In another totally indefensible act designed to deny access to prosperity to more Californians, the UC Regents today voted to increase student fees by 8%. The Regents predictably claimed they had no alternative.

We know there are alternatives – raising taxes in order to provide for the public services that guarantee prosperity – but while those exist in theory, the case has simply not been made persistently and effectively to Californians in support of it. The Two Santa Claus Theory remains strong – that voters can have both low taxes AND quality public services.

That lesson was driven home with brutal clarity at the November 2 election. The tax increase measures on the ballot – Prop 21 and Prop 24 – failed, and we lost Prop 26 as well, which is another expression of anti-tax sentiment.

Two recent polls help explore what is going on here – showing that conservative arguments that we don’t have to pay to maintain our society, that we can all just freeload indefinitely, have made deep inroads into the public consciousness. At the same time, the progressive argument that public services are important and worth supporting is still widely supported. Californians are basically at an impasse, with progressives needing to find a way to make a clear and consistent argument for new revenues – and then organize to get the public to support it.

The LA Times/USC Poll makes this clear:

Californians object to increasing taxes in order to pare the state’s massive budget deficit, and instead favor closing the breach through spending cuts. But they oppose cuts-and even prefer more spending-on programs that make up 85% of the state’s general fund obligations, a new Los Angeles Times/USC Poll has found.

That paradox rests on Californians’ firm belief that the state’s deficit-estimated last week at nearly $25 billion over the next 18 months-can be squared through trimming waste and inefficiencies rather than cutting the programs they hold dear. Despite tens of billions that have been cut from the state budget in recent years, just a quarter of Californians believed that state services would have to be curtailed to close the deficit.

While cuts to prisons were widely popular (71% backed it), cuts to health care and education were unpopular (only about 36% supported those) with majorities wanting to either maintain or increase the funding.

PPIC found similar results on the specific issue of higher education – with residents evenly split (49-49) on whether to raise taxes to invest in public colleges and universities.

One reaction to this is to simply blame the public – they’re either confused, foolish, stupid, greedy, or some combination of those factors.

I don’t think that’s useful – and I don’t think it’s correct. Over the last 30 years, I cannot remember a time where there was a persistent and high-profile effort made by Democrats, or any one else, to convince Californians that our state and our future is worth paying for. Instead, Democratic elected officials and most major center-left organizations have spent the post-1978 years running about as far away as they could from being spun as anything resembling “tax supporters.” So it should be little wonder that conservative anti-tax messaging has found traction – when you cede the field, the other side usually makes gains.

At the same time, we shouldn’t be too mopey about these results. Californians clearly understand that schools, health care, and infrastructure are very important to them, that government should provide these things, and that they don’t get enough funding. As a progressive activist, I see that as a very favorable situation in which to start making the argument for fair revenue solutions.

How we do that is crucial. Another lesser known, but equally important aspect of right-wing messaging success has been their claim that in a recession, everyone must spend less. That’s counter-intuitive and counter-cyclical – in short, it’s Hooverism – but it sounds like “common sense” partly because nobody has yet pushed back.

Such a coordinated messaging effort won’t work without an on-the-ground organizing plan. Groups like the California Alliance, the state’s labor movement, the Courage Campaign, and others are committed to doing that. It’s not going to produce results overnight. But it could also produce results quicker than we think, given that our position isn’t that bad.

Consider also that the November 2010 electorate, while delivering victories for the Democratic ticket, was much less progressive than the November 2008 electorate. A coherent messaging AND organizing project could just produce some winning ballot initiatives at the November 2012 ballot. Whether California can wait that long is another question entirely – but as I look at these polls, I see both an impasse and an opportunity.

California’s glass is half full, but the corporations and the rich are thirstily eyeing what remains. Let’s make sure we take more from them than they take from us.

All week long, comments by financial analyst Chris Whalen – where he predicts California will “default” – have been getting a lot of traction:

Whalen thinks that California will default on its debt–hammering all the pension funds and other investors who have loaded up on apparently safe state bonds.

The state won’t immediately default, Whalen says.  It will start by issuing the same sort of IOUs that it issued to by itself time during its budget crisis last year.  But, eventually, the debts will have to be restructured, and this will result in those who own California’s bonds receiving less than 100 cents on the dollar.

Why won’t California just get a bailout?

Because the Republicans now control Congress, Whalen says.

