This article written by: Former Assemblymember Hannah-Beth Jackson of Speak Out california

I remember as a youngster believing that the President and the government would protect us from harmful things—like gas fumes at the pump and toys that broke off and could hurt babies and little children. Of course, I was quite young at the time, not yet at double digits, the country was much more naive and Dwight Eisenhower was president. This was obviously a long time ago!

But I took the notion seriously that government had a moral and constitutional responsibility to protect the public and keep us from harms way—whether it be from enemies to our shores, criminals threatening our personal peace and safety or just known bad things being cast upon us by those who didn’t care about our well-being.

It turns out I was very naive, and had a misplaced sense of what government, at least in times of Ike,considered to be its responsibilities. But as time has moved on, the role of government to protect us as consumers and as individuals has evolved. Particularly in the 1970’s, and somewhat ironically, under both Republican and Democratic presidents, the role of the EPA, the Consumer Protection Agency and other publicly concerned entities took a front-and-center position in helping protect our nation and our natural resources. After all, it was Richard Nixon who signed the Clean Water Act (although it was pushed heavily by the democratically controlled congress). To his credit, he also oversaw the first Environmental Protection Agency, committed to protecting our environmental health.

Fast-forward to today and we see a stark contrast between a national commitment to protect the public and an adminstration which has blatantly and shamelessly pronounced that the public health is of no concern to it. That seems to be the message of this week’s extraordinary conduct of one Nancy A. Nord, the acting chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The CPSC is the agency tasked with the responsibility to oversee the safety of more than 15,000 types of consumer products. It is this agency which has been under scrutiny as more and more of the thousands of products we import from China, as toys with which our children play, turn out to be laced with poison. Primarily in the form of lead materials, our youngest children are being exposed to toxic materials known to cause brain damage and other serious health and safety consequences for children in particular.

The public outcry has been predictably severe, after all, these are our children who are being knowingly exposed to dangerous substances. The question has been raised, “Where is the government in all this? Where is the agency that is supposed to protect against unsafe consumer products? Who is minding the store?”

The answer with this administration, in particular, has been that no one is minding the store. After all, the market can regulate itself and we don’t want to impose any regulation or restrictions that will interfere with a free and unregulated market. And therein lies the rub: The market has not and does not regulate itself. It only responds when it is finally CAUGHT. So millions of our children have been exposed to these dangerous materials. How many of them will suffer as a result? How many parents and loved ones will feel responsible for the consequences because the government has failed to protect them? And finally, how can this administration, that professes to want to protect America justify such neglect of its responsibilities?

The answer, sadly, is best summarized by the extraordinary response by the person who is in charge of protecting us from unsafe products. Appointed by George W. Bush  to head an agency whose work and mandate she opposes, Ms. Nord publicly opposed legislation that will strengthen her agency’s ability to do its job.

On October 30th, the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously approved a bill which would raise the CPSC budget, increase its staff and grant it “broad new powers to police the marketplace” on behalf of consumer safety.
The New York Times reported that Nord opposed the measure because it would “increase the maximum penalties for safety violations , make it easier for the government to make public reports of faulty products and protect industry whistleblowers and prosecute executives of companies that willfully violate the law.” In other words, she opposed a bill that would help her agency do its job in holding these companies accountable and deterring these dangerous abuses in the future– this from the person responsible for making sure we are protected from these very practices. Just imagine a District Attorney opposing legislation making his/her job easier to catch and prosecute the bad guy!

This legislation was precipitated by yet another recall in October of over half a million toys imported from China. Earlier we saw millions of other toys recalled for containing dangerous levels of lead and other safety problems. As if that weren’t enough to jump on the bandwagon and call for greater oversight and accountability, Ms. Nord completely missed the point, arguing instead that the latest recall came not for safety reasons, but simply because the contents violate the law. Huh?

Have the Bush free-marketeers gone so over the top that they don’t see that the public wants protection and deserves to be protected from dangerous products, especially those that harm their CHILDREN? Apparently not. Apparently the free-marketeers are so inflexible, so intractible, so unconcerned with the well-being of the people they are poisoning that they are even willing to so publicly condemn efforts to assure greater safety and protection of our people, and our children in particular.

