Category Archives: California

Arnold Schwarzenegger, California

Does Prop 82 have any momentum left?

Prop 82 held a huge lead in the February Field Poll. In that poll, 82 was up by a 21-point margin (55-34). In last week’s poll, 82 had only a 13-point lead (52-39). Yes, that is still a sizable lead, but losing that much support that quickly can’t be a positive for its supporters. But, I think there is another worrisome number hidden in the bottom of the big table of statistics in the poll. If you scroll down to the bottom of that table there is a breakdown by whether the respondent had heard of 82 before the survey. Respondents that hadn’t heard of 82 (44 % of respondents) strongly supported it (55-33-12). However, respondents that had heard of it gave a support/opposition ratio that was within the margin (49 46 5).

The reason that this is worrisome for the future of 82 is that there will be lots of “education” in the next 6 weeks. 82 sounds good on a ballot, but it can be spun negatively. Its costs are uncertain. Its public face (Reiner) is enduring some challenging times and can be villified by the right. In other words, what I’m saying is that Prop 82 is in a classic position of vulnerability to a media campaign.

UPDATE: PPIC’s statewide education survey is out. They have a 11 point lead for 82 as well, but at only 50% support, passage is still in doubt.

Proposition 82 – which would fund voluntary preschool education for all four-year-olds in California through a
tax on wealthy state residents – is currently supported by 51 percent of likely voters, with 40 percent opposed. Democrats (64%) are more likely than independents (50%) and Republicans (38%), and Latinos (63%) are more likely than whites (47%), to back the measure. Is access to preschool perceived as a problem in the state today?
Seven in 10 likely voters express at least some concern that children in lower-income areas may not be able to attend preschool.

More on the flip…

So, yes, it appears that 82 has lost its momentum. Of course there are the numerous politicians who have removed their support. Schwarzenegger couldn’t endorse it due to the radical right wing of his party.  But the SF and LA Chambers of Commerce are taking a little bit of a risk supporting 82, especially as the statewide Chamber is basically now the lead opponent.  By the by, is Rob Reiner running for governor?  No?  Really, Becuase you would sware that he is based upon the website name for the opposition to Prop 82: www.stopreiner.org.  I mean WOW!  That’s some serious pandering to the right.  They always need somebody to hate…this time it’s Reiner.  It’s actually quite unfortunate.  Prop 82 should be judged on its merits…not some BS about Reiner.

But at least part of the progressive shift away from 82 is due to the fact that elected officials are growing tired of legislation bypassing the traditional channels. Would Perata support a preschool program if it was brought in the legislature? Probably? Would it pass? Hell no. Unless the money can be found without taxing, the supermajority rules allow the Reps to block progressive legislation like that. While Burton isn’t in the legislature anymore, that must be part of his logic as well. With the current wave of initiatives, the legislators began quite supportive. They supported the mental health bill that passed a few years ago, they supported the stem cell initiative (for the most part), but now they are realizing that if this tide doesn’t turn, their budget will be eaten alive by the initiatives. Of course in this case, preschool won’t be taken out of the general fund, but rather this new tax on the wealthiest Californians. But, at least in the case of Angelides, this is a tax they already plan on using for other purposes.

Preschool is a worthy cause. And 82, while somewhat flawed, is the best chance of that happening anytime in the near future. Until we reform our governance system to remove these unreasonable obstacles to majority will, we are left with the second best choice. In this case, that is 82.

California

No amnesty for Arnold, he’s an “illegal alien”

(Those in glass houses, you know? It is imperative that we resolve the immigration with a balanced and complete package and don’t yield to the racism of the nativists. Oh, thanks for posting duke1676 and welcome to Calitics. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

From the anti-immigrants camp the message could not be clearer. Month after month we’ve heard Tom Tancredo and Jim Sensenbrenner try to convince the American people that their security, and perhaps their very existence, hinges on the closing of the nations borders and the removal of all those who have entered this country “illegally”.

