Tag Archives: Endorsements

Budget

Aftermath Of The Proposition Battle: Listen To The Range Of Debate

14 Comments

Those who followed the proposition thread know the outcome, but in case you need a recap, Big Media’s got your back as well.

Efforts by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders to win voter approval of six budget measures on the May 19 ballot grew more difficult Sunday when a sharply split state Democratic Party declined to back three of them.

The mixed verdict by more than 1,200 delegates to a state party convention came after a nasty floor fight over the grim menu of proposed solutions to California’s severe budget crisis.

“We’ve got all kinds of divisions,” Art Pulaski, leader of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, said of the fractures among unions that drove the party’s internal rift. “It’s not unusual for us.”

Republicans, too, are split on Propositions 1A through 1F. The state Republican Party has broken with Schwarzenegger, its standard-bearer, and begun fighting the measures.

Taken together, the muddled messages from California’s two major parties threaten to fuel the sort of voter confusion that often spells doom for complicated ballot measures.

This is pretty on the money.  There’s a split within both parties, one that Democratic leaders aren’t coming to terms with.  Neither side has taken heed of its grassroots, at least in part.  With the propositions in trouble, we must take an eye to the message that will come out in the aftermath.  The truth is that Democrats have a principled policy difference here, and those legitimate concerns should not be discounted by the leadership in favor of a narrative that voters opposed the ballot because of 2 years’ worth of certain tax increases.  In fact, the word “taxes” was not used once on the floor of the convention by those opposed to 1A or any other measure.  We oppose these measures because we find them deeply harmful to the future functioning of the state.  We believe there’s a better way in the short term, with the majority-vote fee increase, and the long-term, with the end of the conservative veto and a more sustainable course, based on broader-based taxation to pay for the services all Californians desire.  We reject in whole the dumbed-down, simplistic framing that 1A would “reform the budget” and failure would court disaster.

As for the spin that delegates “supported” the measures on the “May 11 ballot” (Steve, you should probably get the date right if you’re working for the Yes side), and a “supermajority quirk in party rules” was used by opponents, I really don’t know what to even say to that.  First of all, the quirk has been on the books for a long time, and it was actually progressives like Dante Atkins who have been working to reform the endorsement process, so welcome to the party.  Next, with fully 1/3 of the delegates electeds and appointeds, most of whom negotiated and supported the deal, and another 1/3 elected by county committees, and another 1/3 grassroots delegates elected at caucuses, a 60% threshold, which again was never argued by these people when it worked for them, represents a fairly broad consensus of all three sectors.  Finally, if you went state by state, I would imagine you would find such a threshold in many if not most state Democratic parties, whereas the 2/3 rule for the budget, to which some are making a false equivalence, only finds parallel in Arkansas and Rhode Island.  I would be all too happy to completely reform the endorsement process and even question its use by the party outright, that would be a fine debate.  But whining about known rules sounds like Hillary Clinton’s staff bemoaning the fact of caucuses in the 2008 primary when they knew the facts for years.  The grapes, they are sour.

Now that the endorsement battle is over and the election just weeks from being done, let’s have a dialogue instead of a lecture, and let’s take the concerns seriously of those who reject the false messiah of a spending cap and raiding important voter-approved initiatives and balancing the budget on the backs of gamblers.  Let’s actually advocate for something rather than being forced to accept something.  Let’s not worry about “what the Republicans will say” and let’s not sniff that “pie in the sky solutions won’t work.”  Let’s reform the state and come out with a government that works.

Budget

Calitics Ed. Board Says No on Special Election Initiatives

25 Comments

For more information about Calitics and the editorial board, see our About Calitics page.

During the budget week from hell, we mildly cheered on the progress of the budget process. We were concerned about the short-term budget issues, but were also dismayed by the rapid rightward shift of the negotiations.  Unfortunately, as an Editorial Board we simply cannot support the measures as they have been brought to the May 19 Special Elections Ballot. We share the concerns of the League of Women Voters that this package was poorly designed and poorly executed, resulting in a plan that will ultimately create more harm than good. And since none of these measures address the structural revenue gap, adding another layer to an already suffocating fiscal straightjacket makes no sense whatsoever.

We do not appreciate the fearmongering message from supporters of the initiatives, who obviously can’t find anything to recommend in these solutions and thusly must warn of impending doom in order to get them passed.  We remind voters the words of Bill Clinton: “If one candidate’s trying to scare you, and the other one’s trying to get you to think… if one candidate’s appealing to your fears, and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you’d better vote for the one who wants you to think and hope.”