Whalen’s sleight of hand here is obvious if you know what you’re looking for. Yes, California may have to issue more IOUs. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the state will default, or have to restructure its debt. Whalen apparently doesn’t know (or chooses to ignore) the fact that California cannot default on its debts – bondholders are constitutionally guaranteed payment, second only to public schools in their claim on the state treasury.

Whalen might just be talking down California bonds so that he can force Bill Lockyer to sell at a higher interest rate. His cluelessness about the state’s inability to default certainly calls into question his analytical skill. And yet he is right that the Republican House of Representatives will happily tell California to drop dead – especially since they and the rest of the right-wing are convinced that California is subsidized by the rest of the country, when in fact it’s the other way around:

During the November 16 episode of Varney & Co. on Fox Business, Varney interviewed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Press Secretary Aaron McLear about Schwarzenegger’s current efforts to balance California’s budget. He asked McLear if he would take a pledge to “not take one more dime from federal taxpayer money going to California.” Then he continues: “You guys in California, you’ve been making fun of…the hicks who live in the Midwest…you’ve been making fun of them. Now you want their money.”

Incensed, McLear told Varney that “[California is] what is called a donor state. We get less on every dollar back from the federal government than any other state. States like Mississippi and Alaska get more back from the federal government for every dollar they spend.”

McLear is right.

Notice how the right-wing frames California’s fiscal problems: we somehow screwed up, and now we want other people’s money to bail us out, even though we are still a donor state. In short, if CA did want a bailout, we’d merely be asking for our money back instead of subsidizing red states. And of course, there’s no mention of the fact that California’s economic problems stem from decisions made by a president this state did not elect, by a Congress where our representatives were in the minority.

In other words, Republicans want to treat California like a colony.

There is no doubt that the state’s budget situation is still dire, as the New York Times’ Adam Nagourney writes today. Much of the article is familiar to those of us who have followed the ongoing state budget crisis, but it does break new ground by offering some insight on how the deficit might be addressed in the new year – and with a new governor:

Mr. Steinberg said that given all the restrictions the state faced, the best course of action would be a realignment of state services in a way that would require local governments – which might have more flexibility to raise some taxes – to provide them. He said he thought Mr. Brown would be more receptive to that kind of revamping than Mr. Schwarzenegger.

“I think the notion of trying to raise state taxes to continue to prop up this system is a dead end,” Mr. Steinberg said, adding, “Unless we get the miracle of an economic recovery faster than anyone expects, we have to be bold.”

In fact, as the recent PPIC poll showed, Californians are willing to pay more taxes for public services – in this case, higher education. More on that poll later today, but for now, it shows that if the new governor and the Democratic legislature can make the case for government, Californians might just be willing to support new taxes in a 2011 special election.

Instead, Steinberg is signaling that Sacramento might wind up devolving more programs to cities and counties, potentially with the authority to raise money to fund them. Prop 26, Prop 218, and of course Prop 13 itself limit significantly the ability of local governments to provide basic services, which is why Jerry Brown helped set up the Sacramento-centric system to fund those services 30 years ago.

This also raises major questions about equity and fairness – the problem encountered in the 1970s was that cities like Beverly Hills were able to spend a lot on schools, whereas poorer cities like Salinas couldn’t. How Sacramento plans to get around the Serrano decisions is entirely unclear, but it’s going to have to be dealt with.

California isn’t going to default. But we still face a serious budget crisis that will not be resolved until we fix our state’s broken system of government, and enable the majority to once again rule. Prop 25 was a start. But all 2/3 rules have to be abolished before we can have a hope of balanced budgets, strong public services, and economic recovery.

Public outrage at the TSA’s new policies of sexually assaulting travelers in the name of “security” is growing by the day as new stories of horrific abuses emerge. Some of them come from fellow California netroots activists, some from famous entertainers, others from moms across the country.

These stories are all shockingly familiar to those stories of people who have suffered sexual assault or molestation in other circumstances – a sense of shame, then of shock, then of a growing awareness they have been violated. In this case, because it is an extremely powerful arm of the government that is committing the sexual assaults, it leads people to be silent about what has happened to them – a situation many people, women in particular, know all too well from other experiences our society rightly finds indefensible.

Then there are the stories of people who were going to unwittingly submit themselves to the extremely dangerous and unsafe full-body scan machines. When one woman at SFO was shown a letter from UCSF doctors pointing out the health risks from the x-rays the TSA machines use – and that the TSA refuses to disclose to the public that the machines use x-rays – one woman from Santa Clara, a cancer survivor whose doctor told her to avoid x-rays, opted out of the full-body scan. Of course, if you opt-out then you become subject to the sexual assault searches. In other words, the TSA is willing to violate people’s most basic rights and freedoms in order to get people to walk through a very unsafe machine that is only there because Michael Chertoff wanted to make some more money.