They do not equivocate. In their ideology there is no room for compassion, human dignity or even reason. Nightly their mouthpiece in the guise of Lou Dobbs rants about hordes of “illegal aliens” invading over the border to take jobs from an economically vulnerable middle and working class. Senators Kyl and Cornyn warn us that any form of compromise or kindness would be giving “criminals” a free pass, an “amnesty” that would only encourage more lawbreakers to enter our already crowded and economically suffering nation. Congressmen Hayworth and King claim that no compromise should be made with those who have broken the law and to do so would only be a slap in the face to those who have gone through the long and arduous process of gaining legal entry into the US. In the minds of the adherents of this philosophy there are no grays, only black and white. For them the whole issue of immigration and immigration reform comes down to “they broke the law to come here… they are criminals…and should be treated as such.”

But what if one of these “illegals”… these interlopers, these invaders, was one of their own? Not some poor, starving, worker with few skills and fewer prospects. Not one in whose veins runs the blood of conquistadores and the conquered. Not one who has left family and friends behind in abject poverty in hopes that he might be the one savior, provider and lifeline that might keep them from falling further and further into despair.

What if he was famous, and rich, and white, married to American royalty and the Governor of the nation’s most populous state.

What if he was Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Schwarzenegger entered the United States in 1968 on a B-1 visa, which allows a select group of visitors, such as training athletes, to come into the United States for brief periods of business. Under this rule, “a non-immigrant in B-1 status may not receive a salary from a U.S. source for services rendered in connection with his or her activities in the United States.” However, the rules do allow immigrants to receive “actual reasonable expenses,” such as money for food and hotel rooms.

In his 1977 autobiography, Schwarzenegger stated that he worked out an agreement with Joe Weider to come to America. Under this agreement, Schwarzenegger provided Weider information about how he trained, while Weider provided Schwarzenegger with an apartment, a car, and payment of a weekly salary.(of $200 a week)

Visalaw.com

Here we have the first of Arnold’s “illegal” immigration activities. He clearly was in violation of immigration law by working in the United States without a proper work visa, but this would not be the only time Arnold would violate immigration laws.

Schwarzenegger attorney Tom Hiltachk said Schwarzenegger received an H-2 visa, which allowed him to work in this country, in November 1969 ( on a sponsorship by Weider)– after more than a year in the United States…

… Schwarzenegger’s new ad campaign on a Spanish-language radio station announces his humble beginnings in America as a bricklayer. Several immigration attorneys also believe that he violated the terms of his H-2 work visa by launching this bricklaying business in 1971. According to further reports by the Mercury News, immigration attorneys across the country said Schwarzenegger would have been barred by visa restrictions from starting his own business.

Visalaw.com

So how did Arnold start on his road to fame and fortune … the all-American Republican way, he broke the law and took advantage of other peoples suffering.

After the 1971 Sylmar earthquake left 65 people dead and caused more than $500 million in damage, Schwarzenegger joined forces with one of his closest friends, fellow immigrant Franco Columbu, to launch European Brick Works in Santa Monica.

“I started up with a friend of mine a bricklaying business here, and we were successful in no time,” Schwarzenegger told Interview magazine in 1985. “We had 16 people working for us, and we were all over town, building chimneys after the earthquake.”

Mercury News 9/21/03

It seems Arnold’s business model was based more on fraud than on hard work and honest labor.

Arnold would brag a decade later on to a national television audience on the Johnny Carson Show, a scene described by Arnold’s biographer, Laurence Leamer: “[Arnold] made it seem as if he and Franco had been a step above con artists.”

Here’s Arnold: “Franco climbed up on the chimney — and he is a very strong guy and a lifter, he pushed all the chimneys over so they fell down.

So these people come and say ‘Oh, thank you for helping us. They could have fallen on somebody’s head.”

“Oh, what a racket,” Carson exclaimed. “You go and push chimneys down and then rebuild them.”

“Exactly,” Arnold responded, chuckling.

