Note: I work as Public Policy Director for the Courage Campaign

In the wake of the Arizona immigration law being signed by their governor, California Republican and US Senate candidate Tom Campbell was quick to announce his support for the law, putting him significantly out of step with public opinion in California and indicating a willingness to let his fellow Californians be subjected to unfair violations of their civil liberties and random searches based on racial profiling.

So the Courage Campaign decided to let Tom Campbell know that Californians didn’t agree with his stance. We joined Rev. Eric Lee of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the California of Federation of Teachers to ask our members to sign a letter to Campbell asking him to withdraw his support for the Arizona law and pledge to not bring such a law to California.

Just a few hours after we deployed our email, Campbell responded directly to us via email:

Had you contacted me, I would have urged you not to fan the flames of this controversy, as you have chosen to do. Your language is inflammatory in the highest degree.

We are all bound by the same federal laws. No state or city has the right to exclude itself from the application of federal law. And if a state wishes to ask its law enforcement agents to help enforce federal law, I don’t see how we can object. After all, the federal government has done a terrible job of enforcing the laws against illegal immigration.

Under Arizona’s law, and under the Constitution as interpreted by Chief Justice Earl Warren in Terry v. Ohio, in 1968, police officers have the right to ask individuals when they have reasonable grounds for suspicion of a law violation. Racial profiling does not constitute reasonable grounds. That was always clear in the new law; but changes adopted yesterday by Arizona make it even more clear. Another change makes even clearer the intent of the original law, that the stop must be for violation of other laws, such as a moving violation in traffic.

Californians, especially, ought to watch the experience of our neighbor state before rushing to condemn it. Like Arizona, California, too, has been burdened by the federal government’s unwillingness to enforce existing laws, and our nation’s sovereignty. “Sanctuary cities,” setting themselves up as immune to federal law, are no more legal than the efforts of “nullification” of federal law tried by southern states before our country’s civil war. And when the federal government fails to enforce the law, it is us, the citizens of the border states, who pay the price. We ought to be free, therefore, to take steps to assist federal enforcement of our nation’s sovereignty, and its borders.

There’s a lot of problematic and flawed arguments here, as Rick Jacobs, Chair of the Courage Campaign, Rev. Eric Lee, and Kenneth Burt, Political Director of the CFT explained in their response letter emailed to Campbell this afternoon:

While we may not agree with you on the specifics of Arizona’s SB 1070 and California “sanctuary cities,” we can surely agree that both policies were the result of failures at the federal level.

After reflecting on the fact that you had 10 years and either a Republican President or Republican Congress with which to fix this growing problem, we decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and research the matter further.

What we found is that in your ten years in Congress, you did not produce comprehensive immigration reform. By failing to lead on this vitally important economic and national security issue, you were part of the problem.

The letter goes on to demand Campbell own up to his failures and apologize for creating this ugly situation:

It seems to us you’re trying to use your own failures as an excuse to lend your name and credentials to an indefensible law, while pandering to extremist elements with hopes that it will help you win an election. But facts, and your own record of outright failure to lead on the issue of immigration, speak much louder than election year pandering.

So now we are calling on you, formally, to apologize to the people of California and America for abdicating your responsibility to fix our immigration system when you had the chance.

The letter also takes issue with Campbell’s other justifications for the Arizona law:

As for SB 1070, you also suggested in your email that “Californians ought to watch the experience of our neighbor state before rushing to condemn it.” It seems to us that Californians unfortunately have a lot of experience with using immigration status as a basis for racial discrimination. We know the division and pain it causes, and therefore have a strong basis to condemn Arizona. That’s why a growing number of Californians, including faith leaders, are calling for Arizona to repeal its law.

