Tag Archives: Recommended

The State of a Better Union

Last night, President Barack Obama delivered his State of the Union address – my first as a U.S. Congressman. You’ve heard a lot of instant reactions from the Beltway and beyond about the President’s message, but it’s my hope we can take a step back from the minutia and develop a better sense of recent history.

Let’s remember where we were when the President delivered his inaugural address last year. When the President took office, America had just endured the worst year for job loss since 1945. In the last three months of 2008, our country was hemorrhaging an average of 673,000 jobs per month. By the last three months of 2009, that number was reduced to 69,333, a 90% improvement. To be sure, the state of our union needs to be much stronger, but because of the efforts of President Obama and Democrats in Congress, we’ve endured the worst of the Bush recession and we’re creating an economy that once again creates jobs for the middle and working classes.

More over the flip…

The central piece of legislation responsible for our recovery is without question the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). To date, the ARRA stimulus package has infused $154.9 billion into the American economy, saving or creating 640,000 jobs, including 110,000 in California. In the last quarter of 2009, ARRA had added between 1.5 and 3% in real GDP growth to our struggling economy.

In my home state of California, ARRA has brought more than $63 billion in investments and tax incentives to California with billions more on the way, including $9.7 billion for education, $7.9 billion for health and human services, and $5 billion for transportation.

Indeed, we are in the midst of the most significant infrastructure revitalization since the 1950s. There is no better example than the Caldecott Tunnel expansion in my district. It is the single largest ARRA transportation grant in the nation, a $197.5 million allotment that will create 6,000 to 7,000 jobs while easing congestion for travelers between Alameda and Contra Costa counties. With state funds drying up because of systematic budget failures, Bay Area residents have ARRA to thank for this important project.

ARRA was Congress’s most important economic accomplishment last year, but it did not stand alone. Let us not forget, 2009 was the year CHIP health care was expanded to four million low-income children. And for students torn between a college education and looming debt in this economy, Congressman George Miller’s College Cost Reduction and Access Act revolutionized student aid in America, increasing Pell Grant availability by $600 per semester, and substantially lowering future interest rates and monthly payments.

Considering where we started, we’ve made incredible progress in America. But I recognize that we still have a long way to go to get our nation back on track. Unemployment rates are at an unacceptably high level. In my state of California, unemployment hovered at 12.4% last month. We still have a lot of work to do to get people back to work.

In December, the House passed two bills that deserve immediate attention from the Senate. The Jobs for Main Street Act is in many ways a second ARRA, delivering an additional $35 billion for roads and public transit and $20 billion for education, saving or creating 25,000 jobs in education alone. It would recruit 25,000 new young people into AmeriCorps and create work study and summer job employment opportunities for 500,000 young workers struggling to find employment in this tough economy while also extending unemployment insurance. The House also passed the Wall Street Reform and Accountability Act, legislation that would help stop predatory behavior on Wall Street while providing relief for homeowners, renters, and small business owners. If signed into law, these bills will surely strengthen the state of the union in the years to come.

But as we move forward in the fight for job creation and accountability in the financial sector, we still must finish what we started. I joined Congress with a pledge to fight for comprehensive health care reform, and I plan on finishing the job.

Indeed, health reform isn’t just about quality and affordable care; it will also help strengthen our economy if done right. We know that health care costs make up 17% of our economy. If we let the status quo continue, that number will rise to 37% by 2037. And what are we getting for this expense? According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks at the bottom of 19 industrialized nations in the number of preventable deaths from common illnesses.

If we pass health care reform now, three things will almost immediately happen: patients will not be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions; adult aged children will be given access to their parents insurance until the age of 27; and health care will be portable if you lose or change your job.

I will continue to work with my colleagues to fight hard for the things I care about in health care reform, including a robust public option and generous affordability protections for seniors and the middle class. And let me be clear, I’m not the least bit concerned about using majority rule in the Senate to pass meaningful health care reform. Congress has employed reconciliation in the past to make major policy shifts, including the passage of welfare reform and the Bush tax cuts, and the fact of the matter is this country will find itself in serious trouble if we do not act now. No one Senator should feel entitled to veto power over 17% percent of our economy.

So as we reflect on last night’s State of the Union address, let’s remember how far we’ve come after only one year into President Obama’s term and also remember how far we still must go.

Congressman John Garamendi (D-Walnut Creek) represents California’s 10th Congressional District. He previously served as a Deputy Interior Secretary under President Bill Clinton and was California’s Lieutenant Governor and Insurance Commissioner.

Prop 8 Should Be Struck Down

The California Supreme Court finds itself center stage tomorrow when it will hear oral arguments on whether it should uphold Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage.

The case touches the heart of our democracy and poses a profound question: can a bare majority of voters strip away an inalienable right through the initiative process? If so, what possible meaning does the word inalienable have?

The state faced a dilemma like this before. In 1964, 65 percent of California voters approved Proposition 14, which would have legalized racial discrimination in the selling or renting of housing. Both the California and U.S. Supreme Courts struck down this proposition, concluding that it amounted to an unconstitutional denial of rights.

As California’s Attorney General, I believe the Court should strike down Proposition 8 for remarkably similar reasons – because it unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples and deprives them of the fundamental right to marry.

Some vigorously disagree. That’s the position of Ken Starr and those who argue that a simple majority can eliminate the right to marry. But such a claim completely ignores California’s history and the nature of our constitution.