Prop 1A – State Spending Cap. NO

Beginning with Prop 1A, the heart of this package, we cannot do better than the LWV in briefly describing the flaws:

[Prop 1A] would actually make it more difficult for future governors and legislatures to enact budgets that meet California’s needs and address state priorities. It would amend the state Constitution to dictate restrictions on the use of funds put into the reserve and limit how “unanticipated” revenues can be used in good years. It could lock in a reduced level of public services by not taking proper account of the state’s changing demographics and actual growth in costs. Prop 1A would also give future governors new power to make budget cuts without legislative oversight. Like the other propositions opposed by the League on this ballot, Prop 1A came from a deeply flawed process that resulted in measures written in haste and without public input or analysis. The League would support real budget reform, but we regretfully conclude that this measure would only make things worse. (League of Women Voters)

And there’s actually much more.  We don’t have to guess about the impact of spending caps.  In 1992, Colorado instituted a spending cap as part of TABOR, and within a few years spending on education, health care, and practically all other measures of government dropped from the middle of the pack relative to other states to almost dead last in every category.  Considering that California ALREADY ranks near the bottom in these categories, the result would be even more disastrous.  The California Budget Project estimates that the cap would force the state to reduce expenditures $16 billion dollars below the Governor’s baseline spending projections by 2010, $17 billion by 2011 and $21 billion by 2012.  That’s a FAR BIGGER gap than the two years of tax revenues that would be lost by voting down 1A.  These revenues are highly unlikely to ever be recovered, because of the faulty indexing of the cap and the fact that it’s based on a level of revenues made during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  And Democrats claiming that there’s an ingenious “out” of the spending cap because it could be raised if taxes are raised neglect to mention that this doesn’t apply to fees, which would essentially end any efforts to work around the conservative veto by raising revenues through fees to fill a budget gap.  In fact, the way the spending cap is structured, it would force contributions into the rainy day fund EVEN IN DOWN BUDGET YEARS.

Failure of Prop 1A would indeed reduce funding to our government in 2011-2013.  Yet this assumes that legislators could never deal with revenues in the intervening two years. Further, the increased revenues we would receive from Prop 1A are simply not worth the long-term damage to our government that this measure would create.  That’s why the CTA and the Democratic establishment worked so hard to defeat a similar spending cap plan in 2005.

Prop 1B – Education Funding. Payment Plan. NO

Prop 1B isn’t really inherently bad.  It is simply made irrelevant by our position on Prop 1A through a clause that takes 1B down if Prop 1A fails. It provides a workaround to a disputed technical question in Proposition 98 by setting up a one-time $9.3 Billion fund for education.  If this didn’t come with the baggage of Prop 1A, it would be worth considering. But as it stands, we simply cannot accept the pair.  That being said, if Prop 1A passes, it is important that Prop 1B passes. If we were to vote strategically, we would vote No on 1A and Yes on 1B, but we leave that decision to you.

It is worth noting that Prop 1B would not provide a solution to the catastrophic financial crisis facing public education in this state, and would do little if anything to help the 26,000+ teachers who received a layoff notice last month keep their jobs in the fall. Since Prop 1B’s effects are not permanent, it would not exempt public education from the likelihood of funding shortfalls that Prop 1A would produce. Education has already suffered enough from one-time short-term budget deals that produced long-term problems.

Proposition 1C – Securitization of the lottery. NO

Prop 1C would allow the Treasurer to sell bonds backed by the lottery revenues. The budget deal assumes that we will get $5 billion for this deal, but that number remains highly speculative. However, our opposition does not stem chiefly from any quibble with the amount of money it would bring in, but rather from our overall sense of failed governance that emanates from the entire package and this  proposition specifically.  George Skelton calls this proposition a “payday loan” and no better words could describe this.

The fact is that we have done this before and it failed. Back in 2004 after Arnold wiped out the dreaded “car tax” he came to the voters of this state complaining about how we are going to fix this budget. So, he told us that if we just passed props 57 and 58 to sell some bonds and tweak the budget process, he’d handle it from there.  Needless to say, the problem was exacerbated rather than ameliorated, in particular because the state NEVER SOLD THE BONDS.  If this package represented real reform that would allow the state to move forward with an honest and democratic budget process, this would be more palatable.  If we knew that we wouldn’t just be back in the exact same situation 18 months from now, this might even be a reasonable idea to dig ourselves out of a very deep hole.

As it is, we’d prefer to wait for something real.