If there are any Americans left who think this administration cares about them more than about big business and corporate profit, this should be the final nail in that coffin. This move toward even greater deregulation, greater unaccountability and responsibility to the public is straight out of the failed conservative ideology that the people are reacting to today. Bush’s dangerous and irresponsible commitment to ignore the public’s safety, heavens, our children’s safety, for the sake of corporate free- market is yet another example of his failed priorities and the failure of this administration to act in the best interests of the public he and his appointees are supposed to serve.

For the sake of our children and our planet we must change the dialogue and bring safety and responsibility back to the process. Our children deserve it and we must demand it. When an administration is reduced to such arrogance and misguided values so as to blatantly and publicly reject the safety of its people and its children, in particular, it is time to send them packing.

It isn’t the 1950’s anymore. We aren’t naive about what is going on in the world and in the world of mulit-national commerce. And even our youngsters today know the government isn’t necessarily there to protect them. It is now our job to insist that it do so.

This article written by: Former Assemblymember Hannah-Beth Jackson of Speak Out California

There is no one in California with any knowledge  of our state’s prison system who doesn’t agree that it is in crisis. While we expand the number of offenses for which incarceration is the penalty and then expand the length of sentences for those offenses, we have expanded the prison walls beyond capacity. As as result, the courts have intervened in our correctional system’s process and threatened to close the doors to new prisoners unless the conditions within the prisons improve significantly.

With state government squeezed for funding, we have seen the cost of the corrections portion of the state budget increase geometrically over the past two decades. With more and more “three strikers” clogging up the prisons, and more elderly lifers needing expensive medical care as they age and die in prison, the problem has only gotten worse. What can and should the state do about this?

What will it take to avoid the state’s prison system being taken over by the courts, with consequences that are unacceptable to the people of the state?

Assemblymember Paul Krekorian (D- Burbank) has a proposal that attempts to address at least one aspect of this situation. Here is Assemblymember Krekorian’s explanation of the bill that now sits on the Govenor’s desk awaiting either signature or veto.

The Absurdity of Incarcerating the Incapacitated:
California Prisons are Wasting Taxpayers’ Money and Endangering the Public

California’s prisons are in crisis.  The system is so grossly overcrowded that a federal judge is on the verge of taking control of it away from the state’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.  If the overcrowding is not immediately remedied, the prisons may be forced to release felons early — possibly including murderers, gang leaders and others with a history of violence.

So why are we wasting bed space and guards on inmates who are in a coma?

The cost of imprisoning terminally ill and medically incapacitated prisoners is an unnecessary, exorbitant expense for California taxpayers, often exceeding $120,000 a year for a single inmate.  Not only must the state pay for expensive end-of-life medical care, but also the cost of round-the-clock guards for a person who is incapable of posing any threat to society.  Using correctional officers to guard such inmates also takes them away from more important security responsibilities, creating unnecessary risks to prison personnel, inmates and the public. 

Especially at a time when the state must cut basic services to people in need because of budget limitations, it is absurd that we are wasting taxpayers’ money to care for and incarcerate inmates who are comatose, or surviving only because of a ventilator, or too weak and frail in their final days of life to feed themselves.  That’s why I introduced AB 1539, which has passed the Legislature and is now on the Governor’s desk awaiting signature.  This bill streamlines the existing medical release process for terminally ill inmates, relieving the state of exorbitant medical and security costs, and extends the scope of the existing medical release program to include inmates who are permanently medically incapacitated and pose no risk to public safety.

The current “compassionate release” law, which was enacted ten years ago, allows dying inmates or their family to apply for re-sentencing consideration.  If both the warden and the sentencing judge agree that there is no risk to public safety, the sentencing judge may release the inmate so that he or she may die in a hospice or other setting rather than in prison.  This program is not available to those who are serving life sentences.

This sensible, cost-saving, humanitarian program, however, is rife with bureaucratic problems, including a lack of information and notification to eligible inmates, delays, and the absence of directives to prison medical staff.  As a result, the number of medical releases in recent years has reduced by half – an unwelcome change over a period in which the inmate population has increased by about twenty percent.  Many of those who have applied have been granted release too close to death for the state to see any fiscal benefit, and too late for their families to spend any meaningful time with them.  In some cases, the request has been approved after the inmate has died.  AB 1539 will put procedures in place to ensure that the program operates as it was intended and provides benefit both to taxpayers and to the inmates’ families. 

