the National Popular Vote bill, which was managed by then-State Senator Debra Bowen and then-Assemblyman Tom Umberg.  But it was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger last September 30.  It was vetoed because there was no public groundswell of support and no penalty for the Governor to veto the bill.

This is what baffles me about petitions and such for the date of the California Primary.  Here is a common-sense solution that would make California count and literally change the way the Preisdent gets elected, making the system more fair and just.  Why aren’t the champions of reform (and, ahem, courage) pushing this bill?  The LA Times and the Sacramento Bee editorialized in favor of this reform last year.  Where is the grassroots and the netroots?

In fact, Carole Midgen is sponsoring SB 37, the National Popular Vote bill, in the 2007 session.  I would love to see these people who are so wounded by California’s lack of entry in the Presidential process to get behind this bill.

CA-42: A Non-Denial Denial, Video and the D-Trip Gears Up

The drama surrounding corrupt Republican Gary Miller in CA-42 is growing and growing.  On Friday Miller dismissed but did not deny that he was under FBI investigation for shielding the profits of several land deals by claiming they were sold under threat of eminent domain.

Miller said repeatedly that he has always followed legal and ethical guidelines in his real estate deals. He accused both a partisan media and local Democratic officials of impugning his character without regard to fact.

“My reputation is being destroyed,” said Miller, 58. “If there is some benefit to me in being a congressman in any of these transactions, please show it to me.”

OK, that would be the fact that you sold 165 acres of property in Monrovia and never paid taxes on it.  And apparently, there’s video of you asking the Monrovia City Council in 2000 to buy the land, when you claimed that the City Council forced you to sell it.

That good enough for ya?

Miller’s lawyers have also been busy trying to intimidate local governments:

On Thursday, Miller’s attorneys served the city of Monrovia with a letter requesting staff “retract or correct any misstatements made to the media or any governmental agencies” with regard to his 2002 sale of 165 acres of hillside land to the city for nearly $11.8 million.

The letter goes on to say that “if misstatements by the city, its officials or staff members persist, then the consequences could result in damages for which the city could be held acountable.”

In other words, “I’m a congressman and you wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.”

The Monrovia planning commissioner had this to say.

Glen Owens, a Monrovia planning commissioner, said Tuesday an FBI agent questioned him about the chain of events that led up to Miller’s land sale to the city.

Owens served on a advisory committee with Miller in the 1990s that was formed to come up with a plan for hillside development. He said he believes Miller did not intend to build on his property at the time of the sale.

“He soon realized that he could probably make more money by selling the land than by developing it,” said Owens.

He added, “Gary just knows how to work the system and he is not afraid to push the envelope and that is what he’s done. But I don’t think he has broken any laws. He’s just used bad judgment.”

OK, so it’s bad judgment to improperly file a form that saves you from paying taxes on a $10 million sale?  No, it’s bad judgment to claim that a city government was trying to force you to sell the land when it was in fact the opposite way around.

(Incidentally, Gary Miller was selected by his peers to be the top Republican on the subcommittee tasked with investigating banks.  Just thought I’d bring that to your attention.)

And there’s even some quid pro quo in this deal:

Miller used the proceeds from the Monrovia sale to buy property in Fontana from Lewis Operating Corp., a development company he had done business with before and that had contributed significantly to Miller’s congressional campaigns.

In 2006, Lewis gave $8,500 to Miller, who ran for re-election unopposed. In 2004, the company gave him $10,000, making it the third largest contributor to his campaign.

The unintentional irony award goes to the last two paragraphs of the story:

Miller said he ran for Congress in 1998 because he did not like “what government did to the private sector,” particularly with the way it regulates development. Miller, who previously served in the state Assembly and on the Diamond Bar City Council, is a successful real estate developer and businessman.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Miller is the 12th wealthiest member of the House, with a net worth of between $12 million and $51.7 million.

