Category Archives: Budget

Bringing the War Home: The Fight for a Real Democratic Majority in CA

Last week Republican Senator Abel Maldonado, SD-15 (Central Coast) broke with his party to vote for the budget. Maldonado has a reputation as a moderate Republican, and he needs it – SD-15, which stretches along some of the most beautiful coastline in the world from Santa Maria to San Jose, has a majority Democratic registration (it’s close, 39.6% D to 37.3% R). Residents here in SD-15 gave 52% of their votes to John Kerry in 2004 and 53% to Boxer. That year, Abel Maldonado was elected to the State Senate with 52% of the vote – the Democratic candidate got 42%, as a Green pulled nearly 7% of the votes cast.

These numbers should all suggest that in a State Senate where we are only 2 votes away from the all-important 2/3 mark, allowing us to avoid crippling budget fights like the one we have now, we should be planning to fight and fight hard to win SD-15 in 2008. It’s a no-brainer, right?

Not so, according to Josiah Greene of the CA Majority Report, who indicates Maldonado will be – and should be – left alone next year. Why I think this is a bad idea, over the flip…

The broader context is absolutely important here. Many of us on Calitics came to blogging from national politics sites like Daily Kos and MyDD. Between 2003 and 2006 we fought hard against the Democratic establishment’s timid campaign strategy of picking just a few districts to focus on in pursuit of a narrow majority. Building on Howard Dean’s call for a 50 state strategy, Democrats at the grassroots, netroots, and more and more from inside the establishment came to realize that if Republicans were to ever be beaten, we had to be competitive in every single state.

This 50 state strategy initially evoked nothing but derision from the DC crowd. Paul Begala memorably denounced it as “hiring people to wander around Utah and Mississippi picking their nose,” a reflection of the unwillingness of many old-school consultants to think boldly and intelligently.

In 2006, as the DCCC seemed intent on repeating its narrow strategy that had failed them in the past, a whole host of campaigns sprouted up in districts across the country – including in California’s Central Valley, where “serious” establishment observers gave Jerry McNerney little chance of unseating the seemingly invincible Richard Pombo.

But it was precisely this shotgun, grassroots approach to the 2006 campaign that returned Democrats to control of Congress. The 30+ seat swing in the House came from all kinds of districts, where moderate and conservative Republicans were beaten in districts where nobody had given Democrats a chance. Even the paragon of moderate Republicanism, Chris Shays, nearly lost his seat.

Surely a national wave of revulsion at Republicans helped make this happen – but to win, you have to show up. Had Dems written off districts like CA-11 we wouldn’t have that majority we now enjoy.

And it also took the realization that no moderate Republican was better than an actual Democrat. Speaker Nancy Pelosi still has her hands full with Blue Dog Democrats, who behave like Republicans – but it’s a far sight better than having a Republican majority. And you can be sure Democrats will not be shy about going after Republicans to help build larger Congressional majorities in 2008.

It would seem sensible, then, that a similar logic should be applied here in California. Abel Maldonado’s district is ripe for the plucking. And despite the CW, Maldonado isn’t that moderate – the Capitol Weekly scorecard rates him at only a 20 (0 is conservative, 100 is progressive) – which is an even lower rating than Tom McClintock! (For the record, Jeff Denham rated only a 5.) On AB 32 – one of the most important pieces of legislation passed by the California legislature in a long time – Maldonado voted NO. How exactly is this someone we want to leave in office?

Greene argues that

Maldonado…is winning kudos across his Senate district for the move….[his] vote will make him palatable to independent voters and Democrats for a future statewide run. Education and labor have elephant-like memories and would be hard-pressed to find reasons to throw millions of dollars in a campaign against Maldonado, given his moderate leanings reflected in the budget vote.

This is the exact kind of thinking that was blown out of the water in 2006 – that we’ve been spending the better part of a decade fighting against. Maldonado is NOT a moderate, and one vote on the budget is by no means enough to suggest we should leave him alone.

Greene may have a point about education and labor, it’s unclear how much they plan to spend on SD-15 (and until the term limits extension initiative is decided on, we’re not going to know who the candidate is). Which brings us to another core element of the new Democratic movement we’ve been building – the need for coordination.

Markos Moulitsas Zúniga and Jerome Armstrong put this well in their 2006 book Crashing the Gate, as they documented how the various constituencies of the Democratic Party had too often refused to coordinate their strategies, and placed their trust in moderate Republicans who repeatedly sold them out instead of in Democrats who were FAR more reliable allies. They contrasted that with the experience of Colorado in 2004, where these progressive groups – from environmentalists to labor unions to educators – worked together to put Democrats in charge of that state’s once notoriously right-wing legislature.

