( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

She even uses the exact same words to describe herself…eery.  Except Tauscher doesn’t even bother to include the word “Democrat”. She’s in a 60% Kerry district, and she can’t bring herself to say the word “Democrat” or “Democratic” or anything? Over the flip, you’ll see Joe Lieberman’s “Concession speech” after the primary.  They’re independent! WooHoo!

According to the New York Times:

Representative Ellen O. Tauscher of California, a co-chairwoman of the 47-member New Democrat Coalition, said that 27 of the top 40 contested House seats were being pursued by Democrats who have pledged to become members of the group, which says its chief issues are national security and fiscal responsibility.

“I think there’s tremendous agreement and awareness that getting the majority and running over the left cliff is what our Republican opponents would dearly love,” Ms. Tauscher said, adding that this was something “we’ve got to fight.”

juls at Calitics notes that Ellen and the  Blue Dogs went off to see the Wizard http://www.calitics….

and even though Dear Ellen says: “We are fully committed members of the Democratic Party and we are foursquare with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. There is no sunshine between us.” juls is correct in concluding:

There you have it folks.  Tauscher wants to take this meeting seriously.  She wants it to be a regular occurrence.  Rather than having the President go directly to the Democratic leadership, she finds value in this sub group meeting with Bush.  The only value is to split our caucus.

Tauscher needs to go.

Chris Bowers said it best over at MyDD:

Here is why I will continue to fgiht: because as long as Ellen Tauscher and her ilk are running the Democratic Party, the conservative movement will continue to rise. Ellen Tauscher can’t beat the conservative movement. She and her friends showed us this time and time again from 1978-2004 just how utterly ineffective they are at doing anything except ushering in a new era of Republican dominance. As long as they are in leadership positions of the Democratic Party, the only avenue available to stop the conservative movement on the electoral front, this country that I love so dearly will continue on a long, downward spiral. Both defeating Republicans and wiping their Democratic enablers out of power is the only way to save my country.

Ellen Tauscher, just so you know, when you have a surprisingly strong and well funded primary challenger with tons of volunteers and lots of support in the progressive media come out of seemingly nowhere in 2008, just look over the cliff to see where that challenger is coming from. At the bottom, you will see me standing there, with hundreds and thousand of my friends and colleagues. We will be in the process of forming a human ladder for your challenger to use to climb up the cliff. When s/he reaches the top, don’t be surprised if more than a few of us come along, and suddenly you find yourself outnumbered, even as you stand next to your twenty-seven new friends. And then we will see who gets run over the cliff next.

Read the whole thing at http://www.mydd.com/…

Chris was right in October. Dear Ellen raised almost $1M, in a fight against an opponent spending almost $4000 (no kidding $4000) http://www.opensecre… . That means that, just in terms of finances, we need to start NOW.

Does anyone know if you can start an Act Blue page for a candidate to be named later? Chris, this first step is for you: http://dumptauscher….

Santa Clara County’s Measure A is a perfect example of what goes wrong when legislation is drafted in a closed door environment.  The draconian restrictions it would impose, if passed, would dramatically and adversely affect farmers, ranchers and owners of hillside properties – many of whom were not included in the process of drafting Measure A.

Over the years, these groups, in conjunction with environmentalists, realtors and taxpayer, have worked together to create clear and effective regulations within the General Plan, to strengthen environmental protections on the hillsides where opponents of Measure A live and work.  Measure A would invalidate all of these previous regulations and would replace them with unclear and untested rules, created by a minority group of environmentalists who are seeking a way to regulate land use without participating in the public process.

Most importantly, this initiative would have an undeniable and detrimental impact on local property values and property rights.  As written, Measure A would downzone and devalue over 400,000 acres in unincorporated Santa Clara County – which is roughly half the land in the county.  If passed, Measure A would increase minimum parcel sizes to 160 acres, require clustering of residential units and dedication of open space easements, prohibit construction of granny flats on single-family homes and restrict the construction of processing, storage and other non-residential structures.