In addition to making the existing medical release process more effective, AB 1539 will extend it to the most expensive of all inmates — those who are “permanently medically incapacitated,” but are not likely to die within six months.  AB 1539 narrowly defines “permanently medically incapacitated” to include those inmates who are permanently unable to perform activities of daily living and require 24-hour total care due to an irreversible medical condition.  Such conditions include coma, persistent vegetative state, brain death, ventilator-dependency, and loss of control of muscular/neurological function – conditions that prevent any possible risk to the public, and also prevent any further punitive value from continued incarceration.

AB 1539 is a common sense measure that will save a tremendous amount of money that is now wasted on overtime costs and medical expenses for a relatively few inmates.  The effective and carefully-considered release of even a few terminally ill and permanently medically incapacitated inmates, who cannot pose any threat to the public, could potentially save millions of tax dollars that can more appropriately be spent on other policies and programs that will make a real difference in keeping Californians safe.  At the same time, this measure allows families the chance to heal, and allows inmates to receive appropriate end-of-life medical and hospice care. 

In response to the prison overcrowding crisis, Governor Schwarzenegger recently observed that “release of the old, feeble, and sick who pose no threat to the public” could be an approach to overcrowding that he would support.  AB 1539 is just such an approach.  It is a bill that simultaneously promotes fiscal responsibility and public safety, and the Governor should sign it into law. 

This article written by: Former Assemblymember Hannah-Beth Jackson of Speak out California

It’s quite amazing how the Constitution of our country seems to come through—even to skeptics who think it’s an antiquated or unrealistic set of principles. While those who don’t support its freedoms try  numerous tricks and subterfuge to undermine it (unfortunately, with some success), it nonetheless remains an extraordinary living and breathing document.  The most precarious of these principles, particularly “in time of war” is the First Amendment, dealing with the right of free speech. That’s the one that reads,

  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It seems that we have recently seen so many challenges to our rights and freedom in this country by the very people who are in charge of its government and are supposed to be preserving and protecting those very rights as defined by our constitution. They are often the very people who do not want the voices of the people to be raised in free and open exchange of ideas or criticism. Consider: All Saints Church in Pasadena, where its Pastor spoke openly against the war in Iraq and the IRS tried to challenge its tax-exempt status. Just this week, the IRS announced it was withdrawing its coercive effort. Then there is Erwin Chemerinsky,  the highly regarded constitutional scholar who was chosen to be the Dean of the newly created U.C. Irvine Law School, only to see his apppointment withdrawn by the Chancellor of the University in response to right-wingers who disagree with Chemerinsky’s  interpretation of the Constitution. But freedom of speech prevailed and after great public outcry, that appointment was properly restored.

And then we have the contrived assault on an organization that dared to challenge the accuracy of a report to Congress about the Iraqi War from its general in charge. By playing off of General Patreus’ name, MoveOn.org questioned whether or not he should be called General “Betray us”, given his less than straight-forward or candid assessment of what is truly going on in Iraq.  Did MoveOn have the right to say what it did? Absolutely. Was it controversial and perhaps in “bad taste”.  Was the young man who challenged Senator Kerry in Florida slightly obnoxious? While many of us might find the comments and behavior to be distasteful and wouldn’t have approached the discussion in similar fashion, where in the Constitution does it say you have to be polite in the exercise of one’s right to speak?  But this is all obfuscation and distraction from the real issue here: The Truth.

Was the information in Move-On’s article accurate? Was the challenge to Patreus’ claims legitimate? Did MoveOn have the constitutional right to do what it did? The answer is an unequivocal yes. Remember, this ad was simple speech, well-documented allegations and challenges to a stone-deaf administration that refuses to listen to the American people or acknowledge what the rest of the world has long known: This war has been a complete failure

Did their ad rise to the level of a Congressional rebuke? Absolutely not. But it would be hard to challenge the facts that they so studiously included . So, in keeping with the way the Bush administration and its apologists respond whenever they are caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they attacked the messenger, since they can’t attack the message because it is true. Think of Richard Holbrook, Joe Wilson (and Valerie Plame), just to name a few who have been vilified for speaking the truth about this administration’s lies and deceptions.

