That’s the claim from the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, which has a study showing how the gas tax cut will affect jobs in each state.

The assumption the AR&BTA is using is that the tax cut would blow a $9 billion hole in the federal transportation budget. Based on FY 07-08 expenditures CA’s share of that would be $664,406,924. The association then estimates that 23,107 jobs would be lost here in California – roughly equivalent to the proposed school layoffs – over the next three years.

No wonder then that local transportation agencies across the state are denouncing this foolish proposal. From Santa Cruz:

“It would deplete an already oversubscribed highway trust fund, making a bad situation worse,” commission Executive Director George Dondero said. “We’re trying to get the government to generate more money for transportation, not less.”

Dondero said he didn’t know how much the county could lose, just that “future projects would have to wait.”

Critics of the gas-tax break, including Clinton opponent Barack Obama, say it would have little impact on consumers, saving the average driver an estimated $30 over the course of the summer, and instead create a $10 billion gap in the federal highway trust fund, used for highway construction and maintenance.

Calling the proposal an “election pandering” tactic, commissioner and county Supervisor Ellen Pirie said it would benefit oil companies.

“There will be a lot of harm in terms of infrastructure projects and maintenance people want taken care of,” Pirie said. “It would be great if there were a way to reduce the price of gas. I know a lot of people are struggling with this, but I don’t think [the tax break] is an effective way to do this.”

Thanks to Daily Kos diarist Jimmy Crackcorn you can see just how much this pander will be worth to you with an online calculator. Plugging in my expected summer driving (75 mi per week) and car mileage (33 mpg) I get…$16!

Wow. A whopping $16. That’s maybe a dollar a week. And at the low, low cost of 23,107 jobs in our state during a recession and stalled transportation projects that if completed would help drivers save on gas for years to come. Of course, the lost jobs have a ripple effect on both state budgets (lost income tax revenue, lost sales tax revenue) and the state economy.

The real solution is, as I explained at my high speed rail blog last night, investment in things like trains. Thank god someone in this race is talking about that:

The irony is with the gas prices what they are, we should be expanding rail service. One of the things I have been talking bout for awhile is high speed rail connecting all of these Midwest cities — Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, St. Louis. They are not that far away from each other. Because of how big of a hassle airlines are now. There are a lot of people if they had the choice, it takes you just about as much time if you had high speed rail to go the airport, park, take your shoes off.

This is something that we should be talking about a lot more. We are going to be having a lot of conversations this summer about gas prices. And it is a perfect time to start talk about why we don’t have better rail service. We are the only advanced country in the world that doesn’t have high speed rail. We just don’t have it. And it works on the Northeast corridor. They would rather go from New York to Washington by train than they would by plane. It is a lot more reliable and it is a good way for us to start reducing how much gas we are using. It is a good story to tell.

That was Barack Obama, giving impromptu remarks to an Indiana couple a few days ago.

I’ll fill you in on the protest soon.  It went very well.  But I’m fortunate enough to be able to go to Burbank at 4:00 on a Friday and protest.  Some of our other fellow Californians aren’t so lucky.  They’re busy trying to find a way to keep their homes and feed their families.  The LA Times has the latest job numbers, and they’re obscene.

California’s unemployment rate rose by a whopping half a percentage point in March, reaching 6.2% as a weakening economy shed jobs in the ailing construction and financial activities sectors. In all, 1.13 million were unemployed […]

California is doing worse than Pennsylvania and Ohio … the two Rust Belt states that have figured prominently in the presidential primary elections because of their lost manufacturing jobs.

If the governor’s budget-cutting plan moves forward and thousands of educators across the state lose their jobs, this will only get worse.  The worst, absolute worst numbers are in the Inland Empire, where construction is at a standstill and housing-related employment is melting away.

The rise in unemployment during March affected all of Southern California, with the worst effects in the Inland Empire. The rate in Riverside County — not seasonally adjusted — rose to 7.4% from 7.0%, while in San Bernardino County it rose to 6.7% from 6.3%.

7.4% isn’t approaching the 1980s just yet, but it’s getting pretty damn close.  And areas like the IE, which don’t have a sustaining support structure for the unemployed or the needy the way that, say, Los Angeles does, are particularly vulnerable.  We’re on the front lines of an economic meltdown that is rapidly expanding.