Proponents of Measure A are encouraging support based on concern for the environment and the need for open space.  While these are valid concerns, the reality is that the majority of the land that would be affected is owned and utilized by ranchers and farmers.  These groups are extremely conscious of the environment and have historically worked to preserve and protect natural resources.  There is no need to impose regulations that not only ignore their previous protection of the land, but also severely limit their future ability to utilize the land and ensure their livelihood.

As residents of Santa Clara County, we are all responsible for the smart growth and use of our land.  To allow a small group to dictate the future use of over 400,000 acres, without widespread input, is not an exercise of that responsibility.  I plan to VOTE NO on Measure A and hope that the rest of our community does the same. www.votenoonmeasurea.com 

So, just in case you missed this one, Ellen Tauscher has sparked a bit of a war against progressives by attackiing the left in the New York Times:

Representative Ellen O. Tauscher of California, a co-chairwoman of the 47-member New Democrat Coalition, said that 27 of the top 40 contested House seats were being pursued by Democrats who have pledged to become members of the group, which says its chief issues are national security and fiscal responsibility.

“I think there’s tremendous agreement and awareness that getting the majority and running over the left cliff is what our Republican opponents would dearly love,” Ms. Tauscher said, adding that this was something “we’ve got to fight.” (New York Times 10/30/06)

So, the gauntlet has been thrown down.  Over at MyDD, the talk of a primary challenge has already begun. To be honest, I’m not sure if a primary challenge would have a huge chance of success, but I suppose that’s what people said about Lamont too. But if we are going to get somebody to run, we need to start immediately after the election.

Does anybody around here have much of an opinion on this? Let me know if you do.

Al Gore will be in Berkeley today talking about Prop 87, the Alternative Energy Proposition.  Here’s a link to the Prop 87 Website with all the stuff on there. It will be at noon at MLK Park in Berkeley. You need to sign up at their website to get a “ticket”.

Six months of hard work and I did what everyone back east said I wouldn’t be able to do: Found a government job in the SF Bay Area. I was offered and accepted an administrative position at the City of Hayward. Not exactly on a par with the Mayor of San Francisco, but a good start. Now I can become a respectable member of society and stop looking like Kevin Federline 🙂

The Department of Water Resources revealed its report to a few selected officials and apparently the cost is pretty high.  I’ve done a fair amount of research on the issues surrounding the Hetch Hetchy Restoration, and this report only aggregates information from other sources.  From what I’ve seen cost estimates in the past have ranged from a low range of $1B to a high range of $10B.  The DWR’s report doesn’t give much more specificity than that apparently, pegging the estimates at between $3-$10B.  I suppose this is higher, but not really out of the realm of possibility.

It would cost anywhere from $3 billion to $10 billion to fulfill one of California environmentalists’ fondest dreams — draining Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and restoring a valley in Yosemite National Park that John Muir called “one of nature’s rarest and most precious mountain temples.”

That is the conclusion of a report worked up by the state Department of Water Resources, analyzing what it would take to bring back Hetch Hetchy Valley and find alternative sources of water and power for San Francisco, which operates the valley’s O’Shaughnessy Dam. The cost estimate is more in line with what critics of the idea expected, and as much as 10 times the figure floated by environmentalists.

“Clearly, it’s not cheap,” said Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla, D-Pittsburg, one of a handful of officials who have been briefed on the findings. The report has not been made public.

“But we knew it was going to be expensive, no matter what the option,” said Canciamilla, who is nevertheless still intrigued by the possibility of restoring Hetch Hetchy.