Shouldn’t we be focused instead on the CONTENT of the objection, rather than either the messenger, in MoveOn’s case (a liberal group)or the delivery of that message? The answer for MoveOn’s supporters is clearly “yes” and we are likely to see more, rather than fewer attacks on the administration’s orchestrated misinformation in the days and weeks ahead.

But for proof of the real success and genius of this country’s set of principles, as embodied by Article One of the Bill of Rights we need only to  look to the response to Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remarks at Columbia University yesterday. Clearly, the man is a loose cannon. His claims and statements are not credible and he did not serve his cause well. But isn’t it better to let him speak, to allow the people to see for themselves just who and what this divisive and out-of-touch demagogue really is? Shouldn’t we be trusting that the people can decide for themselves after hearing all points-of-view? Ahmadinejad may be a madman, but he’s also the leader of a very significant player in the Middle East. Isn’t it better to know the enemy, see how he thinks and thus be better equipped to deal with him? Or is it just for the “decider” to know—since we can surely trust his judgment and understanding of what motivates this hostile regime to do what it does and threatens to do?

And isn’t this exactly what America has stood for in the world–a place where people can come and express their differences in a peaceful yet passionate way, without fear of reprisal or sanction?  We can differ, and we must often agree to disagree, but one thing we should not disagree about is the power and sanctity of the First Amendment to our Constitution. We are a nation with a proud tradition of openness. We understand that speech is basically the articulation of ideas and opinions. It is why we let people speak when their hearts are full of hate and anger; why we allow people to stand on soap boxes and express opinions that are neither logical or coherent; It is, after all, what we are fighting for when we call out to protect liberty and freedom.

We must remember, however, that the fight for those freedoms begins first at home. Let us not forget that this right is what sets us apart from countries like Iran where there is no such freedom to dissent. It is our glorious tradition of openness and candor  that is among our greatest contributions to the world. With that freedom we have been able to discuss, debate and disagree our way into greatness of purpose and action. This is the gift our Founding Fathers gave us. This is the great tradition that nations have tried either to squelch through dictatorship or emulate through democracy. We are its bastion and its protector. We must rejoice in the debate and not allow those in power to destroy it. Otherwise, we become like the nations we so reject–where there is no freedom and no opportunity for  dissent, nations like Iran. We are better and must be better. Let us honor the tradition of openness in America. It has always served us well.

This article written by: Former Assemblymember Hannah-Beth Jackson of Speak Out California

A weekly update on the goings-on in Sacramento
For the week ending September 22, 2007

Key bills and issues we’ve been following during the past week and beyond

Now that the regular session of the legislature has ended and a variety of bills are waiting the Governor’s approval or veto, the special session is in full gear. The big battles over water and health care reform have taken over the stage front- and -center. And with Hillary Clinton’s unveiling of her version of healthcare reform, the issue has become even more prevalent in political debate not only in California, but nationwide.

With a new report from the Public Policy Institute of California coming out this week as well, we’ve seen how the failure to produce meaningful healthcare reform and a swift resolution of the annual budget stand-off has impacted the popularity of our Governor and the legislature. Not good news for either side.

Talk of ballot initiatives already moving along, plus threats of new ones emerging for 2008 continue to gain public attention and comment. With the veto last week by the Governor of the Iraq War initiative, which would have allowed Californians to register their opinion on that military and political fiasco, some of the interest has been muted in the early measures, but there is still enough out there (not the least of which are the Presidential primaries) to keep the public interested for the next several months.

And now for the week’s goings-on please visit our website HERE

This article written by: Former Assemblymember Hannah-Beth Jackson of Speak Out California

The American people are getting to be more and more like the frog in the pot of water. You know the analogy—if you put a frog in water and slowly up the heat, the frog doesn’t know when he’s getting cooked until the water is just about boiling and his fate is sealed because he can’t jump out.  Ive been feeling that this is what is happening to the American people recently and we’re not yet aware that the first amendment, like the frog, is being destroyed by a slow, but sure attack on dissent.

Today I awoke to a plea from the folks at MoveOn.org asking that I call my U.S. Senators and urge them to reject an attempt by Senate Republicans to condemn Move On for its ad last week regarding the testimony of General Patreus. If you recall, they referred to him as “General Betrayus” for what they claimed was a dishonest and slanted analysis on the progress of the so-called “surge” strategy that Bush and his cronies imposed upon Congress, the American people, and most importantly our soldiers and the Iraqi people.