Good thing we have a bantaaastic governor who gets on the cover of Time magazine!  

Dennis Kucinich’s approach to the economy is so practical and farsighted, I sometimes wonder why it isn’t discussed more; even by Kucinich! But, I guess Iraq is always the dominating issue.

However, amazingly, this plan addresses: balancing the budget, tempering the Pentagon war machine, fair taxation reform, leveling the business sector to enable small businesses to compete, our $800 Billion trade deficit, worker’s rights human rights and environmental concerns, the millions of outsourced jobs, and  rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure-while at the same time creating more national wealth with millions of jobs, promoting renewable energies and saving families money on bills! It is insanely practical and wholly part of his message of “Strength Through Peace” for America.

In the same way that Dennis Kucinich will strengthen our security internationally by creating pragmatic relationships of peace, based upon equality and fairness, so he will at home by creating a more balanced economy and more equal society. To start with, Kucinich will repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and then double the tax refunds and credits for Americans earning $80,000 and less. He will create a more level playing field for small businesses by reconstituting the trust-busting powers of the Justice Department and breaking up the monopolies that make competition next to impossible in many industries. Further, he will slash the bloated Pentagon budget that we spoke about earlier by 15% to provide for universal education, pre-kindergarten/daycare through college, as well as a new public works program, called the WGA, which in turn will create millions of new jobs.

Regarding our massive trade deficit, mounting over $700 Billion/yr, and the millions of jobs our country has lost through trade agreements (3 million manufacturing jobs lost since 2000 alone) Kucinich is the only candidate willing to address the problem head on. As one of his first acts in office, he will notify NAFTA and the WTO that America is withdrawing from the agreements, thus protecting massive outsourced job loss, stimulating the economy and getting us on the road to recovery nationally; as America starts to produce goods that Americans purchase. No longer will it only be about corporate wealth, but national wealth as well, and Dennis will agressively pursue that these corporations pay their fare share in taxes too.

We will return to bilateral trade, based upon workers rights, human rights and environmental principles. No more exploiting workers for slave wages. No more ruining the environment for profit. Workers will be empowered and the rights of American workers to unionize and enact effective collective bargaining will gain more strength by Kucinich’s promise to repeal the Taft-Hartely Act.

And finally, Dennis will create millions of new jobs and more wealth among the middle and working class and small businesses, while simultaneously addressing our crumbling infrastructural problems and energy needs. Through his Works Green Administration, or WGA, Dennis is investing in the environment, as well as our future, while stimulating the national economy. Inspired by FDR’s Works Progress Administration, the WGA utilizes the Environmental Protection Agency to put millions of Americans back to work rebuilding our schools, bridges, roads, ports, water systems, and environmental systems. Not only does the bold practicality of the plan lie in putting Americans back to work by investing in the national wealth of our own infrastructure, but the plan also incorporates environmental and energy concerns to further create wealth for the country and save individual families more money. For example, not only will the public works projects stress green building and renewable energy technology, but the plan will enable homes to be retrofit with green building, solar and wind microtechnology which will save families money on their energy bills.

The nation actually had a good employment month in October.  The economy added 166,000 jobs, mainly in the professional and business services, health care, and leisure and hospitality sectors, and even construction was largely unchanged.

On the other hand, California lost 15,800 jobs, and year-over-year unemployment is up a full point to 5.6% (and that of course doesn’t include those who have stopped looking for work).  That’s also a full point over the national average.  The apologists that call themselves economists in this article are trying to spin the numbers but it won’t wash.

October’s decline in employment, the biggest since the loss of 14,000 jobs in July, confirms that the state’s economy is slowing, said Stephen Levy, who directs the Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy in Palo Alto.

But “this is a slowdown that the nation is participating in,” Levy said. (Then why did the US add 166,000 jobs in the same month? -ed.) […]

Levy cautioned against making “a big deal” of the overall job loss figures.

“None of this is like when we lost our aerospace industry — that was permanent — or when the Internet bubble burst,” he said.

The current job losses do not signify any loss of strength in the state’s key economic sectors, he said. “It’s not like our economy is threatened from this.”

Really?  You mean the construction sector isn’t losing strength due to the housing meltdown?  And that isn’t driving economic trouble in all other sectors, as the end of refinancing and redecorating new homes depresses consumer spending?