Link

While the ethics of European Brickwork’s business practices are questionable, what’s not in question is the fact that Arnold had no legal right to operate a business in the US under his immigration status at the time.

(Schwarzenegger’s lawyer) Hiltachk said it is unclear what type of visa Schwarzenegger had when he started the bricklaying business. But whether Schwarzenegger had an H-2 or another temporary visa, immigration attorneys said, the bodybuilder would have been barred from doing any work as a bricklayer or handyman.

“If they come into the United States to pick tomatoes, they can’t go out and work at McDonald’s,” said Nancy Alby, an assistant center director at the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Naturalization Services, who spoke in general about H-2 visas and did not comment specifically on Schwarzenegger’s case. “They have to do exactly what they were let into the United States to do.”

Visalaw.com

In regards to the H-2 visa, the law is clear you can only work temporarily and in a specific field. You certainly cannot start your own business on this kind of temporary work visa.

H-2 visas were created to allow workers from other nations to come to the United States for short periods to take on temporary jobs such as picking seasonal crops, cooking at summer resorts or working as ski instructors.

The visas restrict holders from doing work beyond what is explicitly approved by the federal government

“Whether it’s one hour or 40 hours a week, it was considered employment,” said Don Ungar, a San Francisco attorney who has practiced immigration law since 1962. “That would be considered a violation of your status, and he would have been subject to deportation.”

Mercury News 9/21/2003

Arnold would have been “subject to deportation”, a violator of US immigration laws. But that’s not how Arnold now tells the story:

“People like myself waited for 15 years after I came to this country – legally – to get citizenship,” Schwarzenegger said recently on talk radio.

“So I find it unfair to push the whole thing of undocumented immigrants and to say, `Well, you know they should just get their citizenship because they’re coming in.'”

Mercury News 9/13/2003

Perhaps Mr. Sensenbrenner or Mr. Tancredo would like to explain how it is that the current Governor of California is not an “illegal alien” who has broken the laws of this country and skipped ahead of millions of “good immigrants” who have “played by the rules” to become legal residents and citizens of this country. Perhaps they could let us know why the rules they are so hell bent on applying to others should not be applied to Mr. Schwazenegger.

For Arnold, like 12 million others … according to the anti-immigrant Republicans, there can never be any amnesty.

From HR 4437 comes this definition of who is an “illegal alien” who would be guilty of “illegal presence” and therefore a felon.

SEC. 203. IMPROPER ENTRY BY, OR PRESENCE OF, ALIENS

(2) An alien described in this paragraph is an alien who–

(A) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers;

(B) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers;

(C) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact; or

(D) is otherwise present in the United States in violation of the immigration laws or the regulations prescribed there under.

Thomas.gov

additional sources

cross posted from:Migra Matters: progressive immigration reform

California

Dan Walters on SB 1437

Sheila Kuehl’s SB 1437 adds the LGBT community to a laundry list of other minorities in an education code section that bans treating these minorities adversely in the curriculum.  It bans this adverse treatment in textbooks and day-to-day teaching.  The list includes race, gender, national origin amongst others.  Finally, it also includes “role and contribution” of the LGBT community along with other minorities in social sciences classes.

Dan Walters brings up a counter point: when we legislate on these matters we put ourselves on a slippery slope to, well, Holocaust denial?

To  date the list singled out for mandatory attention are “men and women, black Americans, American Indians, Mexicans, Asians, Pacific Island people and other ethnic groups” while another section of state school law bans instruction “which reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin or ancestry” and still another prohibits textbooks or other materials “reflecting adversely” on the same grounds.

Essentially, therefore, students must be told about certain groups, but cannot receive any instruction deemed to be negative, which is why, for instance, the Hindu American Foundation is now suing the state to block printing and distribution of new sixth-grade textbooks that are, the group maintains, demeaning to Hindus. Specifically, the foundation doesn’t like the textbooks’ depiction of women’s historically inferior status, the treatment of “untouchables” in the Indian caste system and the theory that Aryan migration played a major role in Indian cultural development.