This shameless ploy reminds me of one of the most fundamental strategies recommended when you’re being attacked and can’t respond effectively because the facts are simply against you. Don’t try to respond, just attack the messenger. By deflecting attention from the substance of what is being said, the focus moves from the issue to the character of who is sending the message. It is a strategy that the Bush administration has employed since its beginning. Every time the Emperor is observed walking without clothes, and that pesky child yells that the Emperor is naked, the Bush media machine (Fox News and others) steps in and attacks the child as being blind, or crazy, or both, or in the case of the Bush years, of being disloyal and unpatriotic.

It is not new that dissent is characterized as disloyalty. During times of war (that is REAL war, like World War 2) there was an effort to keep Americans focused on the battle, and dissent, as limited as it may be, was kept in check while our soldiers fought off the Nazi’s and Imperial Japan.  Think more dramatically about after that war, when Joseph McCarthy established his drunken and reckless reign of terror on the American people, using Communism as the “War” we were fighting and using anyone who ever read a book by Karl Marx as a scapegoat.

Fast forward to today, where the “War on Terror” has replaced the War on Communism as the war de jour. While the threat of terrorism is real, the threat of losing our democratic way of life appears to be even more real and immediate in our country today. It was one of our great sages who observed that democracy will never be defeated from without, it will only be defeated from within.

Are we at that stage where the cancer of extremism within our country, the lack of an open, free and independent press has extinguished an honest and open debate on the issues, where our President believes he is king and not subject to the checks and balances of the co-equal branch of government we call Congress? Is democracy being threatened from within?
The Founding Fathers of our country made it abundantly clear that the key to our democracy is a free and open press by which we can educate, debate and communicate our beliefs, opinions and knowledge.  Thomas Jefferson observed that we must make sure people have the necessary information to make intelligent and clear decisions and that we must do so through educating them. And in keeping with the spirit, I’m providing the actual quote from Jefferson to avoid being attacked as unpatriotic for suggesting we educate people as to the facts:

  “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves;
  and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome
  discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.
  This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

So where are we today? We have a US Senate that this week couldn’t find the will to give our troops a respite from war by providing them the opportunity to rest and refresh back home before redeployments (the Senator Webb amendment) but can find the time to castigate a grass-roots organization for calling out the general on the ground in Iraq for his  less than candid appraisal of the success/failure of his mission. Is this really happening?

Where are we when a slightly obnoxious and insolent young man asks pointed questions to former presidential candidate and U.S. Senator John Kerry about his early capitulation of the 2004 Presidential race and gets hauled away by police for asking these pointed questions? How well is our democracy functioning when a public institution of higher education pulls the appointment of a leading and highly respected constitutional scholar, to lead California’s newest law school after the announcement is made because he is too liberal and too outspoken in his opinions about the constitution for a cabal of influential right-wing extremists? Although reason and good judgment ultimately prevailed and Professor Chemerinsky will lead this new academic endeavor, how is it that we have become so unwilling to let the voices of disagreement and dissent speak?

While many of us have strong differences of opinion on any number of issues, and clearly the level of intensity has risen as the right-wing of this country has gotten more extreme and more entrenched, it is nonetheless a nation of ideas and differences of opinion that we honor and cherish.  The freedom to speak, to debate, to disagree, to object, to challenge and to dissent are among this nation’s finest traditions. 

Is it necessary to agree with MoveOn’s strategy—with the hostile young man in Florida, with the right-wing ideologues who are still running this country and sadly the majority of our news media? Certainly not. But to attempt to silence their voices because we may disagree is to let the enemies of democracy and freedom win. Let’s face it: The Emperor has been naked for some time. It’s way beyond the time that we stop pretending he’s dressed in his finery. It’s time we exercise the courage of a young child and call out the facts as we see them and insist that we be able to do so. To be silent or allow ourselves to be intimidated into silence is not an option.

