Speakers include Steve Westly, Speaker Perez, and Kamala Harris

Video was here…

Oakland Progressive presents stark contrast

by Brian Leubitz

At the DNC convention, Rep. Barbara Lee presented the platform with much enthusiasm. Her speech is below.

I am so pleased I had a role in drafting this remarkable document. It embodies the values we hold dear as Democrats and as Americans. And it sets forth our great President’s vision for our future where together we will reignite the American Dream for ALL.

Because the reality is: four years ago, the American Dream had slipped out of reach for too many. And it had turned into a nightmare for millions.

President Obama changed our course. He invested in our future and put men and women back to work rebuilding our roads and bridges. He raised educational standards, invested in early childhood education and worked to make higher education more affordable for everyone. He invested in clean energy and enacted the broadest tax cut in history – reducing taxes on the middle class to near historic lows. He saved the American auto industry. He produced historic health reform. And he put forward a balanced deficit reduction plan that will put us on sound fiscal footing.

Keep reading…

Today, our economy is growing again.

Our platform states that America faces a clear choice: move forward as a nation where everyone has the chance to get ahead, or go back to the same failed ideas that created the crisis in the first place. We will move forward, not backward.

Republicans will raise taxes on low-income and the middle class to pay for tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

They’ll end the fundamental guarantee of Medicare that people have earned.

They’ll let Wall Street write its own rules again.

They’ll allow the secret and unlimited special interest money in campaigns to advance its dangerous assault on our democracy.

They’ll shred the safety net and gut vital investments in education, innovation, and infrastructure in order to help the wealthiest avoid doing their fair share.

And they’ll allow insurance companies to once again deny health care to working families and interfere with women’s health care decisions

President Obama and Democrats will not let this happen. We will move forward, not backwards.

We believe we are bound together by a shared set of ideals and values – rooted in the notion that together we can overcome the greatest challenges that come our way.

We stand for an economy that’s built not from the top down, but from the middle out, and that provides opportunity for those aspiring to join the middle class. And we make ending poverty a national priority. We are a big tent party of inclusion and our platform speaks to the aspirations of all.

Our platform ensures that the opportunity to live the American Dream not only survives but thrives for generations to come.

We can’t afford to go back or abandon the change we’ve fought so hard for. We will not turn back the clock. We can move forward, we must move forward, and under the leadership of President Obama we will move forward!

Thank you.

Massive Pension Reform Plan emerges from the Horseshoe

by Brian Leubitz

The California legislative session is the longest in the nation, but yet somehow it always comes down to the last week. We get a bunch of gut and amend bills and bam! It’s on like donkey Kong.  We’ve seen that with CEQA and workers’ comp in the last few weeks, and now it is pensions. There a number of moving parts, but here are a few points:

Starting next year, most newly hired public workers would be eligible for retirement with full benefits at age 62 instead of the current 55. Local police and firefighters hired on or after Jan. 1 would be eligible for full benefits at age 57, while currently employed public safety workers would still be able to retire with full benefits at age 50. (SF Chronicle)

This all has some serious consequences. But, once again, let me process nerd this one out. In short, the process was entirely lacking. The Governor and the Democratic legislative leaders kind of plopped this thing down a few days before the end of the session. While there has been a lot of pension discussion, there haven’t been the traditional collective bargaining that is traditional of these types of concessions. CTA’s Dean Vogel had this to say:

We have been working in good faith with the governor and Legislature to obtain pension solutions that will move our state forward. This plan does not achieve that goal. This process has not been transparent, it does not recognize the tremendous cuts that have already been made to our schools, and it does not respect the disproportionate impact it will have, largely on women working in our classrooms. Instead, it will make it more difficult to attract and retain experienced educators to our classrooms.

Look, I don’t think that it will surprise anybody to hear that pension changes are something of a fait accompli at this point. But as this happens, we need to make sure we are doing it the right way. With the right process and the proper consideration for our public employees, nurses, teachers, firefighters that do some very demanding jobs.

Workers comp reform being pushed through gut and amend process

by Brian Leubitz

For a different perspective: See this diary from the Cal Labor Fed about why this bill, SB863, should be passed. SB863 is likely an improvement from the existing process, it’s hard to go anywhere but up from the Schwarzenegger system, after all. But one can’t help but think that it would have benefited from a little more transparency.

Workers compensation is a topic that comes up every few years, as insurance companies start ratcheting up rates, usually out of proportion to their expenses. This gets the business community up in arms, and you know what follows next.  This happened with Gov. Schwarzenegger in 2004, and what we got was a hodgepodge which drastically limited compensation to some severely injured workers.

Now, this is not to say that workers’ comp doesn’t need to be reviewed. It does. California, it has been argued, has expenses that are out of line with other states. Meanwhile, benefits provided to workers hardly provide a subsistence living. Workers on temporary disability average between $230 and $270/week, according to this excellent article by workers’ comp attorney Bob Morris. And with a hard cap of 24 months on that temporary disability, workers can be left in a difficult situation. There are a lot of moving parts, but somehow, a grand reform compromise is supposedly being negotiated out of view of the public, and even many stakeholders in the new process.

