Harold Meyerson has an excellent op-ed in today’s LA Times. The ostensible topic is moving California to a unicameral legislature, and Meyerson gives some excellent reasons why this is 45 years overdue:

In this spirit of reinvention, then, permit me a few modest queries: Why in the world do we have a two-house Legislature?

What does the state Senate do that the Assembly doesn’t, and vice versa? In the name of fostering transparency, ending gridlock, curtailing backroom deals and creating a more responsive government, why doesn’t California just abolish the Senate and create a larger Assembly?

Meyerson explains that before the landmark Reynolds v. Sims decision in 1964 that mandated all legislative districts have equal population, the California State Senate was apportioned by county. Each Senate district had a minimum of one whole county and a maximum of three. Meyerson cites the case of Senator Richard Richards, who represented 6 million people in LA County, whereas Alpine, Mono and Inyo Counties, with a population of 144,000, also had one Senator.

After Reynolds v. Sims the rationale for a second legislative chamber was gone. But the existence of a Senate did not itself cause legislative problems until the Zombie Death Cult expressed its obstructionist agenda in full flower – i.e. the last 5 or 6 years.

Another possible option Meyerson floats is to parliamentize state government:

One move that could foster such a shift would be to change the post of governor from a directly elected one to a prime-ministerial one. A Californian would become governor when his or her party (or coalition of parties) attained a majority in the unicameral Legislature. State government would actually have a common purpose and the capacity to further its goals.

Such a move would run counter to the American tradition of the separation of powers, but as our public works and services fall behind those of European and other nations with parliamentary systems, it’s time to question how well such a separation really serves our country and our state in the competitive global economy of the 21st century.

I’ve always been intrigued by the system, and consider this well worth exploring. Parliamentary government serves the Canadian provinces and Australian states quite well, not to mention the European nations Meyerson alludes to. It would certainly help make the state government much more accountable, as voters would have no doubt who they need to blame and remove from power when government fails to address public wants and needs.

Certainly abolition of the State Senate alone would not solve our governance crisis. But as Meyerson argues in what I believe to be the true point of his op-ed, it would help us decongest government and enable it to address problems, instead of tolerating a government whose checks and balances have been exploited by the right-wing to destroy government and prevent collective action to solve common problems:

In both Sacramento and Washington, our governments have become all checks-and-balances with no discernible forward motion. The two-thirds-vote requirement in the state Legislature and the filibuster in the U.S. Senate create a form of minority rule that both thwarts attempts to keep government responsive to changing social needs and negates the consequences of elections.

California needs a government capable of expanding, not decimating, the world’s greatest public university; of ensuring the health of its children, not throwing them off the rolls….

It would be a bold move. And I remember a California that used to do bold things.

The United States, and California in particular, are entering the first stages of major, even fundamental change. California has an emerging progressive majority and looks likely to increase that majority as demographic change continues. The effects of the severe recession have shown people the need for strong public services to address social and individual needs. Yet conservatives have managed to maintain power and shut out the majority of voters and even the majority of legislators from being able to implement policy.

Government in California as such no longer really exists. What we have instead is a political system built around the desire to prevent any progressive change from happening at all, where the right-wing sees government inaction as a de facto victory for their side.

As I argued at the Netroots Nation panel we hosted last weekend in Pittsburgh, at the root of our crisis in California is a crisis of democracy. Until democracy is restored to our state, it is going to be impossible to address any of our worsening problems.

Some of President Barack Obama’s Cabinet picks have been truly inspired. Hillary Clinton has proved herself an excellent Secretary of State. Hilda Solis is a progressive hero at the Department of Labor. Even one of the token Republicans, Ray LaHood, has been a pleasant surprise as Secretary of Transportation, promoting mass transit more strongly than I ever imagined.

And then there is Arne Duncan.

Obama’s Education Secretary is a no friend to California schools, seeing his role as one of forcing right-wing solutions down the throat of our public schools. Duncan wants to use over $4 billion in “Race to the Top” federal education stimulus funds to force states to adopt a long-held wishlist of school reforms promoted by the center-right.

California has resisted this, as have states like Washington. So Duncan’s plan is to shock doctrine California schools, by using the crippling financial crisis many schools face to force the state to adopt new policies that voters and legislators have rejected in the past.