Prop 1D – Diverts $600 Million from Prop 10 First Five funds to other childhood programs. – NO

The First Five Program was created in 1998 by the passage of Proposition 10.  By raising the cigarette tax by 50 cents per pack, California was able to create a sustainable program with its own source of revenue.  But that has always been a thorn in the craw of the right-wing Republicans.  It is spending they cannot touch for programs they would rather not fund.  But the First 5 commission has been successful in providing funding for innovative and successful programs.  And the commission’s own prudence has led it to the chopping block.  They planned for the inevitable decrease in cigarette taxes by building up a cash reserve, and that money has grown too tempting for the Legislature. It is a pot of money, and they cannot resist.

Rather than raiding First 5, we should have provided a sustainable revenue for the state. We should not abide by these budget gimmicks and ploys, and First 5 should not be their victim.

Prop 1E – Diverting Mental Health Services Funding – NO

This initiative would cut into the Prop 63 (2005) money for mental health services from the 1% surcharge on income over a million dollars.  Although this slash job wasn’t as bad as what was suffered by First 5, as it has a prominent defender, it is still unacceptable.  Mental health services are financially prudent spending. It saves money that will end up being spent elsewhere, whether for homeless services or prisons.  Diverting this revenue is penny wise and pound foolish. Both Prop 1D and 1E come from the “rob Peter to pay Paul” school of budgeting, although in this case “Peter” is young children and Californians with mental health needs who have few defenders or other resources to fall back on.

Prop 1F – Wasting Your Time. An Initiative. – NO

Prop 1F would block any pay raise for legislators when the budget is showing a deficit.  It is an infinitesimally small amount of money in the grand scheme of things and accomplishes remarkably little for something on a statewide ballot.   First, not getting a raise in deficit years is not a sufficient incentive for anyone to actually do anything, nor is it really meaningful shared suffering.  The implicit assumption that the trivial penalty of Proposition 1F could be a meaningful incentive to not run a deficit treats elected officers as greedy sociopathic children who need petty personal financial incentives to deal with the state’s budget.  Building this assumption into the California Constitution is unnecessary and further entrenches in the state constitution far-right market fundamentalism and contempt for the role of government.

Second, if we’re going to constitutionally impose shared suffering or financial penalties on elected officials, why is it a balanced budget that’s the trigger?  Why not base it on the number of California’s children in poverty, the condition of our infrastructure, the state of our parks, the number of homeless, the funding levels of our schools?  Instead, Proposition 1F privileges a morally blind view of the world — balanced budgets are the only measure of legislative accomplishment for which elected officers can be penalized financially.  Why this needs to be on the ballot can be answered only by Abel Maldonado, but it’s a nothing more than an ill-conceived placebo designed to placate angry voters — and so will no doubt pass. However, we don’t need to countenance Abel’s temper tantrums.

Uncategorized

CA-04: Sac Bee Endorses Charlie Brown: UPDATED with new poll numbers showing Brown ahead

The biggest newspaper in the region, the Sacramento Bee, makes the case for Charlie Brown and a new direction in the district, particularly on the area of putting pragmatism above ideology.  Now, I don’t totally agree with all the conclusions of the editorial, but the last bit is unquestionably true:

Brown understands that the that the mortgage crisis, the collapse of the financial system, the credit crunch and the recession are real. He would have supported the rescue plan because doing nothing was worse than doing something, though he believes Congress has done a poor job of selling the package. And the final package assured taxpayers get any profits, required congressional oversight, banned golden parachutes.

This is telling. McClintock sticks to ideology; Brown pragmatically puts the nation first.

The nation and the 4th District need to find ways out of partisan and ideological gridlock. Elect Charlie Brown to Congress.

Now, if the final package wasn’t such a dog with fleas that the feds have basically scrapped it, and if the banks weren’t using it to collect free money instead of facilitating lending, this would be a stronger argument.  Whatever; the Bee’s endorsements have been profoundly odd, and have seemed to value bipartisan seriousness over everything.  But I think there’s a difference between rejecting partisanship and abandoning core principles.  I think that Charlie Brown will govern the way he has campaigned, by working through problems and using his best judgment based on his values and principles.  Tom McClintock is incapable of adapting to changing information whatsoever.

What he will do is try to play dirty to win the election, including sending nasty robocalls throughout the district because they’re cheap for his cash-strapped campaign.  The problem is that they haven’t done a good job of checking their call lists.  The Brown campaign, for example, got robocalled.

UPDATE: The latest poll shows Brown expanding his slim but measurable lead.