  Implicitly, the suit is telling state officials that the textbooks must be altered to reflect the Hindu American Foundation’s version of the ethnic group’s history – regardless of what that history may truly be. (SacBee 4/24/06)

Ok, I see how this could actually lead to holocaust denial.  It is a poorly drafted bill in that there is no exception for teaching factual history events.  Does teaching about the Holocaust “reflect adversely” against Germans?  Well, obviously, the answer has to be yes.

So, how do we separate the theory and the practice? Is there some arbitrary standard?  Is it the same as a libel standard in court?  I think the resolution to the Hindu suit will go a long way in determining what these laws really mean.  I think ultimately, there is a place where we are teaching historical fact while still striving to promote a balanced curriculum.

Walters also criticizes the “role and contribution” legislation, but I think this represents at least part of the compromise.  We need to teach history, but if we teach our students not only about the Holocaust, but also about Germany’s advancements and contribution to society, we help decrease hostile feelings. 

But Walters wants to draw a line and not pass 1437.  I agree with some of his points, but can we really draw that line and exclude the LGBT community simply because they are controversial?:

The Legislature’s dictating cultural propaganda of any kind to be distributed in the classroom is troubling. It’s troubling when the cultural identification is homosexuality, and it’s troubling when – as another legislative bill this year would require – the group singled out for special attention is Italian American.

I think the answer is no.  If we are to retain the other legislation banning “reflecting adversely” with the other groups, we must pass 1437. 

Walters chooses the blunt sword, cutting all the legislation. (“It’s a slippery slope, down which California probably has slid too far already.”)  However, perhaps we should do some serious thinking about how we can help reduce discrimination in adults through our education system.  Reform is possible, but ignoring the issue just abdicates an opportunity to improve the state.

California

Is Angelides’ White Knight Riding to the Rescue?

Phil Angelides doesn’t have the kind of money that Westly has, but he has some good friends.  Some very good friends (wink-wink*). 

Sacramento developer Angelo K. Tsakopoulos and his daughter are spending $5 million in a political rescue effort for their longtime friend, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides, whose own campaign is short on money for television ads.

According to campaign records filed Friday, Tsakopoulos gave $3.75 million and Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis added $1.25 million Thursday toward an independent expenditure committee that will fund at least two weeks worth of 30-second advertisements promoting Angelides’ endorsements from firefighters and law enforcement.(SacBee 4/22/06)

Angelides has been dark or near-dark in the ad market for quite a while.  These ads are critically important for him to stay afloat until he can start spending more money.  Tsakopoulos has been helping Phil since his development days in Sacramento.  Depending on how people view these ads, as “special interests” or just firefighters giving their opinions, will determine whether this helps or hurts.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, California, Prisons

The Merry-Go-Round that’s Not so merry

Gov. Schwarzenegger appointed a new acting secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, two months after appointing the previous acting secretary.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday named James Tilton as acting secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, replacing Jeanne Woodford.

Tilton, a former budget expert at the department, currently works as a program budget manager, focusing on the corrections budget, in Schwarzenegger’s Department of Finance.
***
Before naming Tilton, Schwarzenegger on Thursday confirmed that Woodford had stepped down.
***
Rod Hickman, the governor’s first corrections secretary abruptly resigned in February.(SacBee 4/20/06)

This is a mess, and once again, Arnold has failed to provide the leadership necessary to correct the situation.  He is content to stand on the sidelines and criticize:

The Republican governor said the prison system is “in kind of a disastrous situation” and has been “for a long time.” Fixing the prison system, Schwarzenegger said, is a “slow process.”

“Kind of”…uh, yeah.  It’s kind of in a bad situation.  A federal judge is about to take over the entire ($1Billion) state prison healthcare system.  The system is about to collapse due to the exploding three strikes population.  Yet all the governor can do is state the obvious and say it’s hard?

How about rolling up your sleeves and getting to work on that disaster?  Take responsibility for seeing that the situation is resolved.  But the Governor has failed to accept any of the challenges and has failed to provide the leadership that we need in Sacramento to get a workable prison system.