You also view the application of legal authority by law enforcement officers from a perspective of privilege. African Americans across the nation, and now Latinos in Arizona, have been victims of documented racial profiling for decades. “Reasonable suspicion” allows for police officers to subjectively determine whether to pull-over or stop a “suspect”. This law is similar to the law enforcement policy that allows police to shoot if they “feel in danger”. This is nothing more than “shoot first, ask questions later”. Already Californians are being targeted by Arizona authorities — just two weeks ago a U.S. citizen from Fresno with dark skin was pulled over and arrested by Arizona police for not having his birth certificate on him.

In other words, racial profiling is already a serious problem. Arizona already settled a lawsuit with the ACLU over rampant racial profiling, and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a noted defender of racial profiling. This is the behavior Campbell is enabling.

We haven’t heard back from Tom Campbell on this most recent letter. But no matter what his response, now isn’t the time to let up. Sign your name to the Courage Campaign/CFT letter and show Tom Campbell that California won’t stand for his defense of the indefensible.

I’m on the call with Steve Poizner’s campaign, and they are reporting on their polling numbers that show a significant collapse in Meg Whitman’s early lead.

According to the campaign, their internal polling showed Whitman led Poizner 59-11 in mid-February (called it their “Valentine’s Day massacre”). However, since then, Poizner has closed gap to a 38-28 Whitman lead statewide, and outside the Bay Area, he’s closed the gap to a 35-30 Whitman lead outside the Bay Area.

That’s a pretty big collapse in Meg Whitman’s numbers. Poizner was down nearly 50 points in February and is down 5 (outside CA). No wonder Mike Murphy was trying to slam Poizner on the Whitman campaign’s own call – they’re seeing 1/3 of the Republican primary electorate undecided with 5 weeks to go after a massive, unprecedented carpet bombing of the state’s TV airwaves.

And a word on that electorate – Murphy said that the average likely Republican primary voter is over age 50. In case you thought the CA GOP was at all representative of California.

As to Poizner, what he’s shown is that Whitman’s support was very, very soft. That should not only give him hope that he might be able to win, but give Jerry Brown hope that he can build off his stronger base of support to run a strong campaign taking advantage of Whitman’s weaknesses – arrogance, ties to Goldman Sachs, desire to destroy schools and other vital public services – to erode Whitman’s very soft support.

The GOP primary just got a whole lot more interesting – and so too did the gubernatorial race as a whole.

That’s the rumor flying around, as Carla Marinucci reports:

State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner’s camp is having a telephone press conference this afternoon to talk new poll numbers amid lots of buzz from insiders that — after being 40 points behind former eBay CEO Meg Whitman  — he has now dramatically narrowed the gap, some even suggest to single digits.

So far, no public polls on that and some Dem insiders are pushing the idea happily. Still, if Poizner has seriously cut into her lead, here’s the follow-up question: how much more money is he willing to sink into this race with 34 days left? Some GOPers suggest $15 million is the figure needed to get him through.

Insiders and analysts on both sides of the aisle say if Poiz really has narrowed the gap dramatically, factors at work here are Goldman Sachs — and Poizner’s latest attack ad, “Vulture,” which we hear is taking down Meg’s numbers.

As Brian Leubitz predicted, the Vulture ad appears to be having the intended effect, primarily because it is damningly accurate about Meg Whitman’s connections to Goldman Sachs. She represents the investment banking class that has destroyed our economy and left millions of Californians in unemployment and in foreclosure.

Californians don’t want that kind of leadership. Belatedly, but apparently effectively, Steve Poizner has realized that fact and appears to have been successful in eroding Whitman’s formidable lead in the polls.

Will it be enough to overcome Whitman, who is hitting back with everything she’s got in a TV ad war that is increasingly dominating the airwaves? Will Republican primary voters be swayed?

We’ll find out when the next independent, public polls come out. In any case, pass the popcorn. This is gonna be fun.

One of the oldest and most persistent right-wing myths is that higher taxes lead to job losses and flight of wealthy taxpayers to other states. But as the California Budget Project explains, it’s a myth without truth:

In the early 1990s, when 10 percent and 11 percent personal income tax rates were in place for married taxpayers with taxable incomes of $200,000 or more who filed joint tax returns and single taxpayers with taxable incomes of $100,000 or more, the number of taxpayers subject to those rates increased substantially, even while the total number of taxpayers declined. The number of California’s married taxpayers with incomes of at least $200,000 rose by 33.4 percent between 1991 and 1995, and the number of single personal income tax filers with incomes of at least $100,000 increased by 40.2 percent….