Ever hear of trash-outs?

“An old wooden house along Genevieve Street in San Bernardino was the scene recently of a trash pickup for tenants who lost their home to a bank foreclosure.”

“On Thursday morning, the driveway was piled up with appliances, furniture and clothes that were littered everywhere – a telltale sign of a family that recently lived there. An old gas stove with a skillet full of dust was found. In the back yard, there were mattresses, a microwave, two mangled couches and a bulky refrigerator.”

“Foreclosed homes all over the Inland Empire are turning into what Lisa Carvalho calls ‘trash-outs’ – wooden and stucco carcasses with piles of junk left behind by former tenants.”

“The High Desert offers even more interesting tales. The area is full of tract homes in subdivisions that have stacks of furniture piled inside every room, she said.”

“‘These typically look like they’re occupied, but they’re not trashed,’ she said about these homes. ‘(The owners) just walk away and wash their hands of it.'”

Distressed properties (which are usually foreclosures or short sales) made up one out of every five homes listed for sale in Orange County last week.  And it’s hard to even say who’s in worse shape, homeowners, realtors, or financial institutions stuck with mortgages that will be defaulted without delay.

This is a crisis, and economists who keep their heads in the sand aren’t serving whoever it is they’re supposed to serve.  The legislation that would have at least helped to address this was blocked by Senate Republicans last week.  Where California is able to go in the next decade relies on stabilizing this housing situation.

This diary is part of the candidate series on MyDD for Bill Richardson.  I am Californian supporter of Richardson.  I am not part of his campaign.

Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and in his second term as Governor of New Mexico after a landslide victory in November 2006, Governor Bill Richardson is running for President to heal America and restore our place in the world. He possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President.

Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident. He has the ability to quickly evaluate a situation but is not rigid in his thinking and will modify policy when necessary. He takes a practical approach to governing, focusing on solutions to problems rather than ideology.

Richardson has been called a “force of nature.” When he served in Congress, he was regarded as one of the hardest working members, respected for his intelligence and detailed knowledge of the issues. In a profile earlier this year, Democratic state Senator Mary Jane Garcia stated, “It just never stops; it’s busy, busy, busy. He’s got an agenda like you can’t believe.”  New Mexican Republican Representative Dan Foley added, “People shouldn’t count him out. You won’t find a person who works harder.”

Richardson fights for the principals he believes in. I offer two of many examples:

First, while Secretary of Energy, against opposition in Congress and even criticism from within the Clinton Administration, Richardson acknowledged the Energy Department’s long history of denying responsibility for workers’ injuries at the nation’s nuclear weapons plants. He stated, “We need to right this wrong.”

Richardson successfully lobbied Congress to enact legislation providing payments and medical benefits to the workers that developed cancer and other serious diseases.

Second, in April 2007, Richardson spoke at Rally to Save the People of Darfur in San Francisco. He was the only Presidential candidate that attended, even though they were all in California that weekend for the California Democratic Party Convention.  Prior to speaking, a reporter asked Richardson why he was there. Richardson’s response was an inspiration to all fighting for social change: “You have to be part of the causes you believe in.”

Richardson has been to Sudan three times visiting refugee camps and negotiating the release of American aid workers and journalists. He has never given up on Africa.

Richardson has had an outstanding record as Governor of New Mexico.  He increased school funding, expanded health care coverage, extended civil rights protections to include sexual orientation, made New Mexico a model for the rest of nation in promoting clean energy and fighting global warming, while cutting taxes to promote sustainable growth and balancing the state budget. For his commitment to protecting the state’s environment, the Conversation Voters of New Mexico gave Richardson “a solid A.”

Richardson understands that the Democratic Party must be the party of economic progress.  He has assisted the private sector in New Mexico in creating new, high paying jobs. He calls on Democrats to “stand for policies that encourage innovation and expand economic opportunity.”

On education policy, Richardson understands that No Child Left Behind sets up our public schools for failure.  Unlike the other major candidates that want to somehow fix and preserve NCLB, Richardson’s approach is simple and clear:  scrap it.  Richardson writes::

NCLB has failed. It has failed our schools, it has failed our teachers and it has failed our children. The Bush administration claims victories, but upon closer scrutiny it becomes clear that the White House is simply dressing up ugly data with fancy political spin. Far from leaving no child behind, President Bush seems to have left reality behind. 