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 10/20-22. Likely voters. MoE 5% (9/23-25 results)

McClintock (R) 42 (41)

Brown (D) 48 (46)

Among early voters (13 percent of respondents)

McClintock (R) 38

Brown (D) 56

Brown takes independents 51-34.  McClintock’s fav/unfav is at 44/42.  Brown is at 49/29.  And McClintock is out of the cash he’d need to push up Brown’s unfavorables.  

This is very good news.  Let’s get this seat.  Stay for Change.

Uncategorized

No On 8 Using Obama In Web Advertising

If you tool around the Internets as much as I do, you may have noticed this.  The No on 8 campaign has been using Barack Obama’s logo and image in Web ads that say “Obama Calls Prop. 8 Divisive And Discriminatory”.  Clicking on the ad will take you to this page, at the No On Prop. 8 site, with a couple quotes from Sen. Obama about the measure.

The Obama campaign would not let this happen on its own.  God for them for allowing the No on 8 campaign to associate with his remarks.  Obama has shown a willingness to lend himself to the efforts of downticket races – he’s cut an ad for Oregon US Senate candidate Jeff Merkley – though I doubt we’ll see much more than this Web advertising from him on Prop. 8.

Here are a couple other things I think need to happen to help the Prop. 8 cause.  First, Google needs to stop running ads that violate their own policies.  Google has a very specific standard for those groups that use their architecture to advertise, which includes banning ads that advocate against a “protected class” like the LGBT community.  Yet they allow Yes on 8 to use Google ads.  I know Google as a company is on the right side of this debate, but they can either stand behind their stated policy or not.

The other thing that the no side might want to consider is putting an actual face on who would be discriminated against with this measure.  I know this has been a source of controversy that’s simmered under the surface, but today Jonathan Rauch brings it up in the LA Times.

The need to walk that tightrope helps explain why the actual subjects of next month’s initiative, gay couples, were “inned” by the “No on 8” campaign’s ads. (Full disclosure: I am a “No on 8” donor.) One ad, for example, features a gray-haired straight couple. “Our gay daughter and thousands of our fellow Californians will lose the right to marry,” says mother Julia Thoron.

A subsequent ad, all text with voice-over narration, mentions marriage only once (“Regardless of how you feel about marriage, it’s wrong to treat people differently under the law”) and never uses the phrase “gay marriage” or even the word “gay.” Just as oblique was a spot, released Wednesday, in which state Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell reassures viewers that “Prop. 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids. Our schools aren’t required to teach anything about marriage.” A casual viewer could have come away from these ads puzzled as to exactly what right thousands of Californians might be about to lose.

Asked about the absence of gay couples, a senior “No on 8” official told KPIX-TV in San Francisco that “from all the knowledge that we have and research that we have, [those] are not the best images to move people.” Children, also, were missing; showing kids with same-sex parents could too easily backfire […]

Whatever the tactical considerations, the absence of gay couples and gay marriages from California’s gay-marriage debate makes for an oddly hollow discussion. It leaves voters of good conscience to conjure in their own minds the ads that are not being aired: Ads that show how gay marriage directly affects the couples and communities that need it most.

You can show me all the data you want; “hollow” is the best word for what’s happening.  Neither side is talking about the actual proposition in their messaging.  I expect that from the Yes side, to hide their serial homophobia and focus on made-up protections of imagined rights that would be encroached upon.  But when a self-described squish like Kevin Drum terms No on 8’s ads “bland and generic,” something is wrong.  Without a clear indication, as done in the Ellen DeGeneres PSA, of who would be harmed by this measure and why, there’s this subconscious message of shame about the rights that this campaign is trying to defend.

On a completely unrelated note, this is a great post from a minister discussing what the Bible actually says about marriage.

Uncategorized

State GOP Bugging Out Of Unwinnable Races

1 Comment

Much as we’ve seen on a national level, the California Republican Party is leaving its candidates on the side of the road and playing pure defense this cycle:

Democratic and Republican sources have informed CMR that the GOP has pulled the plug on future ads for Assemblymember Greg Aghazarian’s bid to replace termed out Democratic Senator Mike Machado in California’s 5th Senate District. Aghazarian’s Democratic opponent, Assemblymember Lois Wolk, is up around 20 points in internal polling, so Republicans have decided to cut their losses.

This means that there will be no more than 15 Republican Senators (and probably less) and no more than 32 Republican Assemblymembers (and probably a lot less).  They will not pick up a single seat at the state level.

Unless you think they can still win in AD-30, where an intra-party feud has left drama queen Yacht Dog Democrat Nicole Parra to endorse the Republican in the race between Danny Gilmore and Democrat Fran Florez.  Florez’ response ad to Parra’s endorsement is hilarious, check it out at the link.