Similarly, the rise in the number of California’s millionaire taxpayers has outpaced the total increase in personal income taxpayers since the passage of Proposition 63 in 2004, which imposed a 1 percentage point income tax rate on personal incomes over $1 million to fund mental health programs. In addition, data from the Internal Revenue Service show that for more than a decade – at least – taxpayers who remain in California from year to year have considerably higher average incomes than taxpayers who leave California for other states, and this income gap has widened for most of this decade.

What’s behind this? The truth is that over the last 30 years, the rich have gotten richer. And the rich like to stay in California, for obvious reasons. If you have the financial means, California is one of the best places in the entire world to live. There’s a reason many of us who aren’t financially secure stay here, even though we might be much better off in another state.

Just over the hill from me is Pebble Beach and Carmel, which haven’t seen a flight of the wealthy to other states because of taxes. Neither has Beverly Hills, or Woodside, or Atherton, or Rancho Santa Fe, or Coto de Caza, or whatever other wealthy enclave you can think of in California. Nor have the folks with less wealth but who are still subject to the 10% rate.

Further, as the CBP showed, during the 1990s the higher rate didn’t stop California from turning around from what was a very bad recession. The 11% rate of the Pete Wilson era fueled economic growth by providing enough public services and education to enable California to dominate the 1990s economic boom, an investment that echoed into the 2000s.

One of the most important principles of taxation is you go where the money is. In today’s California, the money is at the upper end of the scale. A higher tax rate will help California create jobs and economic recovery, without causing an exodus of the rich. What have we got to lose?

Is the Tranquillon Ridge offshore drilling proposal dead? That’s the word coming out of Sacramento today as Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger told reporters that he will no longer support the project. From KQED’s John Myers, who has really established himself as one of the state’s leading reporters, going from moderating the Whitman/Poizner debate last night to being the first to report on this scoop via Twitter:

Big news. Schwarzenegger officially removes support for Tranquillon Ridge oil drilling project..based, he says, on Gulf oil spill.

Schwarzenegger says of Gulf spill: “That will not happen in CA.” His rejection of T-Ridge probably kills the project.

Schwarzenegger’s rejection of the T-Ridge oil project also means an extra hole – $200 mil – in the #cabudget that he’ll need 2 fill.

“Why would we want to take that risk?” Schwarzenegger says in response 2 reporter’s question about abandoning T-Ridge oil project.

Similarly, Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado told his Assembly confirmation hearing he wasn’t likely to support Tranquillon Ridge. A spill there would have devastated much of his former State Senate district’s coastline. Maldonado now has a seat on the State Lands Commission, and now that he’s joined by his BFF Arnold in opposing T-Ridge, it’s very unlikely the proposal will go anywhere anytime soon.

But is John Meyers right – is T-Ridge dead? Meg Whitman has supported offshore drilling recently, but with the Louisiana spill she might be joining Arnold in reconsidering that support.

It remains to be seen whether PXP, the Texas oil company backing Tranquillon Ridge, will abandon their plans. It also remains to be seen whether EDC, the Santa Barbara environmental group that has controversially agreed to back the Tranquillon Ridge project, is reconsidering their stance in light of the Gulf disaster that has already brought back memories of the 1969 spill in Santa Barbara.

It’s obvious now that the offshore drilling bubble of public support has burst, and not a moment too soon. Offshore drilling was always an unusually bad idea, a destructive way to avoid the need to develop alternative, renewable, clean energy to power economic recovery and prosperity in the 21st century. Let’s hope Arnold’s abandonment of support for T-Ridge means the proposal finally dies.