It should be no surprise that Duncan found a fellow traveler in the shock doctrine in Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is calling a special session to push the Legislature to adopt the “reforms”:

The package of bills heading to the Legislature would also increase the ability for parents to transfer their children to other public schools and “reward teachers who are consistently doing the toughest jobs.”

The bills also include merit pay for effective teaching – a practice historically denounced by teacher unions.

The Obama administration “won’t allow any state to compete in the Race to the Top if we have laws that restrict linking performance with teachers,” Schwarzenegger said in a morning press conference. “We are ready to lead in the race to the top. This is what California is known for.”

It comes as no surprise to any of us that Arnold wants to shock doctrine public schools. But it is a real shame that the Obama Administration wants to do so as well. There might be a case to be made for merit pay, charter schools and teaching to the test (though I would probably never be convinced of it).

But there is no case to be made for insisting upon these radical measures at a time when education is struggling to provide the basics – teachers in the classroom, textbooks on the desks, custodians to clean the facilities, buses to carry the kids to and from school. Arne Duncan and Arnold Schwarzenegger are merely adding insult to injury, a partnership that will do little good for our schools and is likely to instead leave a legacy of decay.

Earlier this week I explored the Dean Baker ‘right to rent’ concept as a method of dealing with the foreclosure crisis. Rent as a solution to the housing and economic crisis is clearly gaining momentum – the Obama Administration announced it would spend over $4 billion to provide affordable rental housing:

The idea is to pay for the construction of low-rise rental apartment buildings and town houses, as well as the purchase of foreclosed homes that can be refurbished and rented to low- and moderate-income families at affordable rates.

Analysts say the approach takes a wrecking ball to Bush’s heavy emphasis on encouraging homeownership as a way to create national wealth and provide upward mobility for low- and working-class families, especially minorities. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan’s recalibration of federal housing policy, they said, shows that the Obama White House has acknowledged that not everyone can or should own a home.

Bush’s “ownership society” nonsense played no small role in the generation of the housing bubble and the economic catastrophe it has now left us. It gave the ideological basis for massive sprawl and for lax lending practices designed to push homebuyers into ridiculous and exotic mortgages that people could not afford. Obama’s new plan is not just a shift away from this nonsense, but a welcome method of addressing it, especially if a big chunk of that $4 billion goes to purchase foreclosed homes and renting them out at affordable rates.

What it may also signal is the beginning of a long-term shift in American housing policy away from an emphasis on homeownership. Thomas Sugrue, one of the best historians of the 20th century United States working in the field today (and whose work has been a strong influence on my own  work as a historian), penned an excellent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this week about the place of rent in the “new American dream”. Sugrue’s point was that mass homeownership was a product of the New Deal, and that it isn’t necessarily the only or the best way to provide economic and housing security to Americans:

For most Americans, until the recent past, home ownership was a dream and the pile of rent receipts was the reality….

If there’s one lesson from the real-estate bust of the last few years, it might be time to downsize the dream, to make it a little more realistic. James Truslow Adams, the historian who coined the phrase “the American dream,” one that he defined as “a better, richer, and happier life for all our citizens of every rank” also offered a prescient commentary in the midst of the Great Depression. “That dream,” he wrote in 1933, “has always meant more than the accumulation of material goods.” Home should be a place to build a household and a life, a respite from the heartless world, not a pot of gold.

Most people seek security in life. They want to ensure that if they have a roof over their head, that they can keep it. That if they have an income, they can keep it. If they have savings in the bank, they can keep it.

Homeownership should be one of many options to produce that. And during the middle decades of the 20th century, it was. Homeownership became widespread but using a home as an asset, as a source of wealth, or as an ATM was a product of the post-1978 world. That’s no small coincidence, as 2 of the 3 great asset bubbles of the last 30 years have been housing bubbles. The result was a massive transfer of wealth upward, a Potemkin economy, and widespread immiseration.

Sugrue’s argument is that we need to drop the emphasis on homeownership as government policy and start finding ways to promote stable rentership. This has a lot of implications for California that I explore over the flip. The upshot: an emphasis on rent can help revive the California dream of enjoying this beautiful, wonderful state with basic economic security.