The idea was first raised back in the 1980s by then-Energy Secretary Donald Hodel, but it really gained traction two years ago when the nonprofit group Environmental Defense issued a report called “Paradise Regained.” It put the cost of draining Hetch Hetchy, coming up with other sources of water for 2.4 million Bay Area customers and replacing the electricity that Hetch Hetchy generates for San Francisco at anywhere from $500 million to $1.5 billion. (SF Chron 7/19/06)

But, I don’t think this report really kills the discussions of tearing down the damn as much as some officials (DiFi, Leno, the SFPUC in general) would like.  The Environmental Defense people have acknowledged that their predictions of costs were very rough and have made provisions for higher costs.  The thing is, nobody truly understands how beautiful this place is.  When I first came at the issue, I thought it was nuts to dear down O’Shaughnessy Dam, and I still think it’s a bit crazy to give up our secure water and power resources.  However, have you seen the pictures of that valley? If you click on the picture above, you’ll be taken to the Sierra Club’s HH photo gallery.  You won’t be disappointed.  It is simply beautiful.

So the question that is now posed to us is: How much would we pay for a valley that has beauty that is only rivaled by Yosemite? I don’t think even billions should be considered crazy.

Well, Gavin Newsom sure has been talkative recently.  First, he said that Democrats need to rally around Phil Angelides, in a sly dig at Antonio Villairagosa and, more overtly, Steve Westly.

And today a Rolling Stone interview was released where Gavin provides some insight on the Democrats position on gay marriage.

We’ve never run the 90-yard dash on equality — ever. The history of this party is civil rights, women’s rights, human rights, labor rights, gay and lesbian rights. And for us to hold up civil unions and say that separate is somehow now equal — when just a-year-and-a-half we ago celebrated the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board – is transparent to the people. They see through the Democrats.

That’s why this issue was not seen by the Kerry campaign in 2004 in a positive light. Because people saw through John Kerry. They didn’t believe that he was only supportive of civil unions. Because here he was, running as a Democrat on all those proud traditions where we never fell short on equality. And so — even though his position was exactly the same as Dick Cheney’s — the American people questioned that. I don’t think the American people believe us. And that’s a big problem. (Rolling Stone 7/13/06)

Personally, I’m with the Gav on this one.  Democrats need to be honest about their position on marriage equality.  We don’t gain from our equivocation.  The people who vote solely against gay marriage are not likely Dem voters anyway, and the equivocation hinders GOTV efforts by the failure to motivate the grassroots.  Amen, Mayor!

Frontpaged at My Left Wing and posted at Daily Kos

Some Democrats get it.

Like Gavin Newsom.

In 2003 he was elected mayor of San Francisco, narrowly beating his Green Party opponent. Since then he has shown that being Democrat doesn’t necessarily mean being an idiot, collaborating with imperialism and ignoring the needs of their constituents, as his strong stand for gay marriage showed.

Now he is proposing a plan to offer all San Franciscans health care. It would make San Francisco the first city in the nation to do this, and if successful, would greatly boost his career.

The plan is not quite universal health coverage – not everyone is forced to join it. But it does expand the already-existing San Francisco Health Plan, designed to care for low-income residents, to include anybody living in SF who needs care – regardless of income, immigration status, or pre-existing medical condition. Under the proposal, anyone who needs care will be able to get it in the city at a low, subsidized cost. An example of how the SFHP already works:

Elaine Cain, 63, said monthly Social Security checks combined with her salary from a part-time job as a gift wrapper at Macy’s don’t give her enough to buy insurance — but she’s perfectly happy with the system in place now for the uninsured.

When she’s sick and needs to see a doctor, Cain pays $35 per visit at San Francisco General Hospital, and two years ago she had surgery there — for $150. She’s currently undergoing occupational therapy for a hand injury and pays nothing for three sessions every week.

“I fell into such a good thing, it’s not even funny,” Cain said. “You do have to wait a lot for appointments, but I’m so happy with General Hospital. I’ve never had such wonderful help and care.”

There are three main issues surrounding any universal health care proposal: funding, resources, and wait times.