UPDATE: The Sacramento Bee has some good quotes from Arnold:

“I think that first of all, it’s clear that we have to make up that $100 million a year that we (would) make from that,” he said. “But if I have a choice between the $100 million and what I see in the Gulf of Mexico, I’d rather just figure out how to make up for that $100 million.”…

“I think that we all go through the endless amount of studies and research and everything, and before you make a decision like that, you are convinced that this will be safe,” the governor added. “But then again, you know, you see that, you turn on television and see this enormous disaster and you say to yourself, why would we want to take that risk?”

It’s one of those rare, rare moments, but Arnold is absolutely right. Why on earth would California want to take this risk? Offshore oil drilling is a dangerous and now obsolete practice that belongs in the past. We need to hold a firm line against it and ensure that existing rigs come down as soon as possible.

The Louisiana oil spill has become an environmental catastrophe, and a national scandal. It is now project to be the worst oil spill in US history, eclipsing even the notorious Exxon Valdez spill of 1989 and the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969. The environmental and economic consequences are devastating to the entire Gulf Coast, still recovering nearly 5 years after Hurricane Katrina slammed into the area.

It is also bringing a halt to calls for increased offshore oil drilling. President Obama has announced a halt to offshore drilling plans until a thorough review can be conducted.

Here in California, advocates of the deal with PXP in support of the Tranquillon Ridge project find themselves on the wrong side of current events. Day after day brings news that suggests support any new offshore drilling plan here in California isn’t a good idea. Susan Jordan, running to replace her husband Pedro Nava in the Assembly from the 35th District, put out a press release today with some damning information about PXP and BP’s lobbying against federal regulations:

At the same time Texas-based oil company Plains Exploration & Production (PXP) was trying to woo Santa Barbara environmentalists into supporting its plans to drill the first new offshore oil lease in California state waters in more than 40 years, the company was trying to convince the federal government not to implement stronger protections for drilling rigs that might have prevented the devastating oil spill that occurred 40 miles off the coast of Louisiana.

Jordan’s campaign released the letters in question from PXP and BP.

For their part, supporters of the PXP/Tranquillon Ridge deal argued the Louisiana spill bolstered their view that the deal would actually help protect the California coastline:

Santa Barbara opponents of offshore oil, who have rallied behind a proposal that would allow new wells now in exchange for a commitment to end drilling in 14 years, said the Louisiana spill underscores the importance of establishing a definite end date for drilling off their coast.

“The spill has reinforced the importance of our plan that will shut down four platforms,” said Linda Krop, chief counsel for the Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Center. “If they’re allowed to continue indefinitely, the risk of spills would continue indefinitely.”

I’ve always understood that logic, and it’s important to note that groups like EDC shouldn’t be lumped into the same “drill baby drill” crowd as people like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. But at the same time, their support for the Tranquillon Ridge plan will be used by proponents of a wider opening of the California coast to drilling.

If others come to state and local governments with promises of money to help stressed budgets and a pledge to shut down operations after a specific period of time, they will be able to say “even Santa Barbara environmentalists supported this kind of drilling.” And while EDC and others might not support future projects, they’ll have set a precedent that will quickly spread beyond their control.

Given the similarities between the 1969 Santa Barbara spill and the 2010 Louisiana spill, it seems to me that the Tranquillon Ridge project is too much of a risk to California’s environment and economy to support. The right move is to hold a firm line against ANY new drilling off of California’s coast. The Louisiana spill is a reminder that the 41-year moratorium must remain in place, and drilling not be expanded in any form.

Note: Crossposted from the California High Speed Rail Blog

The California State Auditor is out with a report criticizing the California High Speed Rail Authority and their planning of the project. Some of criticisms are sensible, and stem from the fact that the Authority is still staffing up to meet the challenge of planning and implementing the project, and the Auditor lays out some specific areas where the Authority needs to step up its oversight.