Why can the governor not challenge his own party?  The criminilization of our youth has got to stop.  We serve nobody by locking up large chunks of our young adult male populations.  We need to rework 3 strikes, we need to rework sentencing, and improve treatment and rehabilitation programs so that we can clear out the prison system.  We need to get these prisoners back to a situation that they can contribute to our state.

So, Arnold, instead of pushing this merry-go-round around and around, why can’t you consider stopping this and working for a stable, permanent solution.

A little digression on the flip…

And a digression:
Hey…just a question…why can the state provide healthcare for inmates and not law-abiding citizens?  Oh yeah, b/c the state has to under the constitution.  When we have to, we can.  Health care needs to be that pressing of an issue.  The state needs health care for the masses, no matter how we do it.

California

A Terrible Idea: Banning Doctors from Executions

A bill which would bar doctors from participating in executions cleared the Assembly Business and Professions Committee yesterday.

The powerful doctors’ lobby, the California Medical Association, has sponsored legislation, AB 1954 by Assemblyman Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, that would prohibit the state from using licensed physicians in an execution.

The bill cleared the Assembly Business and Professions Committee with a bare majority, but only after an initial critic reluctantly voted for the measure just before the panel adjourned.

The measure still must pass the Appropriations Committee to reach the Assembly floor. The bill has not yet been heard in the state Senate. (San Diego U-T 4/18/06)

Is this really what we need the legislature to be doing?  Seriously, isn’t there something better.  Listen, I am personally against the death penalty.  I would hope that we as a society have evolved past that.  But, even if we haven’t, does the Legislature really need to start telling doctors what to do.  I’ll let Joe Canciamilla make the case:

But Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla, D-Pittsburg, pointedly asked Hertzka why it was necessary to enact a state law to protect doctors from something they cannot be forced to do anyhow.

“You are asking the state Legislature to tell doctors that they are now prohibited as a matter of state law, from participating in a particular activity,” Canciamilla said.

“Once you open that door . . . where do you individually draw the line because I can see a lot of other people marching in here suggesting that (other) activities be prohibited.”

Canciamilla offered abortion as an example. Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, warned that a simmering debate over the legalization of assisted suicide also could become entangled in the precedent that would be set.

And the best the Doctors’ Association can come up with is that it’s not medical?

But, he argued, “once you think about it, there is nothing medical about an execution.”

The Morales case has “thrust physicians in the middle of this, and we’re proactively saying we don’t want to be a part of it,” Hertzka explained.

Yes, it’s not medical.  But, there are already ways to avoid having to do this.  The state should not be telling doctors how to practice.  The precedent this sets is terrible.  Do we really want to start regulating this?  How do we argue against abortion regulation?  It just is not a place to put any “political capital” as a progressive. 

California

Will there be any redistricting reform this year?

Maybe, as long as there’s a bill on term limits, campaign finance, etc.  There is a push, especially in the Senate, to make one giant deal out of several issues: campaign finance, redistricting, initiative reform, and term limits.

On their own, none of the four major proposed electoral reforms moving through the Legislature would seem to have much of a chance. But with separate motivations, Democratic legislative leaders are helping to guide all of the measures through the committees, and they may all be linked together by the time the legislative session is over.

Though still a long shot, it is increasingly likely that efforts to change the state’s election-financing system, the state’s initiative process, the way the state draws legislative and Congressional districts and a possible tweak of the state term-limits law may all be folded into a monster end-of-session package. Though the measures would not literally be linked, there are now talks under way to try to move all four measures as a group. (Capitol Weekly 4/13/106)

More on the flip.

Of course most of these reforms, if not all, would need to get approved by voters, individually.  The discussion of combining term limits with redistricting has been going on for quite a while.  I am a little surprised at the initiative reform getting thrown in there.  However, I think the idea of initiative reform is a great one.  As I understand it, ACA 18 makes it easier for the Legislature to work with proponents of initiatives to address their concerns.  To me, this would be a great idea.  Perhaps it would allow the Legislature to actually participate in the governance of the state.

