As you all probably know, the UC Board of Regents voted on Thursday to increase student fees by 32% (15% for spring quarter and an additional 15% next year).  In protest to the fee increase and a variety of other serious problems facing the UC community and public education in California as a whole, students have occupied school buildings throughout the state.

Below the fold is a press release from UC Santa Cruz students currently occupying Kerr Hall and Kresge Town Hall.

Letter of Discontent 11/21/09

From: An Autonomous Group of Students Occupying UCSC

We are a group of students dynamically and peacefully participating in the reformation of our California public higher education system, aligned with Clark Kerr’s ideals that education should be accessible to all, regardless of economic means. The 32% increase in student fees is a direct product of structural failures in California’s political and economic system; the dire threat to accessibility this creates has prompted us to occupy our University spaces.

With drastically increasing student fees, insulting cuts to workers’ hours, diminishing academic programs, and increasing privatization of this public institution, many of us are appalled and outraged. Across the UC system we are paying more for less – class sizes are growing, students are being denied access to essential classes, and vital student services are facing cuts. We want change and are committed to achieving it nonviolently.

We actively engaged students have taken back Kerr Hall and Kresge Town Hall to further this cause, which is supported by many faculty members, staff, and local union groups. We have taken these spaces to continue the vocalization of our dissent against the slow death of public education. We are utilizing these spaces to further organize our movement against the unjust decisions of those governing the UC system. The education of hundreds of thousands of Californians depends on the redesign of the California higher education system’s priorities, budget, and plans.

We are not alone and we do not act merely in self-interest. We acknowledge that certain actions have been controversial; however, we are in agreement that we must take measures to grow the movement and catalyze positive change. We are extremely grateful for the support we have received from faculty and workers at UCSC and many others too numerous to name. We urge everyone concerned about the future of education in California to learn and get involved in the public process. The priorities of California’s economic structure need to be redefined using a variety of collective actions. Our occupation is one of these methods and is contingent on the demands that have been received by the administration and we will continue to push for their adoption.

The demands mentioned were a consolidated set of seven demands, chosen from a larger list of goals and demands, that UCSC has the ability to enact on their own and immediately.  They are as follows:

I. Total amnesty for all individuals involved in current and past student protest concerning budget cuts, including Brian Glasscock & Olivia Egan-Rudolph

II. Keep all resource centers open under the management of individual directors: Engaging Education, Women’s Resource Center, Ethnic Resource Center, CANTU, etc.

III. Making UCSC a safe campus by protecting all undocumented (AB540) students and workers through non-cooperation with ICE.

IV. Renege the 15% cut in labor time for UCSC custodians

V. Prohibit rent in Family Student Housing from exceeding that of operating costs in order to keep it affordable.

VI. Freeze on layoffs to all campus employees.

VII. Guaranteed funding through employment or fee remissions for both graduate students who have lost TAships and undergraduate students who have lost work-study positions

(Great letter – promoted by blogswarm)

It’s been a week now and I’ve finally gotten the time to write a letter in response to Chris Thompson’s article “Tauscher’s a Tough Target” where he states that Calitics “contributors could find only a few local politicos who don’t care for Tauscher – one of them a high school student.”  I’m proud to be that high school student even if Thompson believes that means my opinion is less valuable.  The letter is as follows…

I’m very disappointed with Chris Thompson’s article “Tauscher’s a Tough Target”

I was indirectly mentioned in his article as an example of the lack of support for Moulitsas and Working for Us in district 10.  He implied that surely there can be little support if a high school student, such as myself, is getting recognition on the issue.  Surely a high school student’s opinion is not as valuable as one of an adult.  He failed to mention that I am a voting high school student, Youth Outreach Coordinator of the Lamorinda Democratic Club, and currently working to create the Contra Costa County Young Democrats. 

It is the belief promoted in Thompson’s article, that some are less worthy to have an opinion, that was the focus of my blog about Tauscher in the first place.  Her pro-corporate attitude was not my target but rather her stance that politics is for politicians and that the people should just smile, nod, and fund her campaign that turned me off of her. 

Robert Kennedy once said, “All great questions must be raised by great voices, and the greatest voice is the voice of the people – speaking out – in prose, or painting or poetry or music; speaking out – in homes and halls, streets and farms, courts and cafes – let that voice speak and the stillness you hear will be the gratitude of mankind.”  Well, Mr. Thompson and Congresswoman Tauscher, we are speaking.

(If Bush doesn’t meet with the Progressive Caucus, would that make Tauscher a liar? – promoted by blogswarm)

I’ve been fighting over whether or not to post a second blog.  I got so much support from my previous blog I hardly knew what to do and I don’t in anyway want to lose that support by saying moderately nice things about the person I had gotten so much encouragement for lambasting earlier.  That said, I feel an obligation that if I am going to write at all, I need to write as honestly as I can.

Shortly after posting my last blog, I found out that Tauscher would be speaking for the Rossmoor Democrats on Tuesday, December 19.  I figured I would go, witness something similar to what I had seen at the Mt. Diablo Peace Center meeting, and write another anti-Tauscher blog.  Oddly enough, when I arrived at the meeting 45 minutes late (I thought it started at 11), I did not find the hostile Congresswoman I had seen before.  Maybe it was the vicodin (I had gotten my wisdom teeth removed the previous day) but this Tauscher seemed a lot more calm, comfortable, and polite.  She still said quite a few things I’m not too fond of but it was a lot better than before.  This is in no way an endorsement of Tauscher, I still refuse to vote for her, but it is a bit more positive than what I wrote before or have seen here in the blogosphere.