With that kind of resources, clearly Miller is not going down without a fight.  And it appears that the local GOP will stick with him unless and until he is indicted.  But the DCCC, the campaign committee for the House, has Miller on their radar screen:

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — looking to cement the Dems’ majority in the House — is eyeing a bunch of GOP-held House districts where the incumbents look ready to retire or run for other offices, today’s Roll Call reports. The Dems’ expectation is that retirements — or dissatisfaction with being in the minority — could cause a wave of GOP defections that will leave behind districts that could then be ripe for a Dem pickup, the paper says.

Among the more than two dozen GOPers Dems are watching:

* Rep. Gary Miller (R-Calif.), who “reportedly is under FBI investigation, which has Democrats dreaming about his Inland Empire-based 42nd district, even though it gave Bush 62 percent of the vote in 2004.”

Howie Klein reports that the D-Trip is not like it was when Rahm Emanuel was running the show:

The DCCC under Van Hollen is already looking much more Democratic and much more aggressive. Where Emanuel used discredited Inside-the-Beltway hack consultants to focus on a tiny number of races– many of which turned out to be astronomically expensive races that Republicans won– the new DCCC is casting a broader– and smarter– net. According to today’s Roll Call Van Hollen is looking closely at over 2 dozen Republican-held seats that might be open seats by November ’08– open either due to retirements or indictments. “Given the GOP’s new minority status in the House, Democratic strategists think some veteran Republicans will head into retirement while some younger Members will opt to run for other offices. Democrats also believe that ethics scrapes could force a handful of GOP incumbents from office.” […]

UPDATE: Today was Brandon Hall’s first day at the DCCC as Western Regional Director. This guy is smart and a real fighter. I called to congratulate him and all he wanted to do was talk about taking on Ken Calvert and Jerry Lewis, Dave Dreier, Buck McKeon, John Doolittle, Elton Galleghy and Gary Miller. What a dynamo! If Van Hollen hires a whole staff of people like Brandon Hall the DCCC will wind up as useful and productive as the grassroots has always dreamed it would be!

Gary Miller WASN’T CHALLENGED at all last year, but now it’s been made very clear that he’s a target, not just of the FBI but of the DCCC.  This is very good news, and Southern California Democrats will have a variety of work to do in their own backyard in this cycle.

The Outsourcing Solution

Last week a nonpartisan commission released a disheartening report about the state of California prisons, arguing that decades of “tough on crime” actions by politicians have caused an intractable crisis, with an alarming lack of capacity, the worst recidivism rate in the nation, and a charged atmosphere in state lockups which cause major riots and gang activity.

If policymakers are unwilling to make bold changes, the commission said, they should appoint an independent entity – modeled after the federal Base Closure and Realignment Commission – with the power to do it for them.

“For decades, governors and lawmakers fearful of appearing soft on crime have failed to muster the political will to address the looming crisis,” the commission said.

“And now their time has run out.”

It is clearly time for bold action to relieve the prison crisis, so the Governor took some, though bold may be the only charitable thing you can ssay about it.  More like brazen:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Friday that his administration would forcibly shift thousands of inmates to out-of-state prisons because only a few hundred had volunteered to leave […]

Between 5,000 and 7,000 inmates will be forcibly moved, said Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary James Tilton. The first to go will be inmates scheduled for deportation after they’ve served their sentences and those who get few visitors.

The reaction to the plan broke down along party lines, with Republicans portraying the same “tough on crime” pose that got us in this mess in the first place.

Republican lawmakers welcomed Schwarzenegger’s decision, calling it overdue.

“We are out of options,” said Assemblyman Todd Spitzer (R-Orange), who chairs a committee examining prison operations. “This is prison, these are prisoners, and they don’t get to say where they’re going to do their time.”

Democratic lawmakers, advocates for inmates and the prison guards’ union attacked the transfers as illegal and irresponsible.