We Californians are familiar with a similar success story – in 2005 a progressive alliance brought down a popular governor’s special election agenda. It required a lot of effort – but then, all political victories do.

It’s time we adopted such a strategy for 2008. Our goal MUST be 2/3 majorities in both houses, and we’re only two votes away in the Senate. SD-15 is a district full of Democrats, who don’t want to be betrayed by Sacramento insiders who haven’t yet caught up with the times. We want them to catch up, though – we need their help.

We have our own version of the 50 state strategy – a 58 county strategy. We have a growing netroots, and a broad and deep progressive activist structure that has delivered victories for us in the past. We have momentum on our side, and now a clear need to put more Democrats in office. Now is NOT the time to be letting any Republicans off the hook.

It may not be politic at this time for people affiliated with the Speaker’s office to be calling for the ouster of the one Republican Senator who has backed us up so far. I get that. But nor does that mean we give him a pass next year. Abel Maldonado is a smart man, he knows that his district is a Democratic district and that we’re going to come hard after him in 2008. We welcome his support on this budget – but we who live in his district are going to still work as hard as ever to kick him out of office in 2008 and replace him with an actual Democrat, one we won’t have to beg to vote the right way on a budget, one who won’t vote against global warming action, one who will rate far better than a mere 20 on the scorecard.

Nunez Sets Strong Conditions for Budget Re-Negotiations

(to bump – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

(cross-posted from Working Californians) Taking the math one step further, the Republicans are demanding they get 74% support for a budget deal.  That is just absurd.

Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) is back in town and fired up, calling the Republicans’ actions “political hostage-taking”.  Brian has audio up on Calitics from Nunzez today.  The Speaker made it very clear that if the Assembly was to re-open budget negotiations, many of the concessions that the Democrats made would be rescinded, as a condition of coming back to the table.  Nunez also reminded folks what the Republicans have been up to in his absence.

The demands on the things that were important to the Senate Republicans changed from time to time.  There seems to be no interest in compromise and clearly the lack of an effective exit strategy for the Senate Republicans.

Nunez stated that he is not interested in re-opening the negotiations, but if there is no budget by August 20th, he would set conditions for actually coming back to the table.  The five month delay in the cost of living adjustments for the SSI program would have to be added back in.  That program aids the blind, disable and elderly.  He would also require that they restore at least a substantial amount of the $1.3 billion taken from transportation funding.

He made it very clear that the Democrats would “not consider any cuts whatsoever to the education programs or to the health and human services safety net.”  Nor will they “entertain discussions of reforms to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) of any kind”.  The Republicans to tie the hands of Jerry Brown’s ability to go after greenhouse gas emissions under the ability granted to him in CEQA.  Arnold has also announced his opposition to including that in the budget negotiations.

The Speaker points out the hypocrisy of the Republicans demanding tax cuts, at the same time they are arguing for a zero operating deficit, saying they are “mutually inconsistent”.  He also notes that 82 out of the 120 members of the state legislature are already supporting the legislature.  That is 68% of the legislature.

The assertion by some in the Senate Republican quarters that by simply getting the Assembly to reconvene, some how magically we would have a budget in California, is totally false.  It is a farce.  It is not true.  It is not going to happen. And even if did, we would not agree to any further cuts, deeper than what we did not like but agreed to in the budget compromise that passed through the Assembly 2.5 weeks ago.

If the Republicans want to come back to the table, they will need to give up some of the things they earned during the original negotiation.  The Assembly Democrats will not agree to anything that cuts things further than what they previously agreed to.  Not exactly, fertile territory for the Republicans to accomplish what they want.  He is taking a welcomed hard line.

From the AP article linked earlier:

“They’re shooting themselves in the foot,” Nunez, D-Los Angeles, said in a telephone interview. “Why would I agree to any budget that is worse for Democrats than the budget that we closed on? I just couldn’t do that.”

August 7, 2007 Blog Roundup

Today’s Blog Roundup is on the flip. Let me know what I missed.

To subscribe by email, click
here and do what comes naturally
.

Budgets are Moral
Documents

Local News

Voting Integrity

All the Rest

A More Permanent Way to Get the Next Vote

A new AP story came down the wire today about possible changes to the budget process.  As this fits well with the discussion on mbayrob's diary, I thought we should keep talking.  So, as the AP sees it, 5 things can happen:

  1. Change to a simple majority vote
  2. Use spending priorities which would automatically cut funds from lower priorities if necessary
  3. Tighten deadlines elsewhere in the process.
  4. Make 2/3 Rule apply elsewhere in the process.
  5. Change the tax structure to allow more local control
  6. Penalize tardiness using innovative penalties (sort of miscellany)

Obviously, I've made my opinion on this clear already: we need to return to democracy by returning to the majority vote requirement. Read the whole story for more details.  Also, we could combine some of these options.  Senator Perata has said he supports reforming the tax structure.  There are many reasonable options, but what is becoming abundantly clear is that the status quo is not one of them.