Funding

Funding is the big one. It’s one thing to convince San Franciscans, or Americans, that universal health care is a good idea. It’s quite another to figure out how to – and who will – pay.

SF’s plan would ask those receiving coverage to pay for care. The rates and premiums would be a sliding scale – someone earning $50,000 could pay over $2,000 a year, but someone making less money would pay around $3 a month. As the above selection showed, there would still be costs for hospital visits and surgeries, but they are lower than what you’d pay with many HMOs, and again those too would be on a sliding scale.

Capitalism usually involves businesses getting rich by exploiting workers. This means that in a capitalist system there is always pressure to foist the burdens of providing services onto the average person.

We see this battle being played out in SF where it is still being debated how much businesses will be asked to contribute to this system via taxation. The local Chamber of Commerce would prefer businesses not be asked to contribute much if anything, but legislators to Newsom’s left, like Supervisor Tom Ammiano, want to require businesses to pay for employee health care and help contribute to the SFHP system.

This debate is currently being played out all across the globe. In Canada, Britain, and Germany, to name just a few places, fights over funding universal health care are dominating politics. It will be played out here too, especially as conservatives seek to link health care to taxes. They’ll most certainly argue that universal health care is bad because it would raise taxes, and seek to play on widespread anti-tax sentiment to defeat the plans.

In a city like San Francisco this may not seem like a concern, but even there taxes are a subject of debate, and many are loath to raise them. For something like universal health care, residents will likely be willing to do it, but whether this will hold true across the nation remains to be seen. It’s important to keep this in mind – universal health care is tied to the tax question, and until we turn around opinions on taxes, we may either never get universal care or will get a flawed system that rests on the backs of people unable to pay.

Resources

Another important element is resources – are there enough doctors and hospital beds to provide everyone with care? In San Francisco the answer seems to be a cautious yes – the city has several excellent hospitals, and is home to UCSF, the University of California’s campus devoted exclusively to medicine.

But more may be needed:

But if the plan is expanded to cover even a portion of the 82,000 adults believed to be uninsured, the network of 400 physicians will probably need to grow significantly, said Crystal Hayling, president and chief executive of the Blue Shield of California Foundation and a task force member.

This of course returns us to the financing question – in order to recruit doctors, especially in one of the nation’s most expensive cities, the pay will have to be good, meaning more money will have to be put into the system.

Or they could just treat doctors like teachers, pay them a low wage and hope they find a way to scrape by. But that would be more of what we don’t need – expecting people to supplant real wages with moral wages.

Wait times

Finally, we come to the issue of wait times. Americans are used to decades of consumerism, underpinned by the concept of instant gratification – if you are made to wait for something, you feel it’s wrong, somehow inferior, you get frustrated and annoyed. Particularly with health care. Stories of long waits for non-essential surgeries in Canada were circulated to help defeat Clinton’s proposal in 1994.

Wait times are a big issue in Canada, where provinces like Alberta are using the issue of long waits to try and weasel their way out of their obligations under the Canada Health Act and allow private care. In Britain they are also a major issue and the Labour government has tried to reduce wait times, not always with great success, to fend off Conservative attempts to further dismantle the system (it must be said that one reason Labour efforts have failed is their decision to rely partly on private financing to reduce wait times).

Once again this is tied to funding, and to the availability of resources. But if we’re going to be able to expand something like SF is proposing here to all of California and all the nation, we’ll need to make sure wait times are low.

Newsom ain’t perfect, and I still think Matt Gonzalez would have made a better mayor. But Newsom is doing the right thing here. Liberalism and the left are strongest in America’s cities. We should be turning our cities into laboratories of progressive policymaking. If we don’t control the federal government and have to battle to maintain a hold on state governments, we need to be doing all that we can to use our power in the cities to get good things like this done, to prove to America that liberal ideas are good and viable.

Universal health care is an excellent idea, and I hope we can use this as a starting point to get other cities in on the act. Time for me to see what Seattle is thinking about all this…