On global warming and energy policy, Richardson has set forth the most detailed and aggressive plan of all candidates – calling for a 90% decrease in greenhouse emissions by 2050.  Dave Hamilton, the Sierra Club’s Director of Energy and Global Warming program, stated Richardson’s “18-page energy policy is much more aggressive than anything we’ve seen so far from the candidates.  It is also significantly better-elaborated in theory with regard to where we end up.” 

Richardson is the product of two nations, Mexico and the United States. His childhood friends included many of the poor in the neighborhood where his family lived in Mexico City.  He saw first hand the devastating impact of poverty on families and children. His bi-national upbringing necessitated understanding and then bridging two cultures. This laid the foundation for Richardson as an adult to become a peacemaker among nations and an expert in the art of diplomacy.

Richardson has articulated a new foreign policy for America which starts by recognizing the new challenges we face in the 21st century:

Jihadists and environmental crises have replaced armies and missiles as the greatest threats, and globalization has eroded the significance of national borders. Many problems that were once national are now global, and dangers that once came only from states now come also from societies-not from hostile governments, but from hostile individuals or from impersonal social trends, such as the consumption of fossil fuels.

Richardson calls on the U.S. to foster “the cooperation needed to solve the issues that face the modern world. The U.S. government needs to see the world as it really is – so that the United States can lead others to make it a better, safer place.”

On Iraq, Richardson has eloquently stated:

The War in Iraq is not the disease. Iraq is a symptom. The disease is arrogance. The next President must be able to repair the damage that’s been done to our country’s reputation over the last six years. It’s why experience in foreign affairs has never been more important.

Richardson has the best plan for ending the war in Iraq. He is only major candidate that has repeatedly and unequivocally called for the complete withdrawal of ALL American forces from Iraq.

The others candidates lack the confidence to stand up to the military and political establishment and follow the will of the American people.  They accept the argument that a complete withdrawal of all American forces would be “irresponsible.”  As Richardson wrote wrote in a recent Op Ed, “On the contrary, the facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal — not a drawn-out, Vietnam-like process — would be the most responsible and effective course of action.”

The fundamental difference between Obama, Edwards and HRC verse Richardson on Iraq is that Richardson understands that by the U.S. remaining in Iraq, we unwittingly perpetuate the war.  Our troops have become the targets in a civil war.  The Iraqi government has become dependent on the U.S. for security the Iraqis should provide.  Richardson notes: “The Iraqis won’t take the necessary steps toward political reconciliation until the U.S. makes it clear that it will leave the country for good.”

Likewise, without the direct and committed action by the President of the United States, Iraq will remain in chaos. Richardson is the only candidate with a track record of foreign policy success.  Richardson will lead a diplomatic offensive to bring peace and stability to the region.

That we must exit Iraq now is a message Richardson constantly delivers to voters.  He doesn’t tailor his message to the audience. Yesterday, Richardson spoke on ending the war at two town halls in Iowa.  The first was at the National Guard Armory in Council Bluffs and second at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post in Sioux City.

In closing, with Richardson we get two for the price of one: an energetic, can-do leader on domestic issues and an experienced diplomat on foreign affairs.

The California Budget Project’s report, A Generation of Inequality: The State of Working California, 1979-2006, has already started to grab public attention, such as a front-page article in the SF Chronicle.

It’s about time. Although neoliberalism has been hurting working Californians since 1979, it’s been in the last few years that the situation has become dramatically worse. Low wages, poor job growth prospects, and soaring costs of living are killing the California Dream for millions of residents of this state.

Below I offer an overview of the report, and some suggestions on what we can – and should – do about the growing crisis.

The CBP has identified several major factors that illustrate the widening inequality in California:

• 70% of job creation in California since 1979 has been in high-wage or low-wage jobs. The middle-income folks have faced stagnation or declining incomes.
• Wage gains are not only unevenly shared, but inflation and the soaring cost of living has hit low- and middle-income workers harder than their counterparts in other states.
• Workers are getting fewer benefits – health care has been slashed, as have pensions.
• Young Californians – those born since 1979 – have fared poorly in the state’s job market, and since 2000 those with college degrees have had *fewer* job prospects than those with only a high school diploma, though the latter group is still facing poor prospects of their own.