Unfortunately, the title of the report – “High-Speed Rail Authority: It Risks Delays or an Incomplete System Because of Inadequate Planning, Weak Oversight, and Lax Contract Management” – is “inflammatory” and “overly aggressive” (in the words of CHSRA Chairman Curt Pringle) doesn’t accurately reflect the findings in the report. I fully agree with the Authority’s criticism here, and the State Auditor should have chosen more neutral language to use.

What’s not helpful – and what’s in fact a bit bizarre – is the Auditor’s decision to hold the Authority responsible for the failure of Congress to provide a long-term federal funding source. The Auditor’s report indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of the federal funding situation:

The Authority’s assumptions regarding federal funding are optimistic. According to the business plan, the estimate of federal participation in the program is based on the federal government’s historically high participation in large transportation infrastructure programs such as highway, transit, and aviation projects. However, the Highway Trust Fund is a dedicated source for highway and transit programs and has its own revenue source-the federal tax on motor fuels. The U.S. Government Accountability Office, in a 2009 report on the future development of high-speed rail, noted that no such dedicated federal revenue source exists for projects for this mode of transportation, so high-speed rail projects must compete with other non-transportation demands on federal funds.

However, last summer, a House subcommittee voted to appropriate $50 billion for HSR in the transportation bill reauthorization. Earlier this month over 100 members of the House of Representatives wrote to President Obama asking for his leadership to get that $50 billion, which would be more than enough for California. Additionally, $2.5 billion for HSR was approved in the FY 2010 budget and another $4 billion is proposed by advocates for the FY 2011 budget. Federal funding for HSR is on its way, and though it isn’t nailed down yet, it’s not as pie-in-the-sky as the State Auditor makes it sound.

They also misunderstand California’s competitiveness for federal funding:

Further, the Federal Railroad Administration (Railroad Administration) received more than $57 billion in applications for the $8 billion of available Recovery Act grants. This suggests that competition for any additional federal dollars will be strong and that California can expect to receive only a fraction of the total. However, the Authority’s plan for financing the program depends heavily on federal funding, as Figure 7 illustrates.

The Auditor is simply wrong here. California received more money than any other state in the distribution of the $8 billion in stimulus funds. Federal officials, including Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, have repeatedly praised the California HSR project and indicated we will continue to receive the lion’s share of federal funds. As one of only two true bullet train projects in the country – and with the other one, Florida, facing growing questions about its route choices and short intro line. We’re much further along than most other states, and can turn around federal money relatively quickly after we receive it. If $50 billion over 6 years is indeed approved, I do not foresee any problem whatsoever with California getting $17-$19 billion of that, and nor should anyone who has been watching the federal government’s HSR actions the last two years. California’s powerful Congressional delegation, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, also count in our favor.

The Auditor also suggested that the desired private funding is similarly nonexistent. Here again they are totally wrong. The Auditor doesn’t seem to have known that China is actively seeking to bring the private funding the Authority seeks, as are several other countries.

California’s voters approved $10 billion in HSR funding in 2008 with Prop 1A – before a dime in federal funding had even been proposed. It is the Authority’s job to plan that system that the voters mandated, with the assumption – backed by the evidence – that federal and private funding would materialize as planned. The Auditor doesn’t seem to understand that either, and in their zeal to attack the HSR project, has created a sense of crisis where none exists.

But let’s say the Auditor is right, and we don’t get federal funding. What then?

Without federal funding the HSR project doesn’t happen. There is no Plan B. But we all know that. That’s why advocacy organizations like Californians For High Speed Rail are working so hard to secure that funding.

However, the $2.25 billion in funding already delivered doesn’t go to waste. “Independent utility” requirements mean funds have to be used for projects that can be used even if the whole HSR system isn’t built.

For some HSR critics and skeptics, the uncertainty around federal funding is a reason to either not build the project, or to not build it in their backyard. The proper response, however, is not to be a passive actor, but to instead actively work to secure federal funding for HSR. You can go to the FourBillion.com site and told their Congressional representatives they want $4 billion in the FY 2011 budget, as a first step toward advocacy for the $50 billion in the transportation bill reauthorization.

