I get it that deep red states like Utah elect representatives who think child labor laws are unconstitutional. Even to somebody without a law degree, they would seem to fit quite nicely under either the clause about interstate commerce or the part that gives Congress the right to “promote the general welfare.” But, still, what I don’t expect is for California–where we elected a statewide slate of Democrats–to send people like Darrell Issa and Jeff Denham to D.C.

The press is already calling Issa “The Grand Inquisitor” because of his pledge to investigate everything and everybody. And they’re poking fun at his multiple brushes with the law. It makes us look like idiots for sending a shady character like that to Congress.

But Jeff Denham is perhaps more of a surprise. He was considered a moderate during his stint in the California Assembly. He isn’t any more. I guess there is no such thing as a moderate Republican officeholder anymore. Certainly not Jeff Denham.  

Recently Denham sent a letter to a constituent who’d written about EPA regulation of greenhouse gasses. In it, he calls the EPA “bloated” and “overextended,” and says Congress must “delay” or “overturn” EPA regulations that would “greatly harm our recovering economy.” He throws in a few more Frank Luntz talking points about how these regulations would stifle innovation, drive up energy costs, and “keep Americans dependent on foreign oil.” He talks about how regulation makes America less competitive. And how overseas competitors are not subject to limits on greenhouse gasses.

He completely fails to note that many European countries do, in fact, regulate greenhouse gas emissions and their economies have not collapsed. Some are doing considerably better than ours. He doesn’t acknowledge the fact that lack of regulation and enforcement lead to the biggest oil spill in the history of the world–right here on U.S. shores. And that we don’t know what the long-term consequences of it may be. He doesn’t admit that other countries are absolutely eating our lunch when it comes to capturing market share in the fast-growing alternative energy market. They see the potential and are supporting the industry, creating jobs and profits in ways we are not. And he completely fails to say anything whatsoever about whether we need these regulations to leave a livable planet to our children and grandchildren. Scientists are already crediting man-made climate change for the stronger-than-usual La Nina that has inundated nearly a quarter of the continent of Australia. A recent study found toxic chemicals–some of which had been banned for decades–in the blood of pregnant women.

In short, Denham would rather support corporate profits than a habitable planet.

California should be very ashamed to have sent this man to Congress. It’s a mistake voters in that district shouldn’t repeat. And one we should all help them reverse.

I just read a story on Yahoo! News about Speaker Pelosi’s last press conference. The story itself was pretty spare, but there were more than 6,000 comments. I didn’t read them all. I couldn’t. I found them too shocking. The level of information was so abysmal. The personal invective was so crude. And the spelling was so bad. It was a real eye-opener.

I have no idea why so many people are so fixated on whether or not Nancy Pelosi has had plastic surgery. But it was a frequent topic. Having seen the Speaker in strong sunlight, I certainly saw no evidence of it.

Calling her a witch and a bitch was also popular. Again, I’m sure none of these people have ever met Ms. Pelosi. I found her perfectly pleasant the time I did.

Our founders believed that our success as a democracy would be founded on the decisions of an informed electorate. Over more than 200 years, the country has expanded on that idea with public education and media licenses that were supposed to extend our access to information.

It does not appear to be working.

Instead, hate speech seems to be taking over our country. We now give every appearance of being nationally insane. The solution to every ill is to blame somebody you don’t know, and accuse them of every kind of low behavior you can think of–whether the accusation has any basis in fact or not. And the people who engage in this ranting and raving don’t appear to feel any need to check out their “facts.” They have a shocking level of certainty in their delusions.

For example, one person posted that our financial woes are caused by liberals who voted to extend “annuity” payments to immigrants, whether they ever worked in the United States or not. Of course this is only true if this immigrant has become a citizen. In which case they are entitled to the same services as any other citizen. If they never worked, they would only get Social Security if they were a survivor of a deceased worker–just like the rest of us. Illegal immigrants, in contrast, frequently use fake papers to get work. So they pay taxes into our system, but they cannot draw benefits out for fear their illegal status might be discovered. Instead of draining our government programs, they have actually helped make them more solvent.