California is becoming a place where only the rich can afford to enjoy basic economic security – whereas everyone else must face high housing costs, rising energy, food, and health care costs with shrinking wages and poor job prospects.

It’s apt that this report focuses on 1979 to the present, as that corresponds to my own lifespan. Parts of this report ring all to true to my own cohort. Take my high school class, which graduated from an Orange County school in 1997. Today most of us work either in financial services, high-tech, or education, with many of the grads who did not attend college working in the service sector.

This is not a recipe for economic security. Those who work in financial services are facing the specter of widespread job losses as a 25-year long asset bubble starts to unwind. Those who work in high-tech already faced a bust in 2000, and know all too well how easily their jobs can be outsourced. Those of us who work in education are dependent on government funding, which Republicans are seeking to cut at every opportunity. Those who work in the service sector find their employment to be unsteady and their wages wholly inadequate to the cost of living in California. And most of us who attended college are saddled with student loan debts, cutting into our incomes even more deeply. And that’s just from a suburban high school – Californians from poorer backgrounds obviously have fared much worse than we.

Meanwhile the situation continues to worsen. The bursting of the housing bubble has already caused the state’s unemployment rate to rise every month in 2007. Gas prices have retreated somewhat from their spring highs, but remain around $3/gal in the state, still an unsustainably high level. At the same time Republicans successfully gutted state mass transit funds, effectively shackling Californians to their cars and to the oil companies. Arnold’s preferred health care plan would merely saddle these struggling families with hundreds of dollars a month in premiums, while still not actually delivering them affordable, comprehensive health care.

This report illustrates a state in crisis, lurching toward catastrophe. 28 years of neoliberalism has put us on the edge of a precipice. How do we deal with it, then?

Do we follow the advice of conservatives like Joel Kotkin, who in the SF Chronicle article about the CBP study called for more of the same – less regulation and taxation of business, implying though not saying that this will also require further cuts to vital public services? That would be like turning to the folks who broke Iraq and asking them to fix it.

Instead we need to revive the old progressive, New Deal era emphasis on economic security. Some believe that progressive politics remains amorphous and without a core agenda. Economic security, I believe, MUST be that agenda.

We must build a diverse coalition of all ethnic and racial backgrounds, of middle- and low-income households, to challenge the neoliberal economy. Instead we must demand and put into action policies that will help even out the balance in California, and save the state from impending ruin.

We need, at minimum, the following:

• Universal health care. Providing cost certainty to families, as well as health, is vital to providing for our future security.
• A redefinition of the California Dream – a new urban strategy for California life, providing for affordable housing, sustainable transportation, and better use of our resources. We must stop subsidizing suburban sprawl, one of the culprits behind this inequality, and instead redirect our energies to building up our cities.
• A new, long-term source of good jobs for California’s low- and middle-income families. The Green Jobs initiative pioneered by Rep. Hilda Solis could well be the prototype for this, providing for a clean environment, sustainable practices, and jobs for ALL Californians, across class and racial lines. California can become a leader in 21st century manufacturing, building on local resources to provide a sustainable and clean range of products for America as we face the dual shocks of climate change and peak oil.
• Root-and-branch reform of agriculture. Californians have already become major leaders of the Farm Bill reform movement and we need to ramp this up significantly. Agriculture is the backbone of California’s economy and, of course, of civilization itself. We need to shift CA ag toward sustainable, organic, healthy practices, linking city and country in a new network of local food production and consumption that provides income and jobs for rural counties and affordable, quality food for the cities.
• Educational reform and affordability. The cost of higher education – including technical and vocational training – has soared, and these costs represent a massive drain on earning power for working families. We need to put into place a plan to forgive ALL student loans, and redeem the promise we made in 1960 to give Californians free higher education. This will spur entrepreneurial activity, as well as ensure that the young can help pay for the needs of aged.

All of those solutions will help Californians of all backgrounds and class status. We cannot follow in the footsteps of those who will tell us that in the hard times that we now face, we must choose who to include and who to exclude – a choice that always seems to come down to race.

This is the challenge we face as California progressives. And these can be the solutions that we offer. This can be our opportunity to build a prosperous and secure 21st century state.