Getting That Next Vote On the Budget

( – promoted by Robert in Monterey)

A couple of days back, Robert posted Budget Update: One Vote Closer, One Vote Away.  It was an interesting discussion, and I'd like to follow up a bit on it, since we're in a position to start acting on some of the ideas that came up.  The biggest news was also from Robert — there's an effort to recall Jeff Denham, one of the 14 GOP Senate  hold-outs and probably the most politically vulnerable of the bunch.  Go to the flip for how best to Dump Denham.

A short summary of where we're at with the bill. Abel Moldonado, who's up for reelection this year, has flipped to our (and ironically enough, Arnold's) side on this.  This leaves 14 GOP Senators who are on the Other Side on this issue.

The San Francisco Chronicle, very helpfully, lists them all for us, including their phone numbers:

Fourteen of the 15 Republican state senators voted against the budget. Abel Maldonado Jr., R-Santa Maria (Santa Barbara County), voted for it along with the Senate’s 25 Democrats. Here are the 14 holdouts:

Dick Ackerman, R-Irvine, Senate Republican leader
Age: 64
Birthplace: Long Beach
Education: UC Berkeley, Hastings College of the Law
Elected to Assembly in 1995, Senate in 2000
Previous occupation: attorney
Contact: (916) 651-4033, [email protected]

Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto
Senate Republican whip
Age: 56
Birthplace: Long Beach
Education: MAI-RM professional designation, Appraisal Institute
Elected to Assembly in 2000, Senate in 2006
Previous occupation: real estate appraiser
Contact: (916) 651-4014, [email protected]

Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley (Nevada County)
Age: 61
Birthplace: Bismarck, N.D.
Education: UCLA, Golden Gate University
Elected to the Assembly in 1998, Senate in 2002
Previous occupation: oral surgeon
Contact: (916) 651-4004, [email protected]

Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield
Age: 53
Birthplace: Long Beach
Education: College of the Sequoias, Cal State Bakersfield
Elected to Assembly in 1996, Senate in 2002
Previous occupation: county supervisor
Contact: (916) 651-4018, [email protected]

James Battin, R-La Quinta (Riverside County)
Age: 45
Birthplace: Billings, Mont.
Education: University of Oregon
Elected to Assembly in 1994, Senate in 2000
Previous occupation: advertising executive
Contact: (916) 651-4037, [email protected]

Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks (Sacramento County)
Age: 69
Birthplace: Holdenville, Okla.
Education: University of San Diego, Golden Gate University
Elected to Assembly in 1998, Senate in 2004
Previous occupation: businessman
Contact: (916) 651-4001, [email protected]

Jeff Denham, R-Salinas
Age: 40
Birthplace: Hawthorne (Los Angeles County)
Education: Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
Elected to Senate in 2002
Previous occupation: agricultural businessman
Contact: (916) 651-4012, [email protected]

Robert Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga (San Bernardino County)
Age: 56
Birthplace: Lincoln, Neb.
Education: Los Angeles Valley College
Elected to Assembly in 2002, Senate in 2004
Previous occupation: real estate investment/management
Contact: (916) 651-4031, [email protected]

Tom Harman, R-Huntington Beach ( Orange County)
Age: 66
Birthplace: Pasadena
Education: Loyola University School of Law, Kansas State University
Elected to Assembly in 2000, Senate in 2006 (special election)
Previous occupation: attorney
Contact: (916) 651-4035, [email protected]

Dennis Hollingsworth, R-Murrieta (Riverside County)
Age: 40
Birthplace: Hemet (Riverside County)
Education: Cornell University, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
Elected to Assembly in 2000, Senate in 2002
Previous occupation: farmers’ representative
Contact: (916) 651-4036, [email protected]

Bob Margett, R-Arcadia (Los Angeles County)
Age: 78
Birthplace: Los Angeles
Education: UC Berkeley
Elected to Assembly in 1995 (special election), Senate in 2000
Previous occupation: retired contractor
Contact: (916) 651-4029, [email protected]

Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks (Ventura County)
Age: 51
Birthplace: White Plains, N.Y.
Education: UCLA
Elected to Assembly in 1982 and 1996, Senate in 2000
Previous Occupation: taxpayer advocate
Contact: (916) 651-4019, [email protected]

