Dave Johnson Speak Out California

dday, writing in Giving Away The Tax Argument at Digby’s Hullabaloo blog, asks why so many California newspapers have “tax increase calculators” but no calculators that show people how much the budget cuts affect them.

In my life, I have never seen a “spending cut calculator,” where someone could plug in, say, how many school-age children they have, or how many roads they take to work, or how many police officers and firefighters serve their community, or what social services they or their families rely on, and discover how much they stand to lose in THAT equation. Tax calculators show bias toward the gated community screamers on the right who see their money being “taken away” for nothing. A spending cut calculator would actually show the impact to a much larger cross-section of society, putting far more people at risk than a below 1% hit to their bottom line.

[. . . The media already highlights the tax side of the equation over spending, dramatically portraying tax increases while relegating spending cuts to paragraph 27. It feeds the tax revolt and distorts the debate. And it’s completely irresponsible.

In Why Are Public Assets Being Cut Right When We Need Them Most?  Jay Walljasper, of OnTheCommons.org wonders why public transit, libraries and other things the government does for us are all being cut at exactly the time people need them?  As the economy turns downward more people need to take the train or bus, or use the library.  Jay makes the connection,

Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, one of the leading contenders for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, proposes closing the state’s budget gap by reducing corporate taxes and slashing state aid to local governments. This will mean painful cuts in public assets, such as transit and libraries.

. . . This loss of our public assets is an alarming threat to our society. The things we all own in common and depend upon–libraries, transit, parks, water systems, schools, public safety, infrastructure, cultural programs, social services–are being gradually but steadily undermined.

For many years I have been blogging at Seeing the Forest, often coming back to a question, “Who is our economy for?”  For some time now regular incomes have stagnated, while incomes at the very top just go up and up.  The GDP keeps rising, productivity keeps going up, but regular people see less and less of the benefit of this increase.  In fact, if you look at charts and data, the stagnation of incomes started almost exactly at the same time as President Reagan took office and started implementing the corporate agenda of anti-tax and anti-government policies.  So is this a coincidence?

Throughout human history we have seen one scheme after another wherein a few people seize power and devise a system to hold it and use it to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.  This is human nature and through history we have seen it happen over and over.

America formed in reaction to the British monarchy’s exploitation of its people.  We, the People formed our government to band together and protect each other from attempts by the powerful few to exploit us.  Our Constitution was supposed to be include a system of checks and balances to account for the nature of power.

It is time for the people to take back that power and use it to again benefit each other.  And it is time for California’s newspapers to do something for We, the People and include a “budget cuts calculator” as well as tax increase calculator.  It is just as important, maybe more so, that we all understand how we’re injuring and jeopardizing our future with the budget cuts the Republicans required in this year’s budget negotiations.

Click through to Speak Out California

It’s very rare when I actually agree with The OC Register’s editorial page, but today happens to be one of those rare occasions. Read this and weep:

As the Register reported, the city [of Santa Ana] hired a Sacramento-based polling firm in March in the hopes that residents would tell pollsters that they want higher taxes to pay to fix Santa Ana’s poorly maintained, pothole-filled roads. To the officials’ dismay, residents overwhelmingly opposed the idea of paying higher taxes for roadwork. But officials saw an opportunity in another question, in which residents said they would give “high priority” to higher taxes to deal with gang prevention.

So they commissioned another poll. And lo and behold, they got what they wanted! People were willing to pay more taxes to “pay for more police officers to fight crime”. So now, we’re getting the “gang-fighting tax” in Santa Ana. But is this really what city officials are telling us that it is?

Follow me after the flip for more…

Here’s some more of today’s Register editorial:

Had the city really believed that there is a desperate need for more police, then it would have commissioned a poll that focused on police needs. Instead, it commissioned the poll based on its presumption that roadwork was the prime need. Apparently, city officials will raise taxes for any and all purposes, which is easier than doing what 84 percent of respondents told the city-hired pollsters: that “spending tax money efficiently” is a high priority.

Now to be honest, I disagree with what The Register says later on about taxes being evil, blah, blah, blah. I just don’t buy Howard Jarvis talking points. That’s not the issue for me.

What concerns me here is that the city would mislead residents about the “need” for this tax. First, they said that it’s about fixing our streets. And now, they’re telling us that it’s really to fight gang violence. So which one is it? Or is it really neither?

Is it really meant to pay for subsidies that we can’t afford and that don’t work for us? Is it really to pay for these bloated salaries for these ineffective city administrators? How are we supposed to accept paying more taxes to the city if we can’t even trust the city to be honest with us?

Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t want to see any more gang violence. I don’t want to see any more decrepit streets. I don’t want to see any more dearth of open space in this town. I don’t want to see any more libraries closed.

But if this tax were really about these things, then why can’t the city just tell us that? And if this really weren’t just a reward to a bunch of incompetent jerks who have failed us on all these issues, then why can’t the city just tell us that? How are we supposed to entrust these people with more of our tax money when they can’t even be honest about why they want more of it?

Dana, what irks us with Mayor Pulido is his lack of accessibility and what seems to be a lack of willingness to lead. The LA Times did an article about three years ago which discussed his nickname “The Invisible Mayor.” Gustavo “The Mexican” Arellano has nicknamed him the “Howard Hughes of Orange County.” All this goes back to his lack of accessibility. Until this last election cycle, virtually the only times we ever saw Mayor Pulido was every first and third Monday of the month. He was often a no show at dozens of community events, it is almost like he is bored of his duties as Mayor. When Santa Ana was being taken over by unruly protests in March of 2006, he was nowhere to be found. His job that day was to be a leader and once again he was MIA. None of it involved marching or protesting. The topic of the protests was immigration, but when the city is on the verge of a riot, it is not a federal issue, it is a local one. Exactly how is that “behind the the scenes” leadership?