This article written by: Former Assemblymember Hannah- Beth Jackson of Speak Out California

A weekly update on the goings-on in Sacramento

For the week ending September 15, 2007

Key bills and issues we’ve been following during the

past week and beyond

The final days of this year’s regular session ended in the wee-hours of the morning, September 13 around 3:30am. At that moment, the Speaker banged the gavel, announced that the session had ended and likely declared victory of some kind for the work that had been done. The drama was somewhat undercut, however, by the fact that the Governor had already called a “Special Session” to consider the healthcare and water issues that were not resolved during the regular legislative year, thus extending the legislative year for some additional period of time.

A variety of bills were sent to the Governor’s desk for signature and veto, a few of which have already been acted upon. With the Term Limits/Extension initiative taking front-and-center in the decisions being made on the floor and behind the scenes, the session produced lots of buzz and intrigue during its final days. Purely political decisions always do play in the equation (various interest groups try to jam bills through at the final hour when few are watching or awake enough to notice). This year the dance was made even more delicate by this all-consuming focus on pleasing the public, enough to justify their vote to extend the terms of current term-out members (particularly the leadership of both houses and both parties) in the February primary.

Ballot initiatives continue to grab headlines as the California Democratic Party has announced an aggressive and pro-active effort to keep the electoral vote-splitting initiative off the June, 2008 ballot. But a redistricting initiative will not be showing up in time for the February ballot, putting the Term Limits/Extension measure at risk. Nor will the Iraq War initiative, since the Governor made short shrift of it by veto earlier in the week. While perhaps restoring some of his lost credibility with his own party, the Gov. dropped the hammer on one of his appointees at the behest of 34 NRA-beholden legislators, further dampening the ability of those given certain responsibilities from carrying them out appropriately—in the Alberto Gonzales/ George Bush mold. But there is so much more, so we’ll get to the details, but first:

If you like the work we’ve been doing at Speak Out California, with our regular weekly updates which provide inside commentary and analysis on what is going on in our state capital, we hope you’ll support our work by making a contribution to Speak Out California.

At Speak Out California we provide the facts and the commentary that keep you informed on what is really happening in our state. We don’t take any advertising or corporate sponsorships, so you know that we are not beholden to any group or special interest. Our commitment is simply to provide uncompromising reporting and analysis of what is happening in our state from the progressive perspective. If you can pledge $10, $25, $50 a month, we can continue to keep you in-the-know and keep the progressive voice alive in California. Just click here to support our work in keeping California’s progressive voice alive.

And now for the week’s goings-on :

SB840/Universal Health Care and AB8 and the Governor’s Special Session

The watered down compromise healthcare bill, AB 8, continued front-and-center until the very end of the session and beyond. With too many loose ends, last minute amendments and objections thereto, the Governor promised a veto and AB 8 won’t become law. Nor will Senator Kuehl’s true reform healthcare measure, calling for a Medicare type system to cover all Californians and still have us choose our own doctors. Kuehl has held the bill for the year and didn’t choose to move it to the Governor where he indicated he would veto it for a second time. The best explanation of the real crux of the debate between a universal health care system and the “compromise” in AB 8, is Senator Kuehl’s speech on the Senate floor explaining her “no” vote on that measure. For her remarks click here .

Now the Governor has moved the healthcare reform issue into a special session, which theoretically allows the debate to continue. This way the time period in which the legislature and Governor can try to reach a satisfactory agreement and get a bill signed into law this year continues, even though the final bell has been rung for the 2007 legislative year. In practice, though, it is considered unlikely that anything substantive will come from this extension of time, at least in this special session. While Speaker Nunez is anxious to get something out, so the public will think much has been accomplished by this group of legislators, the Senate doesn’t seem quite so interested in ramming through a bill that isn’t fully cooked, or frankly, viable.

Although we’ve discussed this issue with numerous articles and links to them over the past several months, click here for an excellent update by Adam Thompson. 

Of course there are many commentaries on this hot and very important subject, so if you’re so inclined, click here for another by Steve Wiegand at the Sac Bee that might be of interest as well. 

The Governor also wants the special session to include a discussion on the state’s perennial water problems. Of particular concern is what we can and must do to protect against a Katrina-like disaster with the precarious condition of the state’s levees-particularly in the important Sacramento Delta region. The Governor’s plans for spending $5.9 billion on water projects have stalled almost completely, in part because he is proposing antiquated approaches (damming rivers and building reservoirs) as solutions and because these issues have little connection to dealing with the immediate concerns the state is facing. For more information on this complex and often mind-numbing discussion, click here for the SacBee’s editorial.