The truth is that while AD-30 is competitive, it’s not a likely pick-up.  And the CRP had better get in the habit of cutting losses; a couple assembly seats are lost causes for them, too.

Uncategorized

Progressive Voter Guide – Including Calitics Endorsements

For the last few election cycles Speak Out California has been distributing a progressive voter guide, including recommendations on ballot propositions and a chart of how California progressive groups have endorsed. Their guide was a popular, useful way for California progressives to navigate the sometimes confusing propositions. Speak Out is on hiatus until after the election, but the need for a progressive voter guide remains.

The Courage Campaign Issues Committee (disclosure: I’m proud to work with them) has taken up the task, and put together the 2008 Progressive Voter Guide. It includes Courage Campaign’s positions on the 12 propositions, and includes the ever-useful chart of how prominent California progressive organizations have endorsed on the 2008 propositions.

The chart, of course, includes prominently the Calitics ballot proposition recommendations including Yes on Prop 1A, No on Props 4 and 8, and No on Prop 11.

The guide can be downloaded as a PDF or you can get it for your mobile phone by texting VOTECA to 69866.

We are on the cusp of a major progressive breakthrough in California, and part of that involves the 12 ballot measures. This guide can help California progressive make the right choices.

Below is the email we sent out earlier this afternoon to our members announcing the guide:

Dear Robert,

You asked for it. And here it is.

A few weeks ago, we surveyed our members about whether or not the Courage Campaign should provide recommendations on California ballot measures to our nearly 100,000 members and supporters.

Your overwhelming answer: Yes, absolutely!

So, today, we’re launching our 2008 Progressive Voter Guide for the 12 — that’s right, 12 — propositions on California’s November ballot. Our Voter Guide includes not only Courage Campaign recommendations, but also the recommendations of nine other leading California progressive organizations.

Click here to download and print the Courage Campaign’s 2008 Progressive Voter Guide from our web site:

http://www.couragecampaign.org…

The choices you make on this ballot will impact you, your family and friends for decades to come.

We’ve already talked about why we think you should vote “No” on Proposition 8, which would eliminate equal rights for same-sex couples. We’ve also talked about why we think you should vote “No” on Proposition 4, which would undermine teen safety and abortion rights.

But what about the 10 other propositions on the ballot? To help you make your choices in this momentous election, our printable 2008 Progressive Voter Guide includes:

(1) Short, easy-to-read, recommendations from the Courage Campaign.

(2) A handy chart of recommendations from numerous leading progressive organizations across California.

(3) A mobile phone guide that you can easily take into your polling place and send to your friends.

To download our two-page Voter Guide directly to your computer, please click on the button below for a printable PDF document (click the link above to download it from our web site). Then print the guide and take it to the polls or have it at your side as you fill out your vote-by-mail ballot.

With many vote-by-mail ballots already in the hands of voters, please help us spread the word to as many progressives as possible in California. You can start today by forwarding this email and Voter Guide to your family and friends.

Even better: Print your voter guide right now and pass it out to your friends tonight when you watch the presidential debate.

The November election is about more than who will occupy the White House. It is also about California’s future. Together, we can rescue our state and make 2008 a new era for progressive politics in California.

Rick Jacobs

Chair

Courage Campaign

P.S. You can also get this 2008 Progressive Voter Guide sent to your mobile phone:

Just text VOTECA to 69866.

Uncategorized

Our Positions on the Statewide Propositions

25 Comments

Here we go again, another round of endorsements.  The bulk of these will be fairly uncontroversial here.  On Prop 7, Brian Leubitz did not vote due to the fact that he works for the campaign. See the flip for more information on our positions.

Proposition

 The Calitics Position

 Calitics Tag
Prop 1A (High Speed Rail)

 YES, YES, YES!

 Prop 1A

Prop 2(Farm Animal Conditions)

 Yes

 Prop 2

Prop 3 (Children’s Hospital Bonds)

 Yes

 Prop 3

Prop 4 (Parental Notification Again)

 No, NO, and NO AGAIN

 Prop 4

Prop 5 (Drug Rehab Programs)

 Yes

 Prop 5

Prop 6 (Runner Anti-Gang)

 NO

 Prop 6

Prop 7 (Renewable Power Standard)

 No

 Prop 7

Prop 8 (Anti-Marriage)

 NO!