That’s Claudio Gallegos in today’s Orange Juice, responding to Dana Parson’s recent profile of Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido in The LA Times. I guess he’s taking issue with Dana Parsons’ assertion that those of us who decry Pulido’s lack of leadership are doing so just because Pulido isn’t “Latino enough”. No, it’s much more than that. It’s the crappy state of our roads, closing libraries, lack of parks, and much, much more.

Follow me after the flip as we examine why people in Santa Ana really are irritated with the Mayor…

So why are we angry with Miguel Pulido? It isn’t because he doesn’t give awesome speeches at immigrants’ rights rallies. It isn’t because he doesn’t declare allegiance to Aztlan. Basically, it isn’t because he isn’t some firebrand for radical causes. It’s because he just doesn’t seem to care about the people in the City of Santa Ana.

I like how Claudio says it…

During his “invisible years”, our streets began to crumble, many playgrounds and park equipment fell into disrepair, after years of a lowered crime rate, crime and grafitti have returned with a vengeance, and a nationally recognized organization labeled Santa Ana one of the hardest places to raise a family financially. Fixing these problems did not require marching or carrying signs. People want leadership.

Or as I said it earlier this week…

Here are some more reasons why Pulido is so controversial here. He hasn’t done anything about the recent spat of gang violence in Santa Ana. He hasn’t done anything about opening more parks in a city that’s in such dire need of open space. He hasn’t done a good job of keeping our roads in good working condition, as some parts of town look like third-world countries due to the crappy state of their streets. He hasn’t improved our libraries… Oh wait, that’s right, HE’S CLOSED THEM! In his twenty years on the City Council and twelve years as Mayor, I’m struggling just to find good things that Pulido has done in this city.

So have we made that clear now? It’s not about “how Latino” Miguel Pulido is. It’s not about how much “Chicano Pride” he displays. It’s not about the color of Miguel Pulido’s skin.

It’s about how the Mayor is doing his job. It’s about our decrepit roads. It’s about the dearth of green in this town. It’s about the gangs that roam the decrepit roads at night. It’s about where the kids have to go when there’s such a dearth of nice, green open spaces. It’s about the dire state of the lives of way too many working people in this city.

And does this Mayor care? Does he care about the people in this city? I think Dana Parsons missed that point when he spoke with Miguel Pulido. Pulido’s not controversial here because he’s not “Latino enough”. He’s controversial because he doesn’t care enough about this city.

In case you missed it, The LA Times still has one reporter/columnist/commentator left in Orange County. His name is Dana Parsons. And on Friday, he talked about his recent interview with controversial Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido.

Now Miguel Pulido may be controversial, but not in ways that we’d think a Latino mayor of a heavily Latino city would be controversial. He doesn’t lead immigrants’ rights marches. He doesn’t declare Santa Ana as a “sanctuary” for undocumented immigrants. Actually, Pulido doesn’t really care about immigration.

So how is Miguel Pulido controversial? Follow me after the flip to find out…

“If I were a Curt Pringle [the white mayor of Anaheim], would anybody be saying how come he’s not out there marching?” Pulido says. “And in a way, they’re discriminating – inverse discrimination, so to speak – against me, by making the assertion that because I’m Hispanic, I’m at fault for not participating.”

He notes that his critics on the issue generally are other Latinos. “If I had a different heritage, they’d have a different conclusion,” he says. “That goes against all that I stand for, because I want to treat everybody the same and I want to be treated the same way.”

When I then begin to ask how he wants to be judged on the issue, he says firmly, “As a mayor. Not as an Anglo mayor. Not a Hispanic mayor. As a mayor.”

Another mayor in a heavily Latino city might play it differently, I suggest. “Correct,” he says.

“But don’t say that because this mayor is Hispanic he’s got to behave this way. That really gets to me, because then the implication is that you are different and should behave differently because of that. And to me, I am an American first.”

Wow. That’s deep. Well, I guess people here do wonder why a guy who immigrated here from Mexico City as a little boy wouldn’t stand up for his fellow immigrants, but that’s beside the point. That’s not the only controversial thing about Pulido.

Here are some more reasons why Pulido is so controversial here. He hasn’t done anything about the recent spat of gang violence in Santa Ana. He hasn’t done anything about opening more parks in a city that’s in such dire need of open space. He hasn’t done a good job of keeping our roads in good working condition, as some parts of town look like third-world countries due to the crappy state of their streets. He hasn’t improved our libraries… Oh wait, that’s right, HE’S CLOSED THEM! In his twenty years on the City Council and twelve years as Mayor, I’m struggling just to find good things that Pulido has done in this city.

I guess that’s the real controversy here. It’s not that Miguel Pulido has ever done anything controversial. No, it’s just that HE HASN’T DONE ANYTHING, PERIOD! That’s the difference here.

Say what you will about Antonio Villaraigosa, but a least he’s doing something. At least he cares about Los Angeles. At least he cares about what happens to the people who live in LA. We can’t even get our mayor in Santa Ana to care. He’s too busy comparing himself to Curt Pringle.