Other Bills and Legislative offerings

With more than 2,800 bills offered and about 960 reaching the governor’s desk, the conclusion of whether the session was a success or failure is the question of the day. The answer, though, really depends on who you ask. Did the year end with a bang? Yes, if you’re a legislator hoping to extend your political life by getting the public behind the term-limits/extension initiative in February, 2008. No if you’re a political “expert” or “analyst”.  It’s really the old half-full/half-empty debate. Those who see the glass half-empty have referred to the year as one of “missed opportunities.”

Of course, if you are among those who benefited from a piece of legislation, it was a fine year. And among them would be those wanting to see young people drive without the distraction of cell phones, text messaging and other electronic devices. While this may sound comforting, unfortunately, this behavior alone will not engender a ticket. Rather, a ticket can be written for violating this new law only if there is some other violation that occurs which attracts an officer’s attention.

The Gov signed Senator Joe Simitian’s SB 33, no driving with cell-phone if you’re under 18 law, this past week. While many of us would like to see this no cell phone edict on ALL drivers, the cell phone industry is one tough special interest, and getting this sanity into law has proven a long-term and arduous task for Simitian. I’m sure the Senator’s response would be that this is a good start.

The Governor also took out his veto pencil and cut Senate Leader Don Perata’s bill that would send the question of the Iraqi War to the voters in February. We predicted this veto (not really rocket science, I confess), but the Governor doesn’t disappoint when it comes to hypocrisy. Here’s the Governor “of the people”, who believes the people should decide important issues, which is the reason he spent $40million of public money on a series of misguided ballot measures designed to stifle his opponents back in November, 2005. In this case, though, he vetoed this measure explaining (with a straight face, I’m sure) that to allow this measure on the ballot would be “divisive and shift attention away from other critical issues that must be addressed”. So much for consistency.  Check out the article here.

There are several hundred bills that he’ll be looking to sign or veto over the next 30 days or so. Among the more contentious are bills to require manufacturers of semi-automatic pistols to etch the make, model and serial number on each cartridge fired of each new gun produced after 2010 (AB 1471, by Mike Feuer); Gay-marriage  (Mark Leno’s second go round on this—Schwarzenegger having vetoed it last year); and just about any environmental bill that made its way off the floors of both houses—and very few did. The big exception here is that several key flood control measures did pass, although not the entire package that is required (hence the Gov’s call for a special session to address some of those unresolved issues). But on the whole, opportunities to advance important consumer and environmental protections were defeated by the influx of money and corporate influences. These bills either outright lost or were deferred until next year’s session, even though they should have been passed this year. To see what did get through the legislative process, check out one article from the LA Times and another from the Mercury News .

Shenanigans and other goings-on

Two particularly unsettling events occurred this week that are worthy of note here. The first was the hiring and firing of Erwin Chemerinsky who was to head the newly created UC Irvine Law School, the second was the firing of Fish and Game commissioner, R. Judd Hanna. What marks these two events is the lack of respect or appreciation for differences of opinion and the intimidation effect when experts express opinions that are considered too controversial or don’t follow a party line.

With Erwin Chemerinsky, it seems that this highly respected expert and constitutional scholar was hired by the Chancellor of UC Irvine to be the first dean of its newly created law school. Although well-acknowledged as a liberal, Chemerinsky is nonetheless highly respected by all points of view within the legal community and beyond. This was quite a coup for UC Irvine at the time. However, within a week of the announcement of his hiring, Irvine Chancellor Michael V. Drake withdrew the offer. Although refusing to provide any explanation for the sudden turn-around, it is believed that right-wing pressure was exerted so heavily on the University that it reneged. So much for academic freedom and excellence, it seems. For more on this story, check out our weblog.

This highly publicized and criticized fiasco has created an enormous backlash and there are now sounds that the rescission will be rescinded and if Chemerinsky is so inclined, the offer will be extended again. Who’s on first here?