As of 08/26/2012, five days before the end of the legislative session, the bill is not available for comment to the public, or even to attorneys who do nothing but represent injured workers.

The injured workers’ organization, Voters Injured at Work, and the California Applicants Attorney Association, who represent injured workers, were not involved in the creation of this bill. Apparently, neither is considered a “stakeholder.” The people who were involved do know of our concerns but do not seem to care.

Morris points out that perhaps term limits block the creation of legislative “experts” on complex issues like workers comp. And since this was last discussed in 2004, few legislators were around at the time. That being said, the last minute gut and amend is a process that rarely works in the greater interest of the public.

On a subject as important as workers comp, shoving it to the last minute is risky and runs contrary to the interests of both working Californians and the businesses that pay the premiums. This is a subject that deserves the full attention of the California Legislature, not some last minute back room negotiations between a few leaders.

Last week we saw the same effort with CEQA, a bill that also needs legislative review. But also like CEQA, these are important changes that should be discussed in a transparent and open matter.

With Labor Day coming up, races shifting into gear

by Brian Leubitz

With the national political conventions starting up, the political season is here. And so, with that, how about a look at three races in the Assembly that could be good news for Speaker John Pérez and the Democratic caucus.

AD-8 (Dem Ken Cooley(pictured) v Rep. Peter Tateishi)

The Citizens Redistricting Commission rejiggered two suburban Sacramento district held by Democrats to create this new district. Those seats were held by retiring Assemblywoman Alyson Huber, who was elected in 2008, and Dr. Richard Pan, who upset Republican Andy Pugno in 2010 (Pugno is now running in another seat against fellow Republican Assemblywoman Beth Gaines, and Dr. Pan is in another Sacramento district). The new AD-8 has a 1.1% Dem. registration advantage.

Cooley, a founding Rancho Cordova City Council member matches up well against Tateishi, Dan Lungren’s Chief of Staff. Cooley has a cash on hand advantage and Tateishi is being dogged by the Sacramento county voter registration fraud scandal.

AD-32 (Dem. Rudy Salas v. Rep. Pedro Rios)

This long-time competitive seat in the Central Valley now tilts Democratic. The Citizens Redistricting Commission removed Republican portions of Fresno and Tulare and added a larger portion of Democratic-leaning neighborhoods in Bakersfield. With these changes, Dems now command a big registration advantage. However, turnout will still be critical come election day.

Salas, the first Latino elected to the Bakersfield City Council in its 138 year history, has a big cash advantage over former Delano councilman Rios.  In fact, Rios is in a cash hole that the GOP caucus doesn’t seem to be interested in repairing. Rios was an insurgent that defeated the party favorite, and faces an uphill battle without significant institutional support.

I’ll look at two more districts in the second part coming soon.

CEQA Reform rockets up priority list, stalls at the end

by Brian Leubitz

The California Environmental Quality Act is a subject of much scrutiny these days. It is a truly valuable piece of legislation, critical to the long-term health of our natural resources.  However, there are some folks that want to tinker with it, both progressive and not-so-progressive.

This tinkering came to prominence a few days ago just as the legislative session was about to end.  Through some gut and amend moves, the Senate had taken up the idea, and active negotiations were going on behind closed doors.

And that was precisely the thorny issue for many. While some environmentalists support some changing of the measure, most were concerned about the lack of process. There weren’t the normal hearing and negotiation process that goes on with the Legislature.  And just two days ago, Asm. Jared Huffman delivered a letter with 34 signatures from legislators asking for a more thorough process on this important reform:

“Like many important laws, CEQA is not perfect and could probably be improved while retaining its many benefits – but only if such improvements are undertaken in a good faith process and are crafted very carefully,” said the letter, delivered today to Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez, both Democrats. “Unfortunately, the proposals we have seen and heard about reflect major changes that have not been vetted and are being advanced by special interests in an end-of-session power play.”(SacBee)

And ultimately, that delay carried the day. Sen. Steinberg tweeted out the statement that CEQA reform was going to have to wait for another day. Rumors are floating that a few senators are calling for a special session on the topic, but for now that seems unlikely. However, we’re sure to hear much of it both in legislative campaigns this cycle and in the next legislative session.  

Prop 36 has early lead in the polls

by Brian Leubitz

This election includes some big issues on the ballot, and perhaps that means that the 3 strikes reform measure is getting less attention than it would have on a less loaded ballot. But Prop 36 is solid reform:

Twice in as many decades, voters have sided in favor of a three-strikes law that allows judges to impose a life prison term for offenders who commit a third felony – no matter how minor – if they have two previous serious or violent criminal convictions on their records.

Proposition 36 proponents want to change the law to restrict the 25-years-to-life sentences, with some exceptions, to criminals whose third felony was serious or violent; nothing less than a residential burglary would qualify as a strike.(SacBee:)

Prop 36 would essentially formalize what has been occurring in the state’s largest county, Los Angeles, under Republican DA Steve Cooley. By requiring a violent third strike, the hope is you will reduce some of the more ridiculous life sentences. Cooley notes that removing the discretion from the state’s prosecutors, we should see more consistent application of the law.