It’s perfectly easy to find this out. I did. But the person who posted this clearly didn’t see the need. He knew he was right. Probably heard it on Faux Noise.

I tend to hang out on lefty blogs, and so rarely get a glimpse into this side of America–except at family get-togethers. Clearly I will have to venture out of the bubble more often. But I recommend it in small doses. I haven’t felt this discouraged about the fate of my country in a long time.

Note: this is a cross-post from  The Realignment Project. Follow us on Facebook!

Introduction:

With the belated victory of Kamala Harris as Attorney General, the full results of the 2010 election are in for California. There many things that progressives can be proud of – a sweep of statewide offices, picking up another Assembly seat, defeating prop 23 and passing prop 25. On the other hand, there are also some major disappointments – the defeat of prop 19 (marijuana legalization), the defeat of prop 21 (a VLF to fund the state parks), the defeat of prop 24 (rolling back corporate tax breaks), and the passage of prop 26 (2/3rds requirement for fees). Prop 26 especially complicates what this victory means for California.

Indeed, our situation is a lot like the national picture after the 2008 elections – we have an executive who straddles the line between the left and right wings of the Democratic Party, a big legislative majority, but not the ability to break the fiscal deadlock and really be able to govern our state.

So where do we go from here?

Finance:

The rather comfortable million-vote margin by which prop 25 passes would make me rather optimistic about the possibility for the passage of a majority-vote revenue proposal. However the failure of every revenue increase – prop 19, 21, and 23 – are daunting evidence to the contrary. Granted that the outcome might be different in a presidential electorate (younger, more minority and working class voters, higher turnout generally), but I think this shows how difficult it will be to thread the needle of the “Program/Government Blindspot” and the prevalence of austerity thinking, even if we link taxation to spending.

In the mean time, California Democrats have a daunting task ahead of them – to balance the budget without doing any more harm to already brutalized public services, and to create the economic growth necessary to ensure that the budget stays balanced. In the short-term, there are four things we can do:

1. Going back to the Steinberg Maneuver – According to the California Budget Project, Prop 26 doesn't establish a blanket 2/3rd requirement for all fees. A number of fees, including “charges where the feepayer receives a service, product, benefit, or privilege…charges imposed for entrance, use, purchase, or lease of state or local government property, penalties, fines, or other monetary charges resulting from a
   violation of the law, charges imposed for “reasonable regulatory costs” and assessments and property-related fees,” are not covered by the 2/3rds requirement. Thus, it's still possible to raise revenue through a two-step process in which said fees are raised by a certain amount by majority vote, then taxes are raised and the fees are lowered by the same amount by a majority vote. The issue here is whether we can get Governor-elect Jerry Brown to sign such measures, given previous statements of his.
2. We can try again with Ballot Box Budgeting – there's some indication that Brown's approach will be instead to put the budget to a vote as a proposition in a special election. The tricky thing here is how to persuade the public to vote for said budget; Schwarzenegger tried this in 2009 and it was dramatically unsuccessful. Perhaps the 2010 election signals a more realist (and realistic) electorate, but it's a roll of the dice.
3. Banks – I'vewritten before about the potential that a state reserve bank offers. That was true before the 2010 election, but it's even more true now. Given the newly-created restrictions on raising revenue, a state reserve bank offers an entirely new possibility, both for resolving the current budget crisis, and for creating the economic growth necessary for California's future development.
   1. I believe that this bank would be even more likely to gain support if, within the state bank, there was created a series of Development Funds – a Green Development Fund, an Education and Innovation Development Fund, a Health Care and Medical Science Development Fund, and so on – that could make targeted investments into key sectors of California's economy, both public and private.
4. Jobs – with or without financing from a state reserve bank, a Job Insurance fund would fit under the exemption in prop 26 – since the “feepayer receives a service, product, benefit, or privilege,” namely eligibility for a job when unemployed. Ultimately, as I have said before, California cannot balance its budget with 12% unemployment because revenues will continue to decline, no matter how much spending is cut. What is needed is a sudden shock to California's labor market, and unemployment being cut in half is that shock – it will pump huge amounts of money into local retailers and other businesses, it will make employers see the ranks of the unemployed in their communities shrinking, and hopefully shift the “animal spirits” of both employers and lenders.