The single-minded emphasis on homeownership has badly distorted California’s economy, land use, and politics. Bringing housing policy back into balance and providing policy support for rent can fix these distortions.

Housing markets in California have become dominated by a “drive till you qualify” mentality. Because the California dream of the 20th century was defined by owning a detached single-family home in a residential neighborhood, land use policy followed that path. Multiple-family housing, such as apartment buildings, are expressly forbidden by zoning in many California suburbs, especially in those areas that could benefit from it (close to transportation nodes, in walking distance from shops and other amenities). The tyranny of SFH zoning means that available land is quickly eaten up, and more and more land on the urban fringe must be converted into sprawl.

The economic consequences of this are utterly ruinous. Commute costs are an enormous portion of suburban household budgets, with money going to oil companies instead of local transit agencies. When the price of oil rises, households see how dangerously exposed they have become. When gas prices parked themselves above $3/gal for the first time in 2006, it caused the housing bubble to burst. The specter of long-term higher oil prices makes much of California sprawl utterly untenable.

The failure of sprawl to meet the demands of homeownership-as-policy suggests a need to provide more housing opportunity in the existing coastal urban cores. Affordable, dense rentals in the city centers would help revive the California dream by cutting the costs of living and commuting for a lot of people, particularly the middle-class and those in the service industries. Shorter commutes and cheaper housing – especially unencumbered by a mortgage – would leave more money in the pockets and savings accounts of Californians at a time when this is desperately needed.

But as I’ve examined before, homeowners in these coastal centers tend to be vehemently opposed to adding more density. They are deeply wedded to an obsolete model of 20th century urban aesthetics, and cite concerns about their home values to justify their NIMBY attitudes. Sugrue’s point is essentially that government should ignore these concerns, that stabilizing home values is not government’s job and that housing should be a place to live and not an investment asset.

Of course, California has gone further than most other states in enabling this homeowner aristocracy. Prop 13 gave them an enormous subsidy to stay where they are, keep housing in the desirable coastal areas off the market, price out younger and first-time buyers, fuel sprawl, and jack up housing costs. The elimination of rent control through the Costa-Hawkins Act in 1999 did not make things easier for long-term renters in these coastal areas, driving many to find housing further inland, with higher commute costs.

Homeowner NIMBYism is also a big obstacle to the infrastructural developments we need to address the problems of the 21st century. As I’ve charted on my high speed rail blog NIMBYs in San Mateo County are trying to block construction of the HSR project along the Caltrain corridor. We see similar obstructionism across the state, motivated by a jealous hoarding of property values.

If we are to revive rent as a cornerstone of the California Dream (it’s enabling me to live that dream here in Monterey, by the way) we will need to embrace policies that make renting fair and desirable. Rent control must be restored, and tenants’ rights need to be expanded and rigorously enforced.

We also need to explore new forms of rental ownership. Cooperative housing, tenancies-in-common, and public ownership of rental housing with strong tenant self-government are all possible methods of promoting renting. The suburban zoning rules mandating single-family homes and banning multi-family housing have to go as well.

Bills like Darrell Steinberg’s SB 375 help force this to happen by limiting sprawl and forcing land use policy to consider the impact on the environment.

These steps, combined with federal initiatives like that announced by HUD this week, can be the starting points of a true effort to rebuild the California dream.

California has been one of the hardest-hit states by the foreclosure crisis. There are many reasons for this – we were ground zero for the “creative” lending practices of the Bush years, as exotic and frankly stupid loans were offered to folks in order to blow an enormous asset bubble centered in the inland exurbs. When gas prices parked themselves above $3/gal in 2006 the bubble finally burst, leaving hundreds of thousands of households unable to pay their mortgages and leading to massive unemployment in the inland counties.

As bad as this has already been, the foreclosure crisis in California is likely to grow much worse in the coming months. Over at Daily Kos gjohnsit digs up some charts from the Boston Federal Reserve on the Option ARM, a popular loan in the mid-’00s that is now at the center of the rising number of foreclosures–>

gjohnsit discussed predictions that nearly 90% of Option ARM could wind up underwater before long. This would primarily impact us here in California, where the Option ARM was most commonly used:

Already we are seeing increased foreclosures in Orange County:

At the end of last month there were 8,108 outstanding foreclosure auction notices in Orange County, nearly double the total a year ago, and up 9% from June, reports ForeclosureRadar.com….