George C. Runner Jr., R-Lancaster (Los Angeles County)
Age: 55
Birthplace: Scotia, N.Y.
Education: University of Redlands, Azusa Pacifica University
Elected to Assembly in 1996, Senate in 2004
Previous occupation: educator, businessman, mayor of Lancaster
Contact: (916) 651-4017, [email protected]

Mark Wyland R-Solana Beach (San Diego County)
Age: 60
Birthplace: Escondido (San Diego County)
Education: Columbia University, Pomona College
Elected to Assembly in 2000, Senate in 2006
Previous occupation: small business owner; Escondido Union School District Board trustee
Contact: (916) 651-4038, [email protected]

In the previous thread, modem points out that Ackerman, Battin, Margett and McClintock are term’ed out, and can’t be pressured by running someone against them. And the districts are fairly well gerrymandered, so the remaining districts are not really competitive.

Still, two points of pressure remain.  Many of these districts are in the Central Valley, and as sylvestrie points out in our Spanish language edition, not only are the cuts the Cavemen are seeking bad for the sick, the old and poor, it is also gratuitously anti-Mexican.

In addition, Jeff Denham, who ran as a relative moderate in a district that includes Salinas and Modesto, is an ambitious guy and appears to be preparing a run for Lt. Governor.  Herein lies an opportunity.  Denham is trying to throw some good solid chum out to GOP activists by tacking right.  So a campaign’s been started to recall Denham.

I’ve been told that some of the local labor people are concerned about diverting resources to this, which is not a foolish objection.  But I think it’s our best chance to make a difference, for the following reasons:

  • It creates a simple rallying cry on the issue, and lets us put a face on GOP obstructionism.
  • People from outside the district can help publicize this, and people within can handle the recall petitions.
  • As this picks up steam, it gives a press hook for covering the story.
  • It will make an example out of Republican politicians who run right in the primaries, center on the general, and right when elected.

A relatively simple site is up at http://www.dumpdenha….  The site’s a bit lame (apologies to the webmaster if you’re reading this, but if you are: help is available!), and needs content, but that can be fixed.

In addition, I understand that getting Maldonado to switch required a fair bit of community organization: people calling churches, local groups, and so on.  That needs to happen here, as well.

Putting enough pressure on Denham may or may not get him to switch, but I do think that if we cause enough trouble, it will encourage the Republican leadership in the Senate to cut their losses and settle much quicker than otherwise.

August 5, 2007 Blog Roundup

Today’s Blog Roundup is on the flip. Let me know what I missed.

To subscribe by email, click
here and do what comes naturally
.

Feinstein’s Betrayal

[I generally
refrain from editorializing in the blog roundups, and there are a
couple less outraged posts in this list, but I want to answer a
question that CANNONFIRE asks.  The reason that Nancy Pelosi
takes the blame right along with Feinstein, even though Pelosi voted
against the legalization of Bushco’s warrantless wiretapping, is
because Pelosi is the Speaker
of the House
.  Did any bill, any bill at all, get
to the House floor while DeLay and Hastert ran the show if they didn’t
want a vote on it? I think not. One might think that a majority of the
majority rule for floor votes might actually be appropriately applied
to, oh I don’t know… not legitimizing lawbreaking by the unitary
executive.]

Voting Integrity

Budgets are Moral
Documents

Local Stuff

What’s Left

August 3, 2007 Blog Roundup

Today’s Blog Roundup is on the flip. Let me know what I missed.

To subscribe by email, click
here and do what comes naturally
.

Have a great weekend.

Budgets are Moral
Documents

Voting Integrity

State and Local Electoral
Politics

Water

Other Points of Interest

August 2, 2007 Blog Roundup

(Bumping back up. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Today’s Blog Roundup is on the flip. Let me know what I missed.

To subscribe by email, click
here and do what comes naturally
.

Budgets are Moral
Documents

All the Rest

From the Twin Cities to the City by the Bay: Republicans Gut Infrastructure Repair Funding

I doubt I was the only Californian who had some nasty feelings of déjà vu upon seeing the reports from the horrific collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minnesota. I still vividly remember Game 3 of the 1989 World Series being knocked off the air by the Loma Prieta quake, and one of the first scenes shown by the news was of the collapsed Interstate 880 in West Oakland. I also remember being rudely awoken by the 1994 Northridge quake, and seeing the footage of the collapsed portion of Interstate 10 in LA, or of the destroyed CA-14/I-5 interchange in Santa Clarita. Nearly 50 people died as a result of these events. Living in earthquake country, we are acutely aware of how susceptible our bridges are to failure.