 Prop 8

Prop 9 (Runner Victim’s Rights)

 No

 Prop 9

Prop 10 (Pickens Natural Gas)

 No

 Prop 10

Prop 11 (Redistricting)

 No

 Prop 11

12 (Veterans Bonds)

 Yes

 Prop 12

See the flip for more information on the props…

Prop 1A: High Speed Rail: YES!

Prop 1A, recently revised on the ballot by legislative action, will allow the state to purchase $10 Billion in Bonds for the purpose of creating a high speed rail system.  The money will also be leveraged to get federal dollars as well as attract private investments.  This is a no brainer, but if you need more information, check out Robert’s HSR Blog.

Prop 2: Farm Animal Conditions: Yes

This is a simple law that requires farm animals to be able to stand up and turn around in their cages. While there are lots of protests from factory farming interests, this measure could level the playing field for small farmers.  Polls show this one strongly leading. The campaign has also produced a cute video with a singing pig.

Prop 3: Children’s Hospital Bonds: Yes

While some of us are conflicted about the purchase of more bonds for another narrowly defined interest, this seems to be a net plus.  Simply put, this would allow the state to sell bonds to provide additional funds for our children’s hospitals, hopefully for capital improvements.  Our hospitals in general need a lot of work, but it would be even better if this money would go instead to ensure all county and other public hospitals remain viable. Not sure about that cheesy commercial though.

Prop 4: Parental Notification: No, NO, and NO AGAIN!

We’ve done this twice before, in the special election of 2005 and again in the general of 2006.  Enough already. We’ve said that we want to make sure that our teenage girls are safe, not use them as political pawns.  Prop 4 requires parental notification, which is fine if the teen has a functional family, but can be dangerous in an abusive home.  The proposition allows for a judicial bypass, but how many scared, pregnant teens have the wherewithal to go through that? This one is running close, so get the word out! As a sidenote, this is a good case for initiative reform to include a limit on how many times you can bring something to the ballot.

Prop 5: Drug Rehab: Yes

A sound policy reform to decrease the number of nonviolent offenders in our jails by placing them in rehabilitation facilities instead.  Prop 5 also reduces sentences for these nonviolent offenders based upon their successful completion of the rehab program. While not “ToughOnCrime”, it is SmartOnCrime.  This is a follow-up to the wildly successful Prop 36 of a few years back. Prop 36 saved us millions of dollars, this likely will as well. Unfortunately, today Senator Feinstein has come out against Prop 5 in a wildly speculative press release that merely rehashes the No on 5 campaign talking points. Let’s be smart, not pseudo-tough. Yes on 5.

Prop 6: Runner Gang Measure: NO

Another wasteful ToughOnCrime measure from the legislators Runner.  This is just plain bad policy that won’t actually reduce gang violence.  The measure increases prison sentences for young gang offenders (really, now?) and would likely cost about a billon dollars per year.  The Mercury News breaks it down:

It would require spending $965 million next year – and more every year

thereafter – on law enforcement, probation and police programs, with a

focus on gangs. That’s $365 million – 50 percent more – than last year.

And the amount will grow, because the initiative guarantees annual

increases for inflation, and higher prison expenses as a result of the

new or longer sentences it would impose for 30-plus crimes. Add in $500

million for jails that the initiative requires for more prisoners, and

it’s a daunting number, at a time that the overall crime rate has been

dropping.

Far too expensive for far too few results.

Prop 7: Renewable Power Standard: No

There already is a renewable power standard in California as part of recent anti-global warming legislation.  This bill would expand those requirements from 20% to 50% by by 2025 – but several small wind and solar power companies are opposed because the measure would essentially toss them out of the market by excluding plants smaller than 30 megawatts from even counting toward the standard.  That appears to cripple innovation and tilt the playing field away from sound renewable power development.  This is a noble goal which is poorly written to create winners and losers.  It’s a close call, but we’re voting no.

Prop 8: Anti-Marriage Amendment: NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!

Not much to explain here. Prop 8 would eliminate marriage rights for same gender couples. It is time for Californians to stand up for equality. No on 8.

Prop 9: Runner Victim’s Rights: No

Another “ToughOnCrime” measure by the legislators Runner, this time funded by Henry T. Nicholas III, co-founder and former CEO of Broadcom. Why is that relevant? Well, Mr. Nicholas has himself been indicted for white collar fraud as well as drug charges including accusing “Nicholas of using ecstasy to spike the

drinks of industry executives and employees of Broadcom customers.” Classy.