36 has been getting solid majorities in the polls I’ve seen (78% last week), but this may well end up being a very tight race if there is any money on the No side.

Mayor says Yes on 32 campaign “based on deception”

by Brian Leubitz

In a rather strongly worded letter (PDF), Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has told the Yes on 32 campaign to stop using his name in their materials.

I am shocked to learn that you used my name and an out-of-context quotation of my words in a blatantly deceptive way, first in your rebuttal argument in support of Proposition 32, and now again in a campaign web video.

But perhaps my surprise is misplaced. After all, the entire Yes on Proposition 32 campaign is based on deception and a distasteful disregard for the facts. Your unauthorized use of my name and words creates a misleading impression for voters that I support Prop 32. This is patently false. Moreover, it is a cynical and disrespectful manipulation of the initiative process.  Voters deserve truthful information.

As the LA Times’ Hiltzik said over the weekend, “it’s hard to conceive how one could be more fraudulent than Proposition 32.”

Note: I work for the No on 32 campaign. Please like the campaign on facebook and follow on twitter.

Prop 32, the Special Exemptions Act, “bristles with loopholes for businesses and their wealthy backers.”

by Brian Leubitz

Over the weekend, the LA Times’ Michael Hiltzik wrote a column about Prop 32, and he did not pull any punches. After he described how LBJ would not appreciate the “Rich Persons and Corporations Empowerment Act of 2012,” he detailed some of the many deceptive points of this measure. But before going through that, he stops to put Prop 32 in its place in history:

In this state, we’ve come to expect ballot initiatives sponsored by business interests to be, essentially, frauds. But it’s hard to conceive how one could be more fraudulent than Proposition 32. If there was any doubt left that the initiative process has been totally corrupted by big business and the wealthy, this should put it to rest for all time.(LA Times)

Why is it so fraudulent? Well, not only does he mention that the measure “bristles with loopholes for businesses and their wealthy backers” but he then goes on to highlight how this is really just another attempt at “paycheck deception.”

Proposition 32 is nothing but an attack by Republicans and conservatives on unions and their members. Two previous attempts by the same gang failed at the ballot box, in 1998 and 2005. What’s new about this effort is that it’s dressed up as a broad reform aimed at “special interests,” and it’s even more union-unfriendly than its predecessors.

*** **** ***

“When corporations can just write a check from their general treasury, the idea that this is a meaningful restriction is ridiculous,” says Richard L. Hasen, an election and campaign law expert at UC Irvine. The share of corporate political spending coming from employee payroll deductions “has got to be a drop in the bucket, and putting it in there is just a fig leaf.”

In truth, Prop 32 does what its supporters want it to do, silence working Californians while allowing SuperPAC Billionaires to keep on doing what they are doing. Or, as Hiltzik says it, they are trying to pull one over on us:

The message the perpetrators of Proposition 32 are sending to you, the California voter, is that they think you’re stupid. Really, really stupid.

When you go to the voting booth or fill out your mail ballot this November, stop for a moment and ponder this question: Should I hand over my vote to people who think of me that way?

If you have a moment, share the article with your friends and family. This is one column that all California voters should read before they vote in November.

Note: I work for the No on 32 campaign. Please like the campaign on facebook or follow on twitter.

With the deadline approaching, the fight is on.

by Brian Leubitz

With the deadline to get bills to the Governor rapidly approaching, there aree a few bills that are worthy of mention. First, a bill allowing judges to consider the rehabilitation of some convicted criminals with life sentences in a new resentencing procedure:

California prison inmates serving life-without-parole sentences for crimes they committed as juveniles would have a chance at freedom under a bill approved Thursday by the Assembly.

The bill, which now heads back to the Senate – where it is expected to pass – was approved in the Assembly with the minimum of 41 votes and no Republican support. It was the third time in as many years that the lower house considered some form of the proposal by state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco.(SF Chron)

You won’t be surprised to learn that there are some really nasty comments on pretty much every article on the mainstream media that is reporting about this. But if we aren’t even going to pretend to rehabilitate, why bother even have non-life sentences. Just put everybody in prison for life and throw away the proverbial key. But, in the end, that is not a practical or just solution. Even for people who commit murders, we need to allow a judge to have some discretion to determine if the person in question has made strides toward rehabiliation and whether we can, years later, consider them for release. It is the humane policy, especially considering that many of these youth were the lookouts for burglaries and other lesser crimes gone wrong.

In another story that is more annoying than life changing, ssome of the statewide slate mailers really suck. They are of very little value to anybody except the  people that make money off of them.  SB 488 would fix at least one of those:

Make no mistake:  It’s no coincidence that the hired gun for the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs (COPS), Kelly Moran, is actively trying to kill a great piece of campaign reform legislation – SB 488.  This bill prohibits the unauthorized use of public safety logos, insignias and other identifiers on political mail pieces.(Labor Fed)

Ok, we have slate mailers, fine, but at the very least, people should be able to understand where they are coming from without a bunch of confusing names like the COPS slate.