It is rapidly becoming clear that this is a tragedy caused by the preference of tax cuts over public safety. And sadly, irresponsibly, and indefensibly, the same situation prevails here in California. Last month, Assembly Republicans demanded and received a $1.3 billion cut in transportation funding, in order to provide tax cuts to industry as a condition of approving the budget. One of the items included in that $1.3 billion cut was funding for the seismic retrofit of BART’s Transbay Tube.

In the aftermath of Northridge, California embarked upon a massive program to seismically retrofit all bridges in the freeway system. It’s hard to fathom that in just over a decade, California Republicans have gone from being a party willing to help rebuild and provide for the safety of state infrastructure to being a party that is not only willing, but demands that funds be cut to do the same thing for other elements of our transportation system.

It’s not just the Transbay Tube that needs attention. BART’s elevated tracks are just as vulnerable to seismic risk. There are thousands of non-freeway road bridges that need attention; rail bridges and other elements of our transportation system are aging. And that doesn’t even begin to include other state infrastructure, from dams to aqueducts to buildings, that have deferred maintenance piling up.

Sometimes – most times, it seems – it takes a disaster to wake up the public. The aforementioned freeway retrofit program did not begin until after the rash of quakes in the late ’80s and early ’90s. In Washington State, voters who had never seen a tax cut they didn’t like instead voted FOR a 9 cent hike in the gas tax just weeks after Hurricane Katrina revealed the need to take better care of infrastructure. Seattle voters approved a property tax hike last year to rebuild old city bridges. And of course, California voters approved several billion in bonds last year to address infrastructure needs.

Yet despite the obvious need – and proven danger – Republicans still insist on cutting funds for these in order to give their wealthy friends more tax cuts. Their recklessness on public safety, and their determination to hold up the budget to ensure it, is something Californians will have to reject at the polls.

Budget Update: One Vote Closer, One Vote Away

Last night the State Senate met again to discuss the budget. And there was drama – my Senator, Abel Maldonado, broke ranks with his fellow Republicans to denounce the budget delay. He sounded noble in this quote, via  the Chronicle:

“I think a vote for this budget is a vote for a fiscally responsible plan and No. 2, it does not raise taxes,” he said. “If I lose my election because of this, that’s a price I’m willing to pay.”

Well, Abel, you’re going to lose reelection because we on the Central Coast are sick of Roadblock Republicans. Which is what we saw last night, as Maldonado’s vote for the budget was still not enough. The other 14 Republicans refused to go along, leaving the poor, the elderly, children, and schools in the lurch.

Don Perata, saying there was nothing more he could do, adjourned the Senate but told senators to stay in town in case anything happened. If senators do go home, many will be greeted with protests by the people they are seeking to harm. One also assumes that pressure will be stepped up on Jeff Denham, who has deluded himself that his path to power lies in becoming McClintock’s best friend.

What can we do about this? Some thoughts on the other side.

Democrats need to now step up their game, and treat this like the final weeks of a political campaign – complete with rallies, a coordinated media strategy, and a unified narrative. There are some specific things they need to let the public know:

1. It is the Republicans and the Republicans alone who are blocking this budget. Arnold wants it done. All the Democrats want it done. And now even a Republican state senator wants it done. Republicans are being irresponsible and reckless is holding this up.

2. The Democratic budget IS balanced. Republicans are telling the media that their cuts are necessary to restore “balance” and if this takes hold in the media, the Dems are in serious trouble. Sacramento Dems need to be pushing back on this one in particular.

3. From that, we then emphasize what the Republicans want – unnecessary and spiteful cuts to necessary public services. Cal-WORKS was a bipartisan reform program that has been a proven success. Child health care – who in their right mind would oppose this? Aid to the elderly – why do Republicans want to cut that?

4. We also remind voters that one of the core reasons behind Republican obstruction is to gut the global warming action plans that the state passed last year. They’re using hostage tactics to gut AB 32. They want the state to be totally unable to act to save our environment and mitigate our carbon output.

5. Their delaying tactics are financially irresponsible, leaving workers unpaid, schools without money on the eve of the new year, and families without health care as a result of the Republicans’ unwillingness to do their job and pass a budget.

The 2008 campaign starts today. If Dems successfully show the public that Republicans merely block effective compromise, prefer hostage tactics to good faith negotiation, want to kill our global warming law through the back door, and want to cut families and the elderly and schools off from needed funds, then we isolate them, much as the Republican Congress had isolated itself in the months leading up to their 2006 defeat.

[UPDATE] Props to the CA Majority Report, and Matt Jones in particular, who demolishes a number of the Senate Republican talking points in this excellent post.