It’s incredible that outstanding auction notices are essentially double a year ago. In fact, ForeclosurerRadar says actual foreclosures by month peaked in July 2008 with 1,444 houses and condos seized. So even though actual foreclosure totals by month have dropped, the inventory of potential foreclosures has continued to rise.

Foreclosures cause massive economic dislocation, and most folks realize government policy ought to be oriented toward their prevention. But so far those policies have failed. Banks have been given massive injections of public capital and are sitting on it. Cramdown legislation failed in Congress and Obama’s measures have benefited fewer than 10% of homeowners facing a foreclosure. California’s foreclosure moratorium merely postponed the inevitable.

So perhaps it is time for more dramatic solutions. Dean Baker has been talking about one of these for several months now, and in last week’s Los Angeles Times, revived his concept of the the “right to rent”:

It’s time to try a new route for helping homeowners. There is a simple alternative: Congress can pass legislation that gives homeowners facing foreclosure the right to stay in their home as renters. This “right to rent” policy would require no taxpayer money, no new bureaucracy and could immediately benefit homeowners facing foreclosure.

The basic idea is simple. In recognition of the extraordinary crisis, Congress would give families that took out mortgages at the peak of the boom and are facing foreclosure the option to remain in their homes as renters for a substantial period of time — five to 10 years — while paying the market-rate rent. Earlier this year, Freddie Mac launched a similar policy, giving former homeowners the option to lease their recently foreclosed properties, but on a month-to-month basis. That was a positive step, but it does not give families the housing security they need….

Although they would lose ownership of their homes under “right to rent,” the residents would be able to stay in their homes, neighborhoods and schools. This would provide families facing foreclosure with needed stability and housing security.

The concept is something of a cross between a triage and an intervention in the housing market. Baker believes that the “right to rent” would enable some to become long-time renters, which is an increasingly popular position among Californians as a strategy to wait out the crash while keeping a roof over their head. Given the costs to household bank accounts, to cities and neighborhoods, and even to the banks of people leaving their homes to foreclosure, there are sound policy reasons to want to keep people in their homes.

Dean Baker also argues the “right to rent” would help keep more people in their homes as outright owners, as banks would have new incentive to modify underwater loans since the renters have a right to stay in their homes.

There are likely some downsides to this and those ought to be explored. The most interesting effect would be a major – and as far as I am concerned, a welcome and overdue – shift away from a sole emphasis on homeownership to provide housing and economic security for Californians.

It is long past time for us to see renting as a desirable method to provide stability and savings for Californians. We have eviscerated rent control and allowed urban areas to make renting an insecure proposition. Given the sky-high costs of houses in places like San Francisco or Monterey (homes on my street still sell in the $700,000 range, although my rent is $1100) renting is the only way for many folks to live near their workplaces.

A “right to rent” could be a component of a broader policy shift away from pushing people to “drive until you qualify” and buy a home in Modesto or Moreno Valley and commute to their jobs in the coastal centers. That has been a utterly ruinous policy from an economic and environmental stance. It’s time we explored rent as a solution to the housing crisis.

Markos shared this poll with the California Caucus here at Netroots Nation before it went live, but now that it’s up on Daily Kos we can bring it to you:

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 8/9-12. Likely voters. MoE 4% (5% for primary samples)

GOVERNOR

Democratic Primary

Newsom 20

Brown 29

Undcided 51

There’s a bit of a gender gap, with Jerry Brown leading Gavin Newsom among women 32-16. Brown’s advantage is his favorabilities — he’s viewed favorably by 48 percent of respondents, versus 37 percent unfavorable. Newsom clocks in with a net-negative rating of 40-42. Among Democrats, Brown has a 71-17 favorability rating to Newsom’s 63-21.

At our caucus we took a straw poll on this race. Exactly 0% of us said we were supporting Brown. 0% said we were supporting Newsom. 100% enthusiastically said “none of the above.” That’s not because we’re waiting it out or being neutral. It was a rejection of what we have seen from both Brown and Newsom, and judging by the poll, at least half of likely California Democratic voters feel the same way.