The measure itself reduces frequency of parole hearings and allows victims and their survivors to be present. I’ll let the OC Register, which suggested a No vote, explain the prop:

Prop. 9 would place those rights into the state constitution rather

than into statutory law, the distinction being that the constitution is

much more difficult to change if problems develop. It would also give

crime victims and their families the constitutional right to prevent

the release of certain documents to criminal defendants or their

attorneys, and the right to refuse to be interviewed or provide

pretrial testimony or other evidence to a defendant. The constitution

would be changed to require judges to take the safety of victims into

consideration when granting bail. It would make restitution the first

priority when spending any money collected from defendants in the form

of fines. It would also extend the time between parole hearings from

the current one to five years to three to 15 years.

I’m fine with victim’s rights, but that shouldn’t extend to creating bad policy and increasing our already ridiculously high prison population. We already have a crisis, we don’t need to exacerbate it. Vote No on “Marsy’s Law.”

Prop 10: Natural Gas Giveaway: No

Prop 10 would sell $5 billion worth of bonds to help Californians buy cleaner cars.  The problem of course is that clean is defined as to mean natural gas, and not hybrids. Huh? Furthermore, it wouldn’t require that the commercial trucks purchased with the overwhelming majority of these funds stay in the state.  This is simply a boondoggle for Swift Boat Veterans Funder T. Boone Pickens to get his natural gas company a ton of new purchasers and to get the state to build his natural gas highway. Natural gas is slightly cleaner than gasoline, but it’s still a technology of yesteryear.  We need real renewable energy, not more fossil fuels. Prop 10 is a waste of money at a time when we can’t afford to fully fund our educational system. No on 10!

Prop 11: Redistricting: NO!

Another waste of time redistricting measure that accomplishes little other than guaranteeing Republicans additional power over the redistricting process.  Prop 11 would give equal power to Democrats and Republicans to draw the maps, and would exclude from the commission anybody who has had any experience relevant to the process.  It’s a flawed process that gives Republicans too much.  It’s opposed by leading minority organizations and the Democratic Party. 

For more information, see this diary here at Calitics. Our diary is actually recommend over the “official” No site, which is so hideous as to be nearly useless.  Anyway, Vote No on Republican Voters First!

Prop 12: Veterans Bond: Yes

These things always pass, and are always pretty small. This bond funds a program to help veterans purchase farms and homes.  It’s a decent program, and the bond has passed something like 20 times over the last 100 years.  It likely will again. Despite our concerns over ballot box budgeting, helping out our veterans is a worthwhile cause.

Uncategorized

The Growing Coalition Against Prop. 8

It seems like every day, there’s a list of new opponents to Prop. 8, which would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.  One day it’s Google.  The next day it’s Steven Spielberg.  Then Mary Cheney.  And The New York Times editorial board.  And Levi-Strauss.  And Brad Pitt.  And Republicans Against 8, who managed to come up with the most singularly odd revisionist ad announcing their opposition (“Democrats are the only hope for freedom!”).  And, appropriate to mention on Rosh Hashanah morning, the Board of Rabbis of Southern California.

The board – a collection of leaders from the Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative and Orthodox movements – this week declared its opposition to the measure, which would amend the California Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Leaders of the board said they wanted protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples.

“For many rabbis, it speaks on a personal level in terms of people they deal with whose lives have been impacted over the issue,” said Rabbi Stewart Vogel of Temple Aliyah in Woodland Hills and the board’s president.

The board has more than 290 members. Roughly 120 took part in Wednesday’s vote, the largest number of rabbis to weigh in on such an issue in recent memory. Vogel said Friday that 93% of those who cast votes supported the resolution.

Good Yom Tov!

Calitics is a part of this coalition through our Counter-Fast For Equality.  We’re giving thousands of supporters the opportunity to sign on to stop the elimination of marriage equality, and donate through the Fast4Equality ActBlue page.  We also have a Twitter feed set up.  If you send a tweet with the #fast4equality hashtag, it’ll appear on our site.  So sign up today!

Uncategorized

Campaign Update

2 Comments

I simply have not had the time to do a full update of all the Congressional and legislative campaigns.  And sadly, it doesn’t look like that time will be forthcoming soon.  So I think I’ll do mini-updates where possible.

• CA-46: Debbie Cook has been endorsed by DFA (Democracy for America).  Jim Dean, the Chair of DFA, said in a statement, “Debbie Cook has been a grassroots champion for over 20 years and has a proven record of success in the private sector and as a public servant … Debbie Cook is running because she’s a committed advocate and activist who fights for her constituents and delivers results.”

In the past, DFA has been able to move some resources into districts, so we’ll see if they’re going that route in this race.  DFA has also recently endorsed Bill Hedrick (CA-44).