This situation should be something that progressive activists are all over. We see ourselves as the guardian of civil liberties and our rights against the overgrown security-industrial complex. We see ourselves as defenders of people who have been sexually assaulted, and vigorously oppose and denounce those who minimize or explain away that kind of behavior whenever it happens in other contexts. And we see ourselves as defenders of democratic rights in the face of attempts to force us to give them up at a whim.

Unfortunately, some progressives (like Kevin Drum) believe we shouldn’t pay attention to this issue at all. In recent days I’ve had several conversations with progressive folks on Twitter and Facebook who think the TSA issue is a waste of time, a diversion from more important matters.

Such views could not possibly be more wrong. We on the left do not have the luxury of having every American be as informed on the issues as we are. If we did, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in as a country. Instead we have to use teachable moments like this to show an outraged public that this isn’t just about TSA procedures – but that it is about deeper problems that show the need for thorough progressive solutions that can advance a progressive agenda.

As I put it to one friend, if people are window-shopping at the store of civil liberties, you don’t denounce them and say “why don’t you care about these other issues?” – you invite them inside and make a sale on a broader range of concerns, from Guantanamo Bay abuses to the need to prosecute torturers.

The right-wing is VERY good at doing this. They know very well how to act when the public is suddenly paying attention – they drive the public toward right-wing solutions. As Dave Weigel noted, the right-wing is all over this issue, using it to advance their ideological agenda. Byron York’s interview with Rep. John Mica, the Florida Republican who will head the House Transportation Committee in January, is revealing:

Did you know that the nation’s airports are not required to have Transportation Security Administration screeners checking passengers at security checkpoints? The 2001 law creating the TSA gave airports the right to opt out of the TSA program in favor of private screeners after a two-year period. Now, with the TSA engulfed in controversy and hated by millions of weary and sometimes humiliated travelers, Rep. John Mica, the Republican who will soon be chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is reminding airports that they have a choice.

Mica, one of the authors of the original TSA bill, has recently written to the heads of more than 150 airports nationwide suggesting they opt out of TSA screening. “When the TSA was established, it was never envisioned that it would become a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy which was soon to grow to 67,000 employees,” Mica writes. “As TSA has grown larger, more impersonal, and administratively top-heavy, I believe it is important that airports across the country consider utilizing the opt-out provision provided by law.”

In other words, Mica is proposing privatization of the TSA. It’s a long-held right-wing goal and Mica is skilled at knowing how to use a moment of public outrage to push his agenda. Mica is also more directly honest about what the TSA is doing than most other Democrats I’ve heard talking about the issue:

Mica sees TSA’s new “naked scanner” machines and groping, grossly invasive passenger pat-downs as just part of a larger problem. TSA, he says, is relying more on passenger humiliation than on practices that are proven staples of airport security.

Then there is Fox News, which called the whole issue “Obama’s Hand in Your Crotch” – not missing an opportunity to bash the president.

Good organizing involves seizing opportunities to educate an otherwise distracted and alienated public as to why your agenda is the best – and the only – solution to a problem they suddenly care very much about. Rather than dismissing this issue or mocking those who care about it, progressives need to seize the moment to offer our own explanation and solutions.

Here’s my stab at it: the TSA has been empowered to do this by the ridiculous and absurd “permanent war on terror” rhetoric that’s been used by Republicans over the last 9 years to support their agenda. The TSA and the Dept. of Homeland Security felt empowered to do this because nobody stopped other abuses of rights, whether it was torturing detainees at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay or whether it was the long history of overlooking rights in US prisons in the name of fighting crime. No government agency should have the right to sexually assault a member of the public; our 4th Amendment rights matter deeply. We can find better ways to balance security and freedoms, such as ensuring that the TSA can only perform intensive searches on people they have some legitimate reason to suspect are a threat.

We need to do this not just because the public is upset and not just because the right is already mobilizing on it. If we are to rebuild public trust in government as an institution that can help protect and extend prosperity, as something that should be used for good and not something inherently flawed that should be junked for an even less accountable private sector, we have to show the public that we will make sure government doesn’t abuse its powers. Progressives have an obligation to fight the TSA on this.