None of these steps is a total solution for the fundamental problem of revenues – given the problems we had with the budget even before the recession. But they will fill the gap so that we can debate the question of majority-vote revenues in an economic climate of balanced budgets, normal levels of unemployment, and higher economic growth.

Green Economy:

Now that AB32 and CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) are safe from Prop 23, we need to do more to show the real possibilities of a green economy. This means making it fast and seamless to develop sustainability, through the creation of expedited approval and categorical permits for model projects. It also means establishing special zoning rules in transit corridors to allow for sustainable, energy-efficient, high-density development.

This doesn't mean dismantling regulations in the name of the environment, but rather shifting the direction of regulation away from NIMBY no-growth, which only encourages sprawl and wasteful development, towards in-fill building of affordable housing in already-developed areas while protecting undeveloped land. It also means – and here is where environmentalists need to reckon with the realities of class and race – getting rid of the tools of modern class (and racial) discrimination: zoning rules that limit building heights to two-stories or less, that ban unrelated individuals from living in the same house (to prevent renters and subdivision), that establish minimum lot sizes to mandate , or that mandate the construction of garages. In other words, ending exclusionary zoning and encouraging inclusionary zoning.

Finally, it means supercharging public investments into green energy, mass transit, and other sustainable ventures. A statewide version of LA's 30/10 plan, aimed at speeding up and extending High-Speed Rail and local mass transit would be a huge transformation, both in terms of creating jobs and spurring growth, but also in lowering CO2 emissions and pushing land-use away into energy-efficient high-density development. Large-scale alternative energy projects, like the Beacon Solar Energy Project, San Fransisco's tidal energy project, should be built under public auspices, making use of the newest forms of technology. The advantage to this approach is that it allows the public sector to act as a yardstick competitor to California energy companies, spurring innovation and providing a guaranteed market for green manufacturing firms under democratic auspices.

All of this links together. Without financing, there's not going to be a green revolution in California any time soon. Without new sources of economic growth that don't depend on housing bubbles, California won't get the revenue it needs. In the end, the fight over our budget is really about the future direction of this state – whether we will have a government that can help build a broad economy or a night watchman state that is powerless to prevent corporate greed from running wild.

So let's get to work.

By Allen Hopper, ACLU of Northern California

California voters came out in droves to support Proposition 19 this November. More than 4.1 million people voted for Prop. 19, which would have allowed adults 21 and older to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for personal use and allow cities and counties to tax and regulate commercial sales. That’s more votes than Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina garnered. Though the measure didn’t pass, the degree of support marks an undeniable leap forward in the movement to end marijuana prohibition. In the end, Prop. 19 achieved a higher percentage of “yes” votes (46%) than any state-level legalization measure on the ballot over the past decade.  

This is clearly only the beginning of a new, more rational public discussion about marijuana. It’s no longer a question of whether marijuana prohibition should end, but rather when and how. Post-election polling data shows that many voters who rejected Prop. 19 nonetheless believe that marijuana should be made legal. Even the leaders of the opposition to Prop. 19 publicly stated that they are not opposed to marijuana legalization, “if it’s done the right way.”  

There is already talk about another initiative on the California ballot in 2012, and California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano has pledged to introduce a new statewide tax and regulate bill. And California is not alone in its efforts. Several other states are likely to have legalization or decriminalization on the ballot in the near future, including Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Colorado and Nevada. What we know is that it is clear that states do indeed have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to keep state marijuana prohibition laws on the books.  