(Rep. Solis for President! Ok, maybe it’s too late for that. How about Governor? – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Tomorrow I'm hosting a forum on Global Warming at Cal State LA from 9am-3pm where I will bring together environmentalists, labor unions, small businesses, cities, schools and community residents to discuss the local challenges and opportunities presented by climate change.  Speakers will include Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster and Mary Nichols, Chair of the California Air Resources Board.

EDIT by Brian: See the extended for more details on what sounds like a really cool event.

A segment of the discussion tomorrow will focus on an issue of great importance to me – the promise of millions of “green collar jobs” that could be created through investment in clean technology.  These good paying and mostly union jobs would greatly benefit communities like mine, where the unemployment rate continues to run above the national average and those with jobs are struggling to make ends meet. 

On August 2nd, the U.S. House of Representatives passed The Green Jobs Act of 2007 (H.R. 2847), legislation I introduced to authorize $125 million for job training in the renewable energy industries, such as solar and wind power.  The bill was passed on August 2nd as part of the Democrats' New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act.  The training assistance provided by the bill would be targeted to veterans, at risk youth, and displaced employees, and would help promote programs such as the one at the East Los Angeles Skills Center where individuals are being taught to install solar installation panels.  Training for green collar jobs will open the door for these workers to mostly union and well-paying jobs. 

If you cannot join me at Cal State LA tomorrow for the Forum, I hope you will work with me and my colleagues in Congress and those at the local level to bring the issue of global warming to the forefront and to highlight the promise of green collar jobs.  For more information, I encourage you to visit my website at www.house.gov/soli and the website for the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming at globalwarming.house.gov.

(I know Calitics is normally a job board, but this is a critical county that needs an E.D. willing to fight the job, organize, and hold the OC elected Dems accountable when they screw up. – promoted by blogswarm)

The Democratic Party of Orange County has an immediate opening for the position of Executive Director. The application deadline is June 29.  The Executive Director is responsible for managing the Party’s ongoing programs and operations, development and implementation of its fundraising strategy, and supervision of other employees and volunteers in the Party’s Santa Ana, CA office. 

There’s a full job description on Craigslist.

Yesterday the Calitics staff sat down with Sen. Christopher Dodd, Senate Banking Committee chair and candidate for President in 2008, for about a 30-minute interview.  Dodd impressed me as someone who thinks clearly about issues and the implications of them, who carefully ponders all of his decisions, and who always strives to do the right thing.  In other words, a Democrat.

He’s also embraced new media, hiring Tim Tagaris, who should be familiar to the netroots as having worked on Ned Lamont’s campaign (here’s a bio).  Dodd talked about the new media era and how it can impact a campaign like his that is looking to get their views out in the face of the media-hyped monster that his Hillack Clintobama.

The full interview (not transcribed, but paraphrased) on the flip:

We asked Dodd about the role that blogs and the Internet are playing in his campaign.  During last week’s debate, they set up a live streaming “war room” where people could watch his staff react to portions of the debate (Dodd actually criticized the debate format in his convention speech, which I thought was accurate).  He said that his campaign cannot “rely on what’s filtered through the traditional media.”  He talked about how he can read articles on the Presidential race, and see where his portion of the story “died on the editor’s desk,” because you only have so many column inches and you have to talk about Hillary and you have to talk about Obama.  The Tom Friedman quote that Brian Williams brought up in the debate (“nobody has come up with a specific energy and environmental policy”) really stung him, because Dodd HAS done just that, and he said that he sent it to Friedman to boot.  We talk about the proposal later.

Now I’ll segue into a Q-and-A shorthand format.

Next question: When the media does stop at the Hillary-Obama phenomenon, how do you react to that?

A: “We’re building an operation solidly.”  Dodd believes in an almost architectural way to build an organization, by making the underlying structure solid.  Iowa and Nevada, he said, are all about organization; getting people to stay in caucuses for two hours and horse trade with their neighbors requires it.  And in New Hampshire, he’s a fellow New Englander.  His crowds are “decent-sized”.  And people seem to have an “amnesia about the last election,” where Kerry’s organization in Iowa was solid enough to help him win that race.

Q: Talk about the corporate carbon tax.