“I think it’s pathetic policy,” said Steve Fama, staff attorney with the Prison Law Office, which represents prisoners. “Because the elected officials don’t have the will to figure out how to solve the crisis, we instead export convicts and spread our mess across the land.”

On the flip…

Assemblyman Spitzer doesn’t seem to understand state law, because an inmate’s consent is required before moving them out of state.  This is why the Governor unleashed a charm offensive to entice prisoners to move, showing them infomercial-like videos about the great amenities and tasty food at their new home.  This persuaded a whopping 300 or so prisoners to consent to move, far less than needed.  So he just ordered a forced exile.

Now, the problem for Schwarzenegger is that he already has a contract in place with privately run prisons for them to take these inmates off the state’s hands.  So if he doesn’t fill the beds, the state is out a lot of money.  Ultimately that’s what this comes down to, in addition to a feeble attempt to shift the problem by shipping it out of state.

This shows to me that the root causes of our prison crisis are still being ignored.  If you want to really know why we’re at twice our capacity in state lockups, read this.

Defense attorneys are protesting a drug crackdown on skid row, saying petty narcotics users are increasingly being sent to prison instead of receiving treatment that could cure their addictions.

Since September, police and prosecutors have targeted drug dealing in the 5th Street corridor – an area bordered by 4th and 6th streets, Broadway and Central Avenue – which police said was a hotspot of drug crimes.

Though law enforcement officials have hailed the effort, defense lawyers say it is harming some who need help.

“They’re basically cleaning out skid row by putting people into state prison, where there really isn’t room … either,” said Deputy Public Defender Lisa Lichtenstein, who handles numerous downtown drug cases.

She said that since the fall, minor drug cases that in the past might have resulted in possession charges that could lead to treatment have been prosecuted as drug sales, which can result in prison sentences for those convicted.

In many cases, Lichtenstein said, the drug sales charges are against addicts selling a small amount to pay for their own habit. “These are very small amounts of drugs, 10 dollars’ worth, maybe $20,” she said.

So nonviolent offenders who desperately need medical treatment are being hauled off to overflowing jails in order to make downtown Los Angeles safe for loft development (even though the loft market is flatlining downtown).  They can’t fit in the jails, so the solution agreed upon is to export the problem.  This doesn’t address future needs, as 6 or 9 months down the road another batch of prisoners will need to be outsourced.  And so human beings are sold, actually literally sold to private for-profit prisons if you think about it, and the cycle which propagated this crisis goes unbroken.

I want you to read some of a letter posted at the great liberal blog Orcinus.  Sara Robinson’s brother is in a California prison as we speak, and the conditions are… well just read it.

We are on lockdown status — all of us. There was an incident in the hall outside my cell. An inmate was cut up pretty bad and nearly died out right in front of us. He was just left laying there for too long before help was summoned.

That was Wednesday. The investigation doesn’t start until Monday, and lockdown will continue until they get a name. It’s a very timely incident: COs [correction officers] get hazard pay until it is resolved. This close to the holidays, it only makes sense to put off the investigation as long as possible […]

Another scam is the library. No, I don’t get “points” [toward release or better conditions] for contributing to it — I only feed the machine. Upon checking out a book, you sign a trust release for the amount of the book. These are processed every week. When a book isn’t returned in seven days, you are charged for its full cost.

But availability to the library is only given every TWO weeks. I didn’t know this, until I was charged for two. Both books were turned in at the next available date — but too late to avoid paying for them. This way, one book will pay for itself over and over.

By the way, these books are ALL donated by inmates.

I was also charged for two T-shirts. I received them sleeveless, and was charged for destruction of state property. They’ll go back to the laundry, and be re-issued to another inmate, who will be charged for them, too — as was the person who got them before me. The shirts have cost me $15 apiece so far. They were made by inmates in Prison Industry Authority jobs.