GOP Primary

Whitman 24

Campbell 19

Poizner 9

Undecided 48

Whitman 27

Campbell 21

Undecided 52

I am really surprised that Campbell is polling so well. I wish Markos would have polled Whitman v. Poizner, which most of us expect to be the true GOP primary matchup, but we will see.

General election

Brown (D) 42

Whitman (R) 36

Brown (D) 43

Campbell (R) 35

Brown (D) 43

Poizner (R) 34

Newsom (D) 36

Whitman (R) 37

Newsom (D) 36

Campbell (R) 35

Newsom (D) 36

Poizner (R) 35

Ouch. Markos’s assessment was that 35% is Newsom’s base, the progressive/Democratic base, and he has serious trouble breaking out beyond that. Newsom has been worrying about his finances, but money alone isn’t going to fix this problem. Getting rid of Eric Jaye will probably not have helped him.

On to the US Senate race, where Markos and R2K find better results for Barbara Boxer than some recent polls, like Rasmussen, have found:

SENATE

Republican Primary

Fiorina 29

DeVore 17

Undecided 54

General Election

Boxer (D) 52

Fiorina (R) 31

Boxer (D) 53

DeVore (R) 29

Check out the MASSIVE gender gap: Women break for Boxer 60-22 against Fiorina, and 63-19 against DeVore. Kind of hard to overtake that kind of gap. Boxer will be in the Senate for the foreseeable future.

What’s interesting here is how DeVore and Fiorina have about the same level of support here, showing that Fiorina isn’t yet breaking out beyond the GOP base. Of course, she hasn’t yet launched her campaign and will not be hurting for money to raise her profile.

I have always felt that the 2010 Senate race will resemble the 1994 Senate race between Dianne Feinstein and Michael Huffington, where DiFi won a close victory over a wealthy GOP opponent in a Republican-friendly year (both Charlie Cook and Nate Silver predicted Dems would lose at least 20 seats in the House in 2010, with Silver suggesting it could be even higher).

Still, there are some key differences. Boxer is a 3-term Senator; DiFi had only 2 years under her belt. Boxer has a broad range of support from the progressive community that will be motivated to fight for her; DiFi had no such base to rely on in 1994.

R2K polling is largely untested for state races here in California, so take this with however many grains of salt you feel is necessary. I would love to see a new Field Poll on these races to provide a comparison.

…Carla Marinucci has a slightly different take on this poll, arguing that Newsom is “narrowing the gap” on Brown.

Crossposted at Daily Kos

Last night the health care fight came to Monterey. Congressman Sam Farr, the progressive Democrat that represents us in the House (CA-17), held his annual town hall at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. Although the wingnuts succeeded in filling up about half the seats, we had no disruptions or violence. You won’t find any stories of hate or violence here – but you will see how myself and several other progressives succeeded in getting our stories told, not only to the audience but to the local media, alongside other lessons.

You’ll also see me on the TV!

After the recap of the town hall I’ll offer my own thoughts on the event and what these town halls can and cannot accomplish for our movement. The key takeaway for me is that these events matter most for the media coverage, for holding our representatives accountable, and for making sure our stories get told. The way we win is by making sure our stories get told.

The place was packed – all 265 seats taken, which Sam said was a new record; the last 15 August townhalls he’s held usually brought 100 people max. The local teabaggers had succeeded in filling half the seats in the auditorium with their people, and the other half was taken up by supporters of health care reform. Ironically, outside the hall, in the overflow room and in the street, supporters outnumbered opponents by one estimate of 8 to 1.

That’s primarily because of the timing. We should hold them later in the evening, no earlier than 7pm if possible.. The doors opened at 5 last night, and the wingnuts had been told to show up at 3. Many of them were retired or did not work, whereas most supporters of reform couldn’t get there until after 5 because of work.

Inside the hall it was an orderly crowd, though overwhelmingly white and older. That’s partly a reflection of the city of Monterey’s demographics, but it meant that the overall demographics of the district, which skew younger and Latino, were totally unrepresented (the Salinas town hall later this month should be more representative).