A: Dodd believes he can generate 50-100 billion dollars annually through this tax, which can be put into alternative energy programs.  This will have the effect of equalizing price for peopple.  People want to go green, but if it’s cost-prohibitive and they’re struggling to get by, they may not make the sacrifice.  It makes it easier to purchase things like wind and solar and ethanol, etc.  Dodd said that he got a great response on the proposal, particularly from Al Gore.  He also wants to mandate a 50mpg fuel economy standard by 2017.  I’ll quote his Boston Globe op-ed for a more detailed description:

That’s why, in addition to whatever else we do, America must enact a corporate carbon tax. Used in conjunction with cap and trade systems that allow clean corporations to sell pollution credits to dirtier companies, a corporate carbon tax can be implemented quickly, affect every energy sector, and above all provide the strongest disincentive possible to polluting.

Some argue that corporations would simply pass on costs of a corporate carbon tax to consumers. But in an era where the price of gasoline already jumps 30 to 40 cents in only a few weeks’ time, such arguments ring decidedly hollow. You cannot be serious about acting on the urgent threat of global warming, about making us less captive to Middle East oil, or investing in renewable energy, unless you have a corporate carbon tax that eliminates the last incentive to pollute: that it’s cheaper. With all we are facing — from health and environmental concerns to war abroad — making dirty energy a less attractive option to consumers and business is nothing to be afraid of.

But it’s particularly attractive because the revenues of a corporate carbon tax can be used to bring the cost of clean energy down. Used to fast-track renewable energy research and development and deployment of clean energy and energy efficient technologies, a corporate carbon tax would generate more than $50 billion annually, helping us get technologies out of the laboratories and onto our roads and into our homes and businesses, jumpstarting America’s global competitiveness in the process.

Dodd also described it as a jobs program, and that the jobs of the 21st century can be alternative energy jobs.

Q: On Iraq, what are your thoughts on what to do after the expected veto of the funding bill with a withdrawal date?

A: “Any bill you send without definition is wrong.”  Bush obviously wants to play out the string and hand this problem to the next President.  This is the first Administration in his history in the Congress that treats diplomacy as a threat or a weakness.  Dodd would ramp up diplomacy and political solutions to the problem of Iraq.  He says that he gets people coming up to him all the time, Democrats and Republicans, who say “Don’t quit on this.”  Dodd is also a co-sponsor of Feingold-Reid.  I’m happy with his stance on Iraq.

Q: What is the status of your legislation restoring habeas corpus?

A: Not moving.  But he’s committed to the issue.  “When I first introduced it, I thought it would go over people’s heads,” would be too obscure.  He didn’t realize how widely held this opinion was that we need to restore habeas corpus, that it speaks to who we are as Americans.

Dodd talked about how the best advocates of his bill were the senior officers of JAG.  They understand that you cannot torture people or detain them indefinitely without telling them why they were charged.  He talked about all the reasons why you have to change the law.  And he said that if he were President, “I don’t know what I could fix by executive order.”  I said, “If you’re like this President, everything.”  Big laugh.  I killed with Chris Dodd.

Q: Talk about Webb and Tester.

A: He has a lot of respect for them.  Called Tester “a keeper” and great with his constituents.

Q: Talk about jobs and why so many people think they’re falling behind.

A: We need more union households.  Ben Bernanke made a speech in Omaha where he admitted that less union households have increased inequality.  Dodd has offered legislation to overturn the Kentucky River case, where people listed as supervisors cannot organize.  He talked about rising costs in energy, education, health care.  And he said that the GI bill was so successful in getting so many to college and into a good job.

He also mentioned that real unemployment is probably twice as much as reported, because it doesn’t count those who haven’t looked for work or have stopped looking.  And he said that 10 million households in this country haven’t been to a bank.  We need to get people out of the shadows and into that system.

Dodd finished by talking about trust.  Elections are rarely about the candidate; people want to know if you’re listening to them (a primal reaction).  He thinks America is not that divded and is just looking for leadership to get them from A to D and not A to Z.

Q: Talk about how you are interacting with Joe Lieberman now.

A: This was a great answer, and I encouraged Dodd to keep talking about it.  He had a 40-year relationship with Lieberman.  It was a tough choice for him to back Ned Lamont.  And ultimately, he said, “I did the right thing” because he respected the wishes of the voters.  He said Ned was a great candidate and would have made a great Senator.

OK, that was it.