The campaign financing issue is coming to a head because of the California Nurses Association’s efforts towards getting a public financing initiative on the November ballot.  Lori Hancock (D-Berkeley) has a bill (AB 583) that goes most of the way towards that goal.  I’m not sure how CNA feels about it, but I’m guessing that they might satisfied with that bill.  However, it passed the Assembly with no GOP votes, so it faces a tough road.  Public financing might stand a better chance in the initiative process.  It’s one reason why I’m a little confused why the GOP hasn’t begun working towards dealing a compromise plan.  Perhaps they just love their dirty money. (Perhaps—Hah!)

Now, the combining of the 4 plans might help the less popular programs, like finance and initiative reform.  You would think softening the term limits would be popular with all of the legislators, but you never know.  Maybe Perata wants to trade redistricting for public financing and initiative reform.  Is it a trade the GOP is willing to make? I guess we’ll see in the upcoming months.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, California, Environment

Arnold: You play a fine fiddle, Nero

(Is it time to think about something else? Well, here’s the governor and the environment… – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Time Magazine did a cover story about global warming a few weeks ago.  It was not a pretty picture.  We are heading for disaster sooner rather than later.  Bush can hem and haw all he wants, but there is no longer any serious debate about this.  It’s just not possible to find substantial peer-reviewed literature which says that man-made greenhouse gases are not at least partially to blame for the global warming that we are experiencing.  You try, go look.  (To save you time, I can suggest a starting place, The Guardian).

So, Arnold Schwarzenegger makes a good proposal last year to form his “climate action team”.  (CAT) And in response to this report, he began strong:

“The debate is over. The science is in. The time to act is now. Global warming is a serious issue facing the world and California has taken an historic step with the release of this report,” said California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Tiempo Climate Newswatch)

Very good governor.  But then he fumbles the ball and brings me back to Nero (it’s a good analogy for Bush).  He proposed a watered-down version of what the CAT proposed.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called Tuesday for California to become a national leader in combatting global warming but cautioned that the state should move slowly in imposing controls on industries that emit greenhouse gases, a step environmentalists argue is a priority.

“We could really scare the business community,” Schwarzenegger warned during a summit at San Francisco City Hall at which he called for programs to help companies cut the amount of carbon dioxide and other gases that scientists say cause global warming.
The governor’s comments caused one environmentalist to suggest Schwarzenegger was a “Jekyll and Hyde” on the issue. The matter could become the focus of a battle this year with Democrats, who are backing legislation, opposed by some big business groups, that calls for enacting emission limits on industry. (SF Chron 4/12/06)

Now is not the time to play half-games.  All the business and good economy won’t help us when our children can’t breathe You can’t bring your money with you to the grave.  We can’t afford to be a laggard in environmental issues, either as a state or a nation.  Already our failure to agree to Kyoto has made us somewhat of an international pariah on these issues.  California has the opportunity to take the lead on environmental issues.  We should do that as soon as possible in a truly meaningful way.

California

Today We Act: National Day of Immigration Rights

(Half a million in Dallas. It’s about resistance to breaking up families, resistance to punishing the least powerful among us, and basic fairness. – promoted by jsw)

Today We Act, Tomorrow We Vote.

Hat tip to the LAT for this notice.

See the list of CA actions below the fold…

 

Here’s a Chron piece on No Cal.

Thanks to the always energetic MSOC for the tip to crosspost this from dKos.

California

SB 1437: Taking Homophobia Out of the Classroom

Senate Bill 1437 was passed from the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 5, 2006.  The bill bans discrimination in school textbooks based upon sexual orientation.  Further, it encourages the inclusion of LGBT contributions when students learn about contributions of other minorities.  The Bill has become very controversial amongst the state’s conservatives and evangelical Christians.

This bill is a good idea.  I wrote a paper about it that is now available online.  Click here for the paper.  Enjoy!