Sam Farr was in an interesting and somewhat difficult spot. He has been a longtime supporter of single-payer and is a cosponsor of HR 676. But he felt his job last night was to explain and sell HR 3200, which as we all know is a far cry from single-payer. Sam’s script was that reform would not impact those who already have insurance except to lower their costs, and that it would help those who do not have insurance get coverage.

Farr softpedaled the public option in his opening remarks, explaining it as only one possible option for coverage for those who currently do not have it. He instead focused on how HR 3200 will provide health insurance reform, ensuring those with pre-existing conditions will get coverage and that those who have coverage will not get jerked around by their insurer (whether this is true remains to be seen).

That’s not to say Farr is backing off his support for the public option, he’s not. Instead he believed that the pitch to the public needs to emphasize other aspects of reform. Farr is a rank-and-file member of the Progressive Caucus, and I suspect his attitude is representative of the caucus as a whole – they want a public option, but they also want a good bill to pass. They may bend but they will not break.

Farr pointed out that of the calls to his offices about health care reform, 4700 supported reform, and only 295 opposed it. The wingnuts hissed at this, but it only reinforced just how isolated and marginalized a group they are.

He also asked how many in the room had insurance. 98% of the audience raised their hands. When Farr said nearly 200,000 people in the district didn’t have insurance, a few wingnuts near me muttered “that’s because they’re all illegals” – which as we will see is a completely bullshit claim.

He then took questions. Members of Congress need to run a tight ship at these meetings. Farr generally did this, ensuring that people only got 2 minutes to speak, and that folks couldn’t ramble on or follow up. One place where Farr could have improved was in responding to random audience comments – when Farr said something the wingnuts didn’t like, they’d often shout out a response to him, and Farr would often reply to that. He shouldn’t have done so, that only encourages them to be disruptive, but overall we had no problems with disruption. It was an orderly meeting, if tense.

The questions tended to be split half and half between supporters of reform and the wingnuts. Their questions and comments were typically nutty – “you’re going to bankrupt my grandkids!” “you’re going to give health care to illegals!” “government can’t do anything right!”

By far the most common wingnut complaint was that Farr and Congress were going to force everyone into government-run health care. As we know, this isn’t true (though I wish it were), and Farr kept responding that all HR 3200 would do is give people choices, that most people would be buying private insurance, that the free market would be bolstered.

Several wingnuts, after ranting about government spending and socialism, showed that they too wanted reform (but would not admit to it). A number of them demanded that medical providers be mandated to accept Blue Cross (a big issue locally). A number of older wingnuts demanded that Medicare reimbursement rates be increased, which Farr said he accomplished in HR 3200 by ensuring that Marin, SF, Santa Barbara and San Diego counties be used as the benchmarks for determining Medicare rates in California (a big boost to rural counties like Monterey). They may whine about socialist spending – but when they are the beneficiaries, they are its biggest supporters. I didn’t hear any deathers in the time I was there.

But the wingnuts weren’t the only ones there. Progressives and supporters of reform turned out in big numbers as well and we made our voices heard.

Progressives Make Our Case By Telling Our Stories

One of the most effective speakers was my friend Kate Alessandri. She is 30 years old and works part-time as a librarian. She was working full-time as a school librarian, but was laid off this spring when the state of California decided it was a bright idea to cut $9 billion from education funding.

Kate developed chronic asthma in her mid-20’s. The medication she has to use has the effect of weakening her bones. This could be addressed by sustained medical treatment – but Kate has no health insurance through her employer, and because she has a pre-existing condition, she cannot get insurance on her own.

Kate is especially passionate about the ways young people are getting screwed by our politics and our economy. She comes from an upper-middle class family and is college educated, but cannot get a job that provides insurance, cannot pay for the costly medical care for herself (nor can her family), and faces a daily health risk as a result.

Kate thanked Sam Farr for working for health care reform, to ensure that she could finally get the care she needs. And ironically, as she spoke, she started to experience shortness of breath and the onset of an asthma attack. As soon as she was done she rushed out of the hall to take care of herself (she’s fine now). You can see both Kate and myself in the TV news clip I discuss below.