• CA-26: Russ Warner’s campaign is announcing via email that the DCCC named his race as “one to watch.”  That doesn’t mean they’ll get any money, but it puts them in the queue if the race tightens.  Unfortunately, the DCCC has kind of a deliberate style, where they hoard their money for the races they know are toss-ups, and then wait until the very last minute for these emerging races, sometimes beyond the point at which that money can be effective.  I understand the strategy but it wouldn’t be smart from Warner’s perspective to bank on any help from Washington in his race against David Dreier.  He needs his own resources as well as money from California lawmaker’s PACs.

Which reminds me, California Democrats, it’s time to use it or lose it.  We have a number of races where the challenger can win if they have enough resources, and in the seats where an incumbent has token or no opposition and a huge war chest, that money should not be sitting in an account somewhere.  Help our own candidates!  Expect more pressure on this very soon.

• CA-03: It’s kind of fun watching Dan Lungren try to humina-humina his way out of supporting Prop. 8.  He really has no idea what he’s talking about.  It would be bad enough if a citizen of the state had this atrocious an understanding of basic civics, but this guy is not only a US Representative but a former state Attorney General!

• AD-80: The GOP tried to get Manuel Perez’ occupational status as an “educator” thrown off the ballot, but they failed.  Now he has received the endorsement of the highest-ranking law enforcement official in Imperial County, D.A. Gilbert Otero.  Considering that his opponent, Gary Jeandron, is the former police chief of Palm Springs, I’d consider this endorsement to be significant… UPDATE re: CMR, seems that Gary Jeandron supports “traditional marriage.”  In Palm Springs.  Now, so did Bonnie Garcia, but she was able to win enough in Imperial County to offset it.  Jeandron needs the Palm Springs vote to be huge to win.

I think he just lost, if he hadn’t already.

Uncategorized

CA-26: The Mystery of “Democrats For Dreier”

3 Comments

Last week, David Dreier sent a letter to residents in his district.  It was signed by nine “Democrats for Dreier” announcing their support of his re-election campaign, because he is a “different kind of leader” who is a passionate advocate for the San Gabriel Valley and the Inland Empire.

The letter was signed by the following 9 Democrats:

Paul Eaton, Mayor of Montclair

Roberto Campos, small businessman, Glendora/Upland

Karen Davis, Mayor of Glendora

Mary Ann Lutz, Monrovia Councilmember

Kurt Zimmerman, Mayor of Sierra Madre

Joe Garcia, Monrovia Councilmember

Anthony Fellow, Director, Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, Arcadia

Dorrie Bryan, HR Manager, Rancho Cucamonga

Eugene Sun, San Marino Councilmember

The questions arose almost as soon as the letter was sent.  On the flip…

First of all, the fact that he filled out the list with two random small businesspeople instead of filling the list with electeds is kind of curious in and of itself.  But there are far more serious issues with this list.

Paul Eaton, the Mayor of Montclair, spoke for Russ Warner, the Democratic CHALLENGER to Dreier, at a fundraiser two months ago and called him “the type of change we need in the district”.

Mary Ann Lutz is a CONTRIBUTOR to Warner’s campaign.  She gave $250 on June 30 of this year.

In these cases, there are only two explanations.  Either Dreier just placed these Democratic supporters of Russ Warner  (or at least it seems so) on a “Democrats for Dreier” list without their knowledge, or he bullied them into supporting his candidacy lest they find their local communities without federal help from Congress in the future.  I have credible information that this is a case of the latter.  A fellow activist just got off the phone with Eaton, and he explained that Dreier has lobbied for his support consistently since he reached office, laying out the carrot of increased transportation funds for Montclair and the surrounding area.  This time around, Dreier basically, as I understand it, intimated that Warner wouldn’t have the seniority to steer transportation money back to the district, and as a result electeds like Eaton decided to support him this time around.

This is fairly typical politics, and it’s standard for an incumbent to argue that experience and seniority is an asset for their candidacy.  But it’s a particularly brutal way to play the game, and in this case Dreier is pretty transparently offering a quid pro quo of dollars in exchange for support.

There’s also the case of Kurt Zimmerman, a former Assistant US Attorney and, according to this Smart Voter guide, a current Attorney with the Department of Commerce.  If that’s still accurate, his signature endorsing a political candidate would be a violation of the Hatch Act prohibiting government employees from partisan political activities.

This is only the beginning of the questions surrounding the “Dems for Dreier.”  I also think this shows an element of fear from Dreier’s campaign, that they need to de facto bribe public officials into gaining their support.