As they say, read the whole thing.  The corrections process is broken in so very many ways, and the emphasis almost seems to be on dehumanizing prisoners, virtually ensuring their return after they get out.  Many come in on victimless crimes and come back again and again.  And they’re treated completely inhumanely, and now shipped away from their homes.

It’s not “sexy” to give a damn about prisoners; just look at that quote from Assemblyman Spitzer for proof.  But this is a serious problem that speaks to our humanity and our dignity.  What we’ve done is to practically create a second-tiered culture in California, one which is growing at a faster rate than can be managed.  The Democrats in the Legislature need to embrace the Little Hoover Commission Report, stop this forced emigration proposal, and come up with a same set of policies that rewards rehabilitation and treatment and understands the goals of incarceration, which are not to let people rot but to ensure that they pay their debt to society and move on.

Department of Unsurprising Things Dept.

Hey, so remember how, during the campaign, that audio of Gov. Schwarzenegger talking about Bonnie Garcia and her “hot Latin blood” was leaked, and Arnold’s campaign started claiming that their site was hacked, and launched a criminal investigation into the Angelides staffers who did it?

Funny story….

Some five months after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s office kicked off a high profile criminal investigation of alleged computer hacking to determine how his private conversations ended up leaked to the press, a California Highway Patrol report has effectively cleared the campaign of Democrat Phil Angelides saying that there was no crime involved.

The 38-page CHP report, just released, says that the digital files of the governor’s conversations were placed on a website that was “accessed by backwards browsing … which does not constitute a crime.”

Of course, we all knew that erasing the end of an URL and finding the parent directory was not hacking, but it took the CHP 5 months.  Still, it seems like every time one of these things comes up, it turns into absolutely nothing several months down the road.  Remember the Joe Lieberman site hack?

This wasn’t a crucial part of the governor’s race, but it actually was kind of a big deal, and the Schwarzenegger team was being righteously indignant the whole time, vowing to “get to the bottom of this larceny,” etc.  Once again, they were just blustering to cover up their own ineptitude.  And they were directing police investigations for political purposes, and perhaps even delaying those investigations to avoid embarrassment.  How typical.

The Historical Importance of the California Grassroots

I am honored to be serving as a delegate to the CDP along with Ellis Perlman, a Professor Emeritus in political science from the University of Michigan-Flint.  He has been a keen observer of grassroots politics as it relates to this state for the past 100 years, and I asked him to put together some information on it, to serve as a historical perspective for those of us who don’t quite remember the days of Hiram Johnson and Earl Warren.  There’s some very good information here, and it all speaks to the fact that this “people-powered” movement is nothing new, it’s just being adapted for the 21st century.

The report, on the flip…

Grass Roots and Political Change in California  Jan. 21, 2007

Progressivism, building on earlier populist movements, has spurred a variety of grass roots movements during the past hundred years in California.  The state’s political history is encouraging.  It demonstrates that progressive grass roots movements can achieve power and influence public policy.  The examples below illustrate such achievements and influence.

Two factors should be noted.  One is that the movements typically have been rooted in the middle and upper middle class.  The second is that conservatives have had similar successes, especially in the 1960 and beyond.  -Ellis Perlman  January 24, 2007 

The Progressive movement in California was founded by Chester Rowell and Edward Dickson, two journalists who had become disgusted with the Southern Pacific Railroad’s control of the state legislature.  Their efforts ultimately led to formation of the Lincoln-Roosevelt Republican League, with clubs forming throughout the state.  This was a grass roots movement, largely from within the Republican Party, to clean up California government, and make it more responsive to Progressive ideals.
Source:  Joseph P. Harris, California Politics (Chandler:  1967), pp. 1-13