When I arrived, the question was on the topic of healthcare.  The questioner wanted to know how citizens could get onto a healthcare plan similar to that which members of Congress receive.  Tauscher’s response surprised me greatly.  She said that it wasn’t Congress’s healthcare plan we wanted because she pays for her healthcare just like everyone else.  While this response surprised me and lead me to believe I was going to see the same Tauscher I had seen before,  her continuation was far more reasonable.  She spoke about the need to expand healthcare programs so that everyone, especially children, is covered.  It was a very typical politician speech but it had the right message, everyone needs healthcare.

Next came the topic of Iraq and conflicts in the Middle East.  Tauscher strongly stated that an escalation of troops was a bad idea.  She directly stated, “More is not the answer…less is the answer…none is the answer.”  Beyond being a nice little sound bite, this is the exact stand Democrats need to be taking.  While on the topic of the Middle East, she also brought up combating unemployment in West Bank and Gaza as a way of combating terrorism.  This is something that is so logical it always astounds me that hardly any politicians talk about it.

Her final question was on Bush and her response was both the most admirable and unbelievable of the morning.  She immediately brought up her recent meeting with Bush.  Now this meeting seems to have been one of the things the netroots have been most upset about and understandably so.  However, what she said to us (and I really want to believe she was telling the truth) is she only went to meet with Bush after two things.  First, she talked with Pelosi who urged her to go.  Second, she agreed to go only on the condition that the Progressive Caucus, Black Caucus, and Hispanic Caucus all got similar meetings.

Now, I’m not fully sure that Tauscher was telling the truth.  I believe she met with Pelosi first, it just seems too natural, but I’m more skeptical about the meetings with the other caucuses.  To my knowledge, no such meetings have been reported and Tauscher spoke as if they had already occurred.

If she is telling the truth, I would argue that rather than criticizing her for meeting with Bush we should be thanking her for both following through on Pelosi’s request and creating an opportunity for the other caucuses to meet with the President when otherwise they would never get the chance to directly voice their objections to Bush.  Additionally, if this is the truth, it comes as a further reminder of both the benefits of having someone in the party the Republicans trust and the fact that maybe the resources that would be going toward her primary challenge might be better spent keeping McNerney in office, knocking out Doolittle, or getting Democrats elected in the local races in her district.

If she is not telling the truth, than my initial image of her stands clearer than ever and the first reminder can be completely disregarded.  The second reminder, even in the event that she was lying, still needs to be taken into account but, if she was lying, there is a far stronger case for the “no, the resources would not be better spent” response.

(I did indeed encourage this story to be posted here. It is really is all about Tauscher’s relationship with her constituents. – promoted by juls)

Before I begin I warn you I have never posted a blog before.  I have commented on a few posts at DailyKos and was told by juls that I should post my experience with Tauscher here so here it is.

I am a very active democrat, especially for my age group.  I am 18 years old and a senior at Acalanes High School.  I am the Youth Outreach Coordinator of the Lamorinda Democratic Club, President and Founder of the Acalanes Democratic Club, member of East Bay for Democracy and East Bay Young Democrats, and during the next several months will be working to create a Contra Costa County Young Democrats.  Despite all this involvement, I have only seen Tauscher speak once.  Maybe this is because, as a Congresswoman, Tauscher’s in DC all the time (which I doubt is the reason because I’ve heard Miller speak 3 or 4 times) but I suspect that it is more because she does not like dealing with local clubs knowing that she will be put under the spotlight and actually asked tough questions.  Surprisingly enough she agreed to speak on the topic of Nuclear Bunker Busters and the Possibility of U.S. Intervention in Iran for the Mt. Diablo Peace Center on June 10, 2006.

At the beginning she seemed a bit arrogant but with good policies.  She told us multiple times that we were a smart district and that’s why we have a smart representative (as opposed to all the stupid districts out there) and stated that Kucinich ran for President in 2004 as a ploy to get a girlfriend.  That aside, her policies sounded good.  She made it very clear that she did not approve of how the War in Iraq was being handled,  that she opposed the testing of new nuclear technology, and even promised to sign on to Kucinich’s Department of Peace bill (and she followed through on the promise).

Unfortunately, things began to deteriorate once she started taking questions.  She fielded her questions on Iraq, Iran, and Nuclear Bunker Busters fairly well but the topic soon turned to the midterm elections.  One person asked why the Democrat’s didn’t have a set, united platform.  Tauscher responded that they did.  After multiple people further questioned about what the platform was and why we didn’t know about it, Tauscher expressed her disappointment that we (remember, we’re a smart district) hadn’t done our research and that if we simply went to her website we’d find her policies.  Now, of course this answered no questions because we wanted to know about a united Democratic platform not one Congresswoman’s platform.  Finally one person got to the point and asked the right question.  He wanted a united Democratic platform that was simple and easy for Americans to understand, one similar to the Republican’s Contract with America which helped them win in 1994.  Tauscher paused a moment and then asked the man if he was a professional activist or politician.  The man smiled, shook his head, and responded that he was a doctor.  Tauscher promptly replied that she doesn’t plan on performing surgery just because she saw it on TV.

As you might assume, the meeting ended shortly after that and Tauscher did not stick around to shake hands.  After that meeting I swore I would never vote for Tauscher.  It didn’t matter that she had well thought out answers to the topics of Iraq, Iran, and Nuclear Bunker Busters or that her record on social issues is quite decent.  I wasn’t even taking into account her terribly pro-corporate stance on economics.  I could not and still cannot vote for Tauscher because she does not believe that we the people should run our government.  Her belief that government is for professional activists and politicians undermines all that netroots, grassroots, and the Democratic Party should stand for.  If we want to remain in control of the House and Senate, if we wish to take back the White House, than we’ve got to be the party of the people and it’s Democrats like Tauscher that are standing in our way.