When my turn to speak came I thanked Farr as well, and reminded him and the audience that “the vast majority of the American people want this reform to happen.” That got a lot of loud cheers from both inside and outside the room, along with a few hisses and boos from the nutjobs. I then asked about health insurance rescission – 98% in the room may have insurance, but most of them would find that their insurance wouldn’t be there for them if they needed it, and that it wouldn’t stop them from going bankrupt.

(I had planned to ask another question, whether Farr would vote against a bill lacking a public option – Farr didn’t say that explicitly, but said HR 3200 has a public option and he is committed to it.)

Soon afterward Sam noted we still had an hour left and called a short break. A man sitting next to me said “it’s the 7th inning stretch,” to which I said “then I’m going to make like a Dodger fan and leave” – I wanted to see what was happening outside.

The crowd outside numbered several hundred, most of whom were supporters of reform. Outside it felt like a political rally. A few wingnuts were there with their signs, but the most crazy folks were the Lyndon LaRouche folks. One carried a sign with an image of Obama with a Hitler mustache while another gave out these pamphlets about “Obama’s Nazi health care plan”:

But there were no confrontations happening, no violence, no threats. Monterey police were there standing watch (we were one block from the police HQ) and ensuring everything stayed civil, which it did.

Media Coverage

You can see Kate’s town hall comment and her interview with one of the local TV stations, along with myself (the young guy in the blue shirt saying “the vast majority of the American people want this reform to happen”). Click here:

(Can’t make the damn proprietary video embed. Anyone wanna rip it to YouTube? It’s very good stuff.)

The video report is problematic as the editing and reporting tends to favor the other side, although Kate and I both represented our cause effectively. They used a shot of Farr reading a question about government agencies “going broke” and made it seem like that was Farr’s own point, which it wasn’t. They let two wingnuts speak, including one guy who identified himself as an “Obama voter” who clearly is uninformed on the details. Finally, the reporter made it sound like the fact that many of the wingnut attendees at national townhalls were astroturf organized by lobbyists was actually just a theory, whereas it was liberals who were actually stacking the deck. We had much better coverage in the Monterey Herald.

Overall the local news report showed the overall media approach to this is to cast the Democrats as being on the defensive and the wingnuts as members of the general public upset about the proposed reform. That’s why it was so valuable that Kate got so much face time to tell her story, and why even my own brief appearance helped remind viewers that the complainers are a small fringe.

Lessons and Takeaways

Our goal at the town halls should NOT be to fight wingnuts. I believed that to be the case going in and I am now convinced of this as a result of last night. These idiots will never listen to reason. And the town halls aren’t debates; the general public isn’t in that room and few undecideds are in the room. The temptation to argue with them is strong, but resist it.

Do not take their bait. This is especially important for people standing around outside, but holds for those inside as well. Wingnuts win if we stoop to their level. This is especially important anytime a camera is around. Don’t shout at them, don’t try and block their signs, don’t try and interfere with a TV interview of a wingnut. If we do those things, we give the media the story they want – “look, both sides are equally disruptive” instead of conveying the truth, which is that the disruptions are coming from the right.

Our goals should instead be to build the case for reform. Depending on who your member of Congress is – a progressive, a Blue Dog, a Republican – your job is to show that member of Congress that you and a majority of Americans want reform. You can do it like I did and just come right out and say that. Better yet, you can follow Kate’s lead and…

Tell your story. Anyone who went to a Camp Obama last year knows the importance of the “story of self” – a 1-2 minute focused story of a personal experience of yours that makes it clear why health care reform is needed. Kate told just such a story and as a result she ensured the news report on the highest rated station in our market was framed around her and her story. Most of us have a compelling story about ourselves or a family member that demonstrates why we need a public option, why this reform has to happen. TELL IT.

Make sure your local Democrats are organized. The Monterey County Democrats did not put on this event – Sam Farr did. But the Dems did do our own organizing around this, particularly giving much of the above training to our members who were interested in attending. Because so many people were unable to get in the room, we had Monterey County Democratic officials able to circulate through the crowd and give on-the-spot training to folks, especially to explain to the more combative supporters of reform why it was not a good idea to disrupt the wingnuts. We helped turn out attendees as well, and plan to do an even better job of it at the next events in our district.