The war on drugs has failed, and people are ready for a change. The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. One in every 31 adults is on probation, in jail or in prison. FBI figures show that over 800,000 people in the U.S. are arrested for marijuana offenses each year. The vast majority of these arrests are for low-level, nonviolent simple possession offenses. Drug law enforcement in the United States is a driving force behind some of the worst aspects of our flawed criminal justice system, including tragic racial disparities. People of color are arrested at far higher rates than whites for marijuana offenses, even though rates of drug use are equal across racial lines.  According to the Prison Policy Initiative, we incarcerate black men in the United States today at rates more than five times higher than in South Africa during apartheid.  

The public is taking notice that ending marijuana prohibition will ease our overwhelmed state and local budgets, and will free up law enforcement resources to address serious and violent crime.

Despite the disappointing outcome, Prop. 19 was a giant step in the right direction. Let’s keep the discussion going.    



Allen Hopper is the Police Practices Director at the ACLU of Northern California.

I’m probably one of the few Chris Christie fans on this board, but this article is, in a nutshell, what we need to do as progressives to further our cause.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blo…

I often feel that we make our case in echo chambers among people of similar passionate interest, why aren’t more progressive candidates and politicians putting up videos like this with abandon? IT would help not only personalize our mission, but it resonates to new audiences!

I usually don’t get to spend much time watching the events I put together at Netroots Nation. With a 3 day event comprised of over 100 sessions, over 300 speakers, over 100 sponsors and 2000+ attendees most of my time is spent in our show office. Thankfully I had a little more time at Netroots California to just take the content in. I was tied to one room for the most part, so there’s a lot of great stuff I missed. But for the sessions I did watch there are a few ideas that stuck with me.

Check them out below the fold.

1. The Lesson of how Jerry Brown won

The first session of the day featured a great presentation by Seiji Carpenter at David Binder Research and Bryan Blum at the California Labor Federation filled in a lot of detail on some innovative things labor did this cycle. You can find Seiji’s presentation here and I’d encourage you to page through it. There’s a lot of meat to this presentation, but I wanted to highlight a few things.

* A lot of people, myself included, had heavy criticism and concern that the Brown campaign was completely absent over the summer. Whitman was pounding away at him over the air for 112 days without any response from his campaign. However, Independent Expenditures were up on the air and they were able to communicate their intentions through press releases. They kept the campaign essentially tied over the summer. And if you contrast that with Angelides in 2006 he’d essentially lost by Labor Day.

* The campaign and IEs were able to focus on key demographics. They prevented Whitman from building a base among women. Undecideds moved toward Brown. Latinos came home to Brown and turned out in record numbers (a special shout out to SEIU’s Cambiando campaign here). Working class voters favored Brown. And in a historic shift Asian Americans overwhelmingly broke for Brown.

* Labor ran a program called Million More Voters that was intended to target voters with similar qualities to union members, and they identified 2.8 million people. Asian Americans were more than twice as likely to be targets so they invested a lot of time in researching those communities, something that hasn’t been done on a large scale in California before.

* The result of this work with the Asian American communities around California lead to a 42 point shift. Asian Americans broke 55 to 38 for Democrats in 2010 and 37 to 62 for Democrats in 2006. And the work done here should be particularly instructive for future campaigns.

* Brown won by 13 points in the end, but lost with White voters. That’s something to think about going forward.

So while this isn’t a campaign that I think anyone should repeat, those of us worried because Brown was not making efforts to reach out to youth voters or boldly articulating a progressive vision or running an effective modern online campaign or name your criticism… were wrong.

2. Open Primaries and Redistricting

In the State of California in 2011 and Beyond panel John Laird made a really smart point. He gave a few examples of politicians running last cycle’s campaign this cycle and being surprised when they lost. District 6’s newest supervisor, Jane Kim, wasn’t on this panel but that’s pretty much exactly what happened in her race with her opponents as evidenced by this article and this one.