The other mischief involves the Governor’s own February, 2007 appointment of R. Judd Hanna to the California Fish and Game Commission. What was Hanna’s offense warranting his firing? He performed the duties he was obligated to perform as a member of this commission in sharing information with other commissioners that showed conclusively, in his opinion, that lead ammunition did, indeed put condors and other wildlife at risk of death and illness. This, of course, infuriated the NRA, which was actively opposing a measure that would outlaw lead shots. Doing their bidding, 34 Republican legislators sent a letter to the governor early this week demanding Hanna’s removal from the Commission.

Interestingly, Hanna is a Republican, a retired Navy pilot and Vietnam War veteran. He is also a hunter, fisherman, farmer, former real estate developer and campaign contributor to the Gov. Not exactly your wild-eyed, tree-hugging type. But the truth is apparently short-lived when the NRA and 34 Republican legislators go after you.

In this era when dissent is rewarded by firings and humiliation, we can only hope that our Founding Fathers are far too busy in the after-life to pay any attention to what has happened to the brilliant system of government they envisioned and created back in the days when we valued, indeed encouraged respectful debate and disagreement. What has happened to us that we can no longer tolerate healthy and respectful opposition?

Initiatives on the move and not moving at all

As mentioned earlier, the Legislature adjourned without giving the Gov. the initiative he most badly wanted—redistricting. This outcome is just political reality in today’s world. To expect those in power to give it up willingly just defies history and probably human nature as well. Few, if any groups in history, have willingly or voluntarily given up power once they acquire it. The last time redistricting was taken out of the hands of the legislature in California, it was put in that of a court that ordered redistricting to be done by a body of retired jurists back in the late 80’s. Short of litigation and another court order, it will take an extraordinary act, if not miracle, to accomplish this goal. Of course, if it were to be done uniformly across the country, then we might be talking. But the chances of that happening in the foreseeable future is extremely slim.

Although the current legislature is desperate to get the term limits/extension initiative passed, it is clear that the price for the Governor’s support would be an accompanying measure to take redistricting out of the hands of the legislature and into the hands of some kind of impartial commission. Other than human nature, the problem with crafting this measure really focuses on the details: Who appoints them? Who are they? How many of them will there be? Will Congressional districts be included (an absolute no-no for Speaker Pelosi and the Congressional Dems ) and lastly but by no means least, “Why California and not other states like Texas and  Ohio—where the Republican controlled legislatures have padded the lines to protect themselves in as much an embarrassing, gerrymandering way (if not worse) as here in California?” Too many questions and too little shared political will tanked this one again, even with the enticement of support from the Gov. for the term-limits/extension initiative.

The real explosive measure that we’ve been talking about continues to gain reverse momentum. The California Democratic Party has come out swinging to beat back a Republican party ploy to recast how California electoral votes will be counted in the upcoming presidential election. The CDP is going all-out to confront the paid signature gatherers at the shopping centers and grocery stores where they go to often deceive or mislead registered voters into signing the petitions to qualify initiatives for the ballot. The CD Party’s announced goal is to defeat the measure at the signature gathering stage and ward off what will otherwise be an enormously expensive battle. For the Reps, it would be a win-win. If they qualify the Electoral College vote splitting initiative, and lose, they will still have forced the Dems to siphon off millions of dollars they would otherwise spend on candidates and issues. If the Reps win, they take the whole enchilada—and we’ll have another Republican disaster to contend with in the White House. Of course, the way the Reps are going these days, who knows? But the national Dems don’t want to risk that, no matter how well things may be looking at the moment for a Democratic sweep in ’08.  Here is the Mercury News article covering this.

The Rest of the Story

Our blogging offerings for the week:

How I got through 700 Bills in 7 days —a look into the hectic end-of-session process

Cowardice and fear of honest debate at UC Irvine–the Chemerinsky debacle

To read and comment on these entries, just go to: www.speakoutca.org/weblog/

We hope you are enjoying these weekly update. We need your help to keep reporting these stories and insights on a regular basis. To keep you informed and California moving toward a progressive future, will you become a supporter? Just click here and help us continue our weekly updates.

As always, we welcome your comments and suggestions and hope you will send this newsletter to your friends and other like-minded progressives. Urge them to sign up to Speak Out California and keep the progressive voice alive!

Remember, you can help support the work of Speak Out California by making a contribution here  

Until next week,

Hannah-Beth Jackson and the Speak Out California Team