Town Halls and the Big Picture

All that being said, we need to keep these town halls in perspective. They are not a substitute for the bigger fight on health care reform. Because they are getting considerable media attention it is worth having a strategy for them. They can be very useful in delivering messages to members of Congress. There has to be a clear media strategy – you want to make sure that local news understands this isn’t wingnuts vs Democrats, but is fundamentally about how we will get the change America still wants, the health care reform this country still demands.

Their best use is to show Congress and the media that there is widespread support for health care reform. The best way to do that – find a clear and compelling story, and tell it. That takes away from the nonsense about death panels and socialism and illegals, and focuses it on the real-life reasons why this reform has to happen.

Finally, keep in mind that the fight for health care reform will not be won or lost in an August recess town hall. It will be won or lost in the halls of Congress, in the meeting rooms of the White House. Our primary task is not to fight wingnuts but to push back against the White House and Blue Dog Democrats, including people like Max Baucus,  

Here at Calitics we’ve been noticing a trend over the last few budget cycles – the frequent use of illegal actions to claim that there is a balanced budget. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the worst offender here, though the Legislature as a whole has proven too willing to go along with these practices.

Thankfully Californians hurt by these reckless and economically indefensible budget cuts are not taking the lawbreaking lying down. Evan Halper at the LA Times reports on the rising number of lawsuits being filed and, increasingly, being won to block the cuts:

Lawyers are being drafted in droves to unravel spending plans passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor. The goal of these litigators is to get back money their clients lost in the budget process. They are having considerable success, winning one lawsuit after another, costing the state billions of dollars and throwing California’s budget process into further tumult.

In the last few months alone, the courts added more than a billion dollars to the state’s deficit by declaring illegal reductions in healthcare services, redevelopment agency funds and transportation spending. Another ruling threatens to deprive California of all its federal stimulus money if the state does not rescind a cut to the salaries of home healthcare workers.

Unfortunately Halper’s tone makes this sound like a bunch of ambulance chasers are taking advantage of the state’s financial crisis to enrich themselves and reverse a fair outcome of a democratic process. Nothing could be further from the truth. The lawsuits are typically filed on behalf of working-class Californians who are being made to bear the brunt of these cuts, whether it’s a reduction to their already paltry pay, loss of their health care, or loss of their means to get to work.

Halper’s article goes further in stacking the deck against Californians affected by the cuts. Instead of emphasizing the fact that numerous court cases on a variety of budget subjects have found major pieces of recent budget deals to be illegal, instead of questioning why the Legislature and the governor feel they can blithely ignore the law whenever they feel like it, Halper lays the blame for this at the feet of voters, who he casts as being reckless and profligate:

The attorneys are seizing on state laws that were drafted in sunnier economic times, some of which were put in place by citizen initiative. They created new programs or expanded existing ones and contained language intended to solidify the place of those programs in state government. Now, the state is broke, and lawmakers and the governor are finding their attempts to take money from the programs rebuffed by the courts. Just the lawsuits themselves cost the state millions of dollars in attorney salaries and other legal fees.

Of course those efforts are being rebuffed – the law and the state constitution are unmistakably clear here.

What Halper deliberately leaves out is the fact that most ballot-box budgeting isn’t due to voters who don’t know what they are doing. Instead it is typically a reaction to legislative failure to protect vital services. The grandaddy of all “ballot-box budgeting”, Proposition 98, was passed in 1988 as a reaction to a series of cuts in education funding during the 1980s. Voters, who have never been offered an opportunity to revisit the core elements of Prop 13 and have only once been asked to revisit the 2/3rds rule, understandably grow frustrated with the legislature’s unwillingness to protect the core services of state government and those that depend on those services to survive and thrive.

What the frequent lawbreaking makes clear is that in Sacramento, the only laws that truly matter are those laid down in 1978 by Howard Jarvis, and enforced by the kangaroo courts of the California Chamber of Commerce and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The legislature and the governor are so determined to avoid tax increases, even when they make more economic sense than spending cuts, that they will break the law rather than offend Jarvis’s ghost.

Legislators and reporters may not like it, but this is precisely why American governments have three coequal branches – to enable the judiciary to uphold rights and laws when the legislature and the executive choose to ignore them out of a misguided concept of political expediency.

Let a thousand lawsuits bloom.