The new variable in the 2012 cycle isn’t going to be the vastly different Presidential electorate, although candidates ignore that at their peril, it’s going to be the newly passed primary system and redistricting which will be conducted by citizens and not the legislature. In a lot of races around the state there’s a real possibility for both candidates that go through to the general election to be of the same party. In fact that came within a few hundred thousand votes of happening for the GOP in the attorney general’s race had it been in effect this year. It’ll likely lead to one candidate being either more conservative or liberal and one being more moderate. To not end up with a crop of moderates across the state and lose our progressive streak different strategies are going to be necessary. And this is going to be particularly true if one or several incumbents get redistricted into the same district. We’re going to have to think about how and whether to run primaries.

3. Narrative on government and revenue

One of the organizations I was really proud to have in attendance is California Alliance. The point their staff made across several sessions went something like this. Most voters don’t know how government works and they not only don’t trust it they actively despise Sacramento. It’s common for me to be able to walk into a room of activists or politically informed people and throw out terms like 2/3rds or Prop 13 and everyone know exactly what I’m talking about and why they’re a problem. California Alliance and a lot of other groups have made a case that the average voter doesn’t have that level of knowledge and the reason you often see these anti-tax votes or punitive votes is because they don’t like or trust Sacramento. You do have success on the local level raising revenue because voters can see what their local government does and there’s a lot more trust there. At that level it’s schools, fire fighters, police, fixing roads, etc.

So one of the key things everyone needs to be thinking about in their work is how we can build a narrative about the role of government in California, why it’s important, and why we need reforms to revenue to keep the California dream alive.

4. California vs. The Nation

It was pretty hard watching election returns come in from across the country on election night. Across the board Democrats lost seats culminating in a 60+ seat loss for the House. The GOP also claimed several key governorships and state houses on the one year it matters, when redistricting will be done. But that wave washed ashore at the Sierra Nevada and stopped, as a Courage Campaign email poetically put it. Here in California we’ve almost swept the ticket, and that’ll be complete when Kamala Harris claims victory. We pretty much maintained all seats and fended off some formidable challenges. Progressives didn’t get everything they wanted from propositions but we overwhelmingly shut down corporate money.

During “The Big (Progressive) Picture: The National Landscape Going into 2012” panel Rick Jacobs at Courage campaign noted that it’s looking likely that 5 key leadership positions will be occupied by California Republicans giving California an outsized voice in their caucus leadership. He suggests that we’ve got an opportunity over the next two years to influence national politics by focusing activism on these GOP leaders at home. They’re well aware they’ll be facing re-elections in 2 short years and with big changes happening in California they’re targets. That’s worth considering for all activists as we look at both local and national debates.

5. If you contact voters, you win

This sentiment was echoed by multiple people across sessions. A wide spectrum of organizations put in a lot of voter contact work here, made some impressive new moves this cycle, and increased funding for these activities.

But this has been a debate that’s raged on for a while in California. Most of the money spent in campaigns is for TV time. Our consulting class makes big money pushing this tactic so it’s hard to advocate change and more effective uses of that money. I think this election began to show the effectiveness of field operations in California in ways other cycles haven’t. Some of the biggest wins here were won without large budgets for TV.

So we’ve got to continue the fight to fund organizing more heavily. But the other problem expressed was collaboration. When it comes to initiative fights and candidate elections we are able to accomplish proficient communication among campaigns. What isn’t happening yet is effective sharing of resources and division of tasks. As an example, Becky Bond was talking about CREDO’s work on the No on 23 campaign. They had setup field offices in cities around the state to make calls. But other environmental organizations had setup their own offices in those same cities and they weren’t co-located spaces. There was also a division early on between organizations working in communities of color and environmental organizations. The coalition of environmental organizations didn’t want to fund field work in those communities and so a separate No On 23 campaign was formed to work in those communities.

In the end we won on 23, but in my view we won it ugly. There’s a lot of work to be done to foster greater collaboration among organizations and activists in the state and to start playing offense on initiatives over multiple cycles like the conservatives and corporate interests do. This last piece was the driving factor for creating Netroots California in the first place. The content was certainly interesting, but the value will be whether we can forge new relationships and maintain them going forward.

So in conclusion that was my viewpoint on the day. I didn’t get a chance to see a lot of things I really wanted to see, so I’d be eager to hear the thoughts of others.