Another form of grass roots action and accomplishment in California involved the response of women when they first gained the right to vote.  Women’s suffrage was opposed by the elite in Los Angeles, and especially by the Los Angeles Times.  It was approved by 2000 votes in Los Angeles, and by 3587 votes statewide in a special election on October 10, 1911.  By December, more than 82,000 women had registered in Los Angeles, and more than 90% voted in the mayoral election.  Ironically, the Times, having opposed the women’s vote, congratulated women for their “intelligent voting” in defeating the Socialist mayoral candidate, John Harriman. 
Source:  Jane Apostal, “Why Women Should Not Have the Vote:  Anti-Suffrage Views in the Southland in 1911,”  Southern California Quarterly  70:29-42 (Spring, 1988)

A group of Republicans, mainly liberals, met in August, 1923, to organize a campaign to secure a liberal state legislature, and to oppose Friend W. Richardson, the conservative Republican governor.  They created the Progressive Voters League to contest the 1924 and 1926 elections.  The very conservative Richardson followed two progressive governors, Hiram Johnson and William Stephens.  The Democratic Party was weak, commonly winning no more than a third of the gubernatorial vote.  When Richardson was elected in 1922, conservative Republicans had a majority in the Assembly, and almost a majority in the Senate.  The Voters League was instrumental in electing a Progressive, Clement Young, as Governor.  The League then disbanded, and Conservative James Rolfe was elected governor in 1930.  As with most revolts against dominant political authority in 20th century California, grass roots organization played a major role, and the revolt came from within the  Republican Party.

Source:  Russell Posner, “The Progressive Voters League, 1923-1926,” California Historical Society Quarterly  36:251-261 (September, 1957)

Progressivism is generally considered to have faded as a force in California and nationally by the 1920s-1930s period.  Rosanne  M. Barker demonstrated that Progressivism continued as an active movement during this period, sustained by women’s organizations, particularly in small towns.  She highlights the activity of Pearl Chase and other women activists in Santa Barbara, and notes that progressive women activists were achieving success in other towns, as well.  The types of activities and accomplishments described by Barker did not draw much attention, at the time or later.  It represented, however, substantial grass roots effort and achievement of progressive goals.
Source:  Rosanne M. Barker, “Small Town Progressivism:  Pearl Chase and Female Activism in Santa Barbara,” Southern California Quarterly  79:47-100 (Spring, 1997)

The California Republican Assembly was organized in 1934 as a response to Republican losses in 1932.  Clubs were formed throughout the state.  By 1938, Earl Warren had become the key figure in bringing moderate/progressive Republican leadership to power, to control the state for the next twenty years.  Subsequent grass root movements, beginning with United Republicans of California and the John Birch Society regained conservative control of the Republican Party by the 1960s.
Source:  Richard Harvey, Dynamics of  California Government and Politics  (Wadsworth, 1970) ch. 2

The California Democratic Council, with chapters throughout the state and a peak membership of 66,000, grew out of Adlai Stevenson’s unsuccessful 1952 campaign for President.  The political leader most associated with the CDC was Alan Cranston, State Controller and later U. S. Senator.  The CDC was a grass roots movement, one generated from within the Democratic Party.  Its membership tended to be middle class and suburban, as were the several Republican grass roots movements that fostered progressive reform.
Source:  Clyde E. Jacobs and John F. Gallagher, California Government:  One Among Fifty  (Macmillan, 1966), pp. 102-106

I hope you all enjoyed that as much as I did (or perhaps not; I’m a history nerd).  It’s interesting that grassroots movements in this state have traditionally started in the middle and upper-middle classes; not surprising, certainly on the basis of leisure time.  I think our challenge in the netroots is to ensure a multiplicity of voices, to understand and hear from the concerns of the poor and those typically not present in the larger political debate.

The other factor is that our opposition is just as equipped to pull this off, so we must be smarter, and grow larger, and continue to innovate to maintain any kind of advantage.  We also must keep an eye on our legislators in Sacramento, as the “clean up government” mantra has bounced back and forth between the parties over the years.

I’m going to try and get Ellis to write a little more for the site, if you have any specific areas of interest, please put them in the comments.