Thankfully, some progressive groups are already doing this. FireDogLake is circulating an “Investigate the TSA” petition. The ACLU has been fighting the TSA for years over their abusive practices, and has been outspoken about the pat-down search abuses. It’s good to see progressives getting involved in defending our rights, our freedoms, and our bodies.

Hell, if nothing else, this makes a great case for high speed rail!

Crossposted from the California High Speed Rail Blog

UPDATE: Arnold Schwarzenegger wrote a similar letter today. That’s bipartisanship I can live with. Back to the original post:

As newly elected Republican governors in Wisconsin and Ohio threaten to reject hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding to build desperately needed high speed rail projects, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer have stepped up to call on those funds to be redirected to California should they become available. Here’s the full text of the letter as emailed to me today by Senator Feinstein’s office:

November 16, 2010

The Honorable Ray LaHood

Secretary

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Dear Secretary LaHood:

It has come to our attention that several states plan to cancel their high-speed rail projects. We ask that you withdraw the Federal grants to these states and award the funds to states that have made a strong financial commitment to these very important infastructure projects.

California voters have committed over $9 billion in bonds to high-speed rail, putting our state in a unique position to advance this initiative quickly. Our state’s plan has widespread, bipartisan support because of the impressive potential for job growth, its impact on energy independence and its transformational role in how Californians move throughout the state. No other state is as ready, as able, or as determined to develop a high-speed rail system in the near future.

California stands ready to be a pioneering partner with the U.S. Department of Transportation. Awarding our state’s plan with these funds would have the greatest and most immediate impact in advancing the kind of high-speed rail system envisioned by both California and the Obama Administration.

Thank you for considering this request. We look forward to working with you on this matter.

Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein

United States Senator

Barbara Boxer

United States Senator

This is an excellent move by California’s two Senators. The people of California have twice now shown their support for high speed rail, both with the approval of Prop 1A in November 2008 and their rejection of anti-HSR candidate Meg Whitman in the November 2010 election. Recent polling from across California and on the Peninsula shows HSR is still widely popular.

Californians understand that high speed rail is necessary to the state’s economic recovery – we want the jobs it will bring. Californians understand that high speed rail is necessary to improve our transportation system – we want the fast, reliable, convenient travel options it will bring. Californians understand that high speed rail is necessary to improve our environment and deliver energy independence – we want to slow global warming and reduce carbon emissions by using high speed rail.

We also want to see a broader national HSR system built. We need to improve passenger rail across the country, and that includes states like Wisconsin and Ohio. It’s worse than shameful – it is tragic – if their right-wing governors want to shackle their states to driving and risk their economic futures through dependence on oil. But if they do succeed in rejecting the money, it ought to be redirected to a state where the HSR plans are sufficiently advanced where we can put it to immediate use – and that’s here in California.

With Republicans like new House Transportation Committee chair John Mica agreeing that California’s HSR project is worth funding, now is the time to increase our funding allocation. If that comes from states whose governors foolishly rejected it, well, at least we know the money will be used effectively.

In this case the “government agency” in question is the Transportation Security Administration. Faced with a massive public outcry regarding their new policy of molesting and sexually assaulting travelers who refuse to subject themselves to the new full-body scan machines at airports, the TSA is fighting back by aggressively harassing and persecuting those who object to the new rules.

The target is a San Diego man, John Tyner who made a video of his encounter with the TSA at the San Diego airport over the weekend. Tyner objected to the TSA’s plan to fondle his genitals, telling the agent “don’t touch my junk” – which triggered the TSA to react so defensively that they refused to let Tyner board his flight.

The TSA has been facing a growing public backlash over these machines, as stories of people being subjected to this stunning invasion of their privacy – including a 3-year old girl – are spreading like wildfire. The airline industry is worried about a potential hit to their bottom line if people stop flying to avoid these searches, and flight crews are outraged that they too are being subjected to the scans. But it is Tyner’s video that has gone viral and propelled this into a major news story.

So how does the TSA respond? By persecuting Tyner:

The Transportation Security Administration has opened an investigation targeting John Tyner, the Oceanside man who left Lindbergh Field under duress on Saturday morning after refusing to undertake a full body scan….

Michael J. Aguilar, chief of the TSA office in San Diego, called a news conference at the airport Monday afternoon to announce the probe. He said the investigation could lead to prosecution and civil penalties of up to $11,000.

The only reason the TSA is doing this is to make an example of Tyner to the rest of the country – “resist us and you will pay.” It’s designed to stop people from standing up for their rights and to quell the growing public outrage at the new procedures.