For now, it’s out of the Authority’s hands. Federal funding is up to us, not up to the CHSRA. It would be nice if the Auditor had understood that rather important point. Instead they delivered an uninformed cheap shot on the HSR project. The Auditor needs to get its act together, refrain from the misleading and inflammatory headlines, and deliver a better understanding of the state’s HSR project.

By now you all know that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has decided to schedule the SD-15 special election for June 22 and August 17. This comes despite pleas from county election officials to consolidate the runoff portion of the election with the November general election.

With those pleas ignored, the five counties that comprise SD-15 – Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara – must now struggle to find the $6.5 million it is estimated to cost to hold these two elections. The five counties will now be responsible for holding four different elections in 2010 – the two SD-15 votes, and the June and November statewide elections.

County election officials called the move thoughtless and said they’re not sure where to find the money or time to do it:

Linda Tulett, Monterey County registrar of voters, said not consolidating the vote for the state Senate’s 15th District with November’s general election will strain the county Elections Office, which already has two elections to run this year. Adding the special election and a possible primary forces the office to reach for resources it does not have, she said.

“I’m not in Sacramento, so I don’t know what is going on there,” Tulett said. “But I am here locally, and I do know what is going on here locally. And I know as an administrator in this office, that the money is not there and the time is not there.”…

Tulett said the August election will cost the county nearly $500,000 more than if the election was consolidated with the November ballot. But that is not the only drawback of a special election, she said.

The elections office will not have enough time to transition from the statewide June primary to a special election primary, nor will it have enough time to send out ballots to military and other overseas voters, Tulett said.

The governor’s decision came on the same day that the Monterey County Board of Supervisors debated laying off 43 county employees because of a multimillion dollar budget gap. Arnold’s scheduling decision will mean more nurses, teachers, and law enforcement officers will lose their jobs, all because Arnold wants to play political games with the election date.

It’s also a departure from standard practice. Over the last ten years at least, almost every special election that could be consolidated with a scheduled election had been. And just last November, when Republican John Benoit resigned to run for the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, what did Arnold do?

The governor still could have set a special general election to fill the seat as early as Tuesday, March 23. A special primary election would have been eight weeks earlier, Tuesday, Jan. 26.

But the governor consolidated the special general election with the June 8, 2010 statewide primary.That made the special primary election April 13. Assemblyman Bill Emmerson, the top vote-getter in the primary, is expected to win the three-way runoff June 8.

If there was any more evidence needed that Arnold chose the SD-15 dates out of political spite, there you have it. The public should remember how Arnold is willing to force counties to spend millions of dollars they don’t have to cater to his political whims later this year when he asks them to fire more teachers and cut back more on health services in the name of budget savings.

Duncan Hunter, the Republican who represents CA-52 (suburban San Diego), has decided that Arizona’s new law is a perfect occasion to call for thousands of children – U.S. citizens – to be sent into exile:

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Alpine) says the federal government should deport U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants.

“Would you support deportation of natural-born American citizens that are the children of illegal aliens,” Hunter was asked. “I would have to, yes,” Hunter said. “… We simply cannot afford what we’re doing right now,” he said. “… It takes more than just walking across the border to become an American citizen. It’s what’s in our souls. …”

Let us be extremely clear: this is massively unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment leaves no doubt about this:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

That means Duncan Hunter is calling for US citizens – children – to be sent into exile from the country of their birth.

And why? Because of their ancestry. Simply because someone’s ancestry is perceived by Hunter to be insufficiently American, which is his way of saying “Mexican,” he thinks a US citizen should be kicked out of their country.

It’s racist, but it’s more than that. It is an attack on the very basis of the United States of America, a nation where everyone is equal regardless of ancestry, where citizenship confers inviolable rights on people, and where what the Constitution says matters.

For a right-wing movement that claims to be so interested in what the Constitution actually says – see the “Tenthers” – they show a disturbing willingness to ignore the Constitution when it is politically convenient, when the Constitution gets in the way of their racism.