There is no legitimate reason for the TSA to do this. It’s an abuse of power and a sign that the TSA has grown out of control, an agency that needs to be reined in rather than empowered to do whatever it wants out of public fear of another September 11-style attack.

The contrast with other countries is significant. When traveling in Europe in 2009 – including in Spain, a country which has faced a much more persistent and immediate terrorist threat than the US – their airport security procedures are much more sensible and effective. No full-body scans, no invasive pat-downs without some reason to suspect one is needed. The TSA’s security polices exist to protect its own power, not to keep the public safe.

While some dismiss this issue, either taking the side of a government that is now blatantly trampling on people’s rights or saying that this doesn’t matter as much as other privacy concerns, it is now clear that the TSA full-body scans and pat-downs are going to be an important moment in the effort to define and protect our rights in a world concerned about security.

For nine years Americans have gone along with abrogations of their rights and invasions of their privacy in the name of security. This has not been isolated, but is part of a broader trend of undermining basic rights and legal procedures in the name of anti-terrorism. Whether it’s waterboarding of terrorist suspects, indefinite detentions at Guantanamo Bay, or government spying on peaceful protestors, the basic philosophy has been that rights are secondary to security. As the TSA agent told Tyner, “you gave up a lot of rights when you bought your ticket.”

Obviously there’s a degree of difference between the horrific abuses at Guantanamo Bay and what happened to Tyner. But the underlying issue is still the same – must we give up our cherished democratic rights in order to be safe? The TSA may have finally gone too far, and may have finally provoked Americans into resisting the erosion of their rights in the name of anti-terrorism.

Stopping the body scans and pat-downs won’t close Guantanamo, end torture, or lead to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for those dire abuses of power and of human rights. But any time you have a public that is suddenly aware of the damage that has been done to privacy rights and legal processes, it’s an opportunity to organize people to defend their rights and their freedoms more broadly, to get them to call into question and hopefully oppose all forms of trampling of rights so that government can act with fewer limits on itself. It’s a long way for many Americans to go from sympathy for Tyner to sympathy for a Guantanamo prisoner, but it is possible, and it’s an opening I’d make use of if I were organizing on the issue.

No wonder the TSA is so scared, no wonder they are fighting back against the public. And that’s why this issue matters.

UPDATE: Zack Kaldveer, the editor of the California Progress Report, has been tracking this issue for quite some time over at his Privacy Revolt! blog. It’s a great resource.

From the “rewarding good behavior” department comes this article about Senator Dianne Feinstein stepping to help prevent CCSF student Steve Li from being deported:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein has asked immigration authorities to halt the deportation of City College of San Francisco nursing student Steve “Shing Ma” Li while she considers introducing a bill that would allow him to stay in the United States temporarily, her office said Sunday….

Li’s case has attracted attention because the 20-year-old says he has no real connection to Peru, nor relatives or friends there. His parents were born in China but moved to Peru in the 1980s to escape the government’s one-child policy. They brought Li to the United States at age 11.

The three were arrested in San Francisco Sept. 15 because they were only allowed to stay in the United States through the end of 2002. Li’s parents were released and wear electronic ankle bracelets as they await deportation to China.

Feinstein needs to follow through and offer a bill to keep Li in the US – and, more importantly, fight like hell to get the federal DREAM Act passed.

Deportation is not a solution to the question of immigration reform – nor is it a solution Californians desire. By a 61-28 margin, Californians oppose deportation of undocumented immigrants, preferring instead to provide a path to citizenship for California’s undocumented population.

Stories like those of Li are a big reason why Californians support a humane and sensible policy of citizenship over the cruel and unjust policy of deportation. Meg Whitman found that out the hard way when her cruel attack on a Fresno State student backfired at the Univision debate in Fresno. Whitman learned that Californians do not support treating students as criminals, and her opposition to a path to citizenship played a big role in costing her the election.

Of course, the DREAM Act and opposing deportations like the one facing Li and his family is the right thing to do even if were politically unpopular. But because it’s politically popular, it is a no-brainer for Feinstein and others to support the Li family – and every other family in this country that wants to stay here but isn’t documented.

UPDATE: Reform Immigration For America is running a campaign to demand Congress pass the DREAM Act during the lame duck session this year. Sen. Harry Reid has promised a vote on the DREAM Act, but it’s unclear whether a Republican filibuster can be broken.