Fundamental rights in California are recognized and protected by our constitution, which declares in Article I, Section 1 that “all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights” and “among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

These fundamental premises of a free people were declared when the constitution was first adopted. The initiative process came much later in 1911, when the immediate concern was to give the people power over the railroads, which were seen as having a stranglehold over the legislature. In creating this initiative process, there was no discussion or any evidence of intent to permit a simple majority of voters to take away the pre-existing rights deemed inalienable by Article I.

In 2008, the California Supreme Court was faced with the question of how the values enshrined in Article I apply to same sex marriages. It concluded that the concept of “liberty” includes the right to form the enduring relationship called marriage and that no compelling interest justified denying this right to same sex couples. Just like the right to be free from discrimination in housing, citizens have the right to be free from discrimination in state-granted marriage licenses.

With this Supreme Court decision, same sex marriage has the protection of Article 1 and, like other inalienable rights, cannot be taken away by a popular vote – whether it be 52% (as was the case in Proposition 8) or 65% (as it was for Proposition 14).

I believe, therefore, the Court must conclude as I have that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and should be stricken.

Jerry Brown is California’s Attorney General. Become a supporter of Jerry on Facebook or sign-up on his website (www.jerrybrown.org/join).

Kucinich: The Democratic Leadership Amounts to “Total Fraud”

Well, Dennis Kucinich continues to speak for America rather than gross party politics. Speaking in New Hampshire, Wednesday, Kucinich stated:

the vow from his party’s leadership in Congress to stand up to President Bush on ending the war in Iraq amounts to a “total fraud.”

The Ohio congressman said the most recent House-passed plan to set a timetable for ending the war still would permit permanent bases in Iraq and allow Americans soldiers to train Iraqi military and police and to fight off insurgents.

It really does seem to me that only Kucinich understands, or at least is willing to admit, that this country is in serious danger right now. Kucinich, seems alone among the candidates who believes that this election is much less about reclaiming the White House for the Democratic Party, than it is about reclaiming the United States for all of its citizens.

Yet, there is such a disconnect within our political system that the Democratic Leadership will not act upon the wishes of a majority of Americans regarding the war/occupation or even in protecting the essence of our Democracy through accountability and beginning impeachment investigations. As kucinich duly noted:

“I think the outrage is building among the voting public, but to the political system, it’s business as usual.”

State Rep. Betty Hall, D-Brookline, who attended, decided to endorse Kucinich after he forced consideration of V.P. Cheney’s Impeachment a few weeks ago. Hall tried to bring in a non-binding resolution to the New Hampshire House supporting an impeachment proceeding against Bush and Cheney, which House leaders from both parties opposed, not allowing an up or down vote.

“It isn’t popular to speak up; I know. When I spoke in the Legislature, some people were angry, but we must talk about it. We must learn about it,” Hall said.

Hall also showed Kucinich an article in the New Hampshire State Constitution, which reads inpart:

“The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and repression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good of all mankind.”

Kucinich, who is now promising to bring more detailed articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush, said:

“I’m going to quote that language from the New Hampshire Constitution all over the country. Clearly New Hampshire is the place to bring this message.

Seems fitting for New Hampshire: “Live free or die”…

Kucinich will be a leading speaker Monday night at Dartmouth College for an “Impeachment Teach-In” sponsored by state and national liberal-leaning organizations.

CA-08: Who will Succeed Nancy Pelosi?

This is a premature, possibly morbid diary, but should we start thing about a future without Nancy Pelosi? Sooner or later, we Democrats will have a bad election. That is just a fact of American history. We also know that speakers who lose their gavels due to scandal or election losses do not last much longer in Congress, the risk of holding such a lofty post. When that day comes (hopefully no time soon), San Francisco will have a Congressional vacancy for the first time since 1987. The City’s Central Democratic Committee has a very strong “wait your turn” attitude and the Burton Machine still lives, BUT no one is going to want to wait another 20+ for the seat to be open again, so the question is: Who will run when Madame Speaker retires? Here is my short list of possibilities.

1. District Attorney Kamala Harris is young, popular, dynamic and well connected to the Willie Brown machine (get you minds out of the gutter). She has done a good job of keeping her name in the press and face in front of the camera and she is everywhere a group of Democrats are meeting. She would also carry on the tradition of having a female represent the district.

2. Mayor Gavin Newsom may prefer to represent more than 500,000 people at a time, but he has not put enough distance between himself and Tourkgate to run for statewide office. He is still very young and a few effective terms in Congress would allow him to build more national contacts and let memories fade. California has term limits for governor so he can afford to wait it out or even succeed Barbara Boxer in 2016.

3. Assemblyman Mark Leno is a popular figure in San Francisco, likely going to the State Senate next year and a good bet to become the first openly gay Congressman from San Francisco. He’s been effective in Sacramento and there is no reason to believe he would not be effective in Washington.

4. Supervisor Tom Ammiano will likely be elected to the Assembly next year, but his personality rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

5. Board President Aaron Peskin and Supervisor are ambitious, but can they appeal to the city at large?

6. Assemblywoman Fiona Ma is strongly connected to the Burton Machine. Could she become the City’s first Asian-American Rep.? Leland Yee? My gut tells me Phil Ting has a better shot.

Any names you want to share?

Shame on GOP for threatened cuts to school kids

by Randy Bayne
x-posted at The Bayne of Blog

In a desperate move to force Democrats to accept other draconian cuts, GOP leadership in the state legislature has threatened to slash $400 million from schools as part of the budget deadlock that will soon enter it’s fourth week. A move that will go nowhere and only serves to further delay a budget agreement.

Education groups are already mobilizing to block any proposed cuts. The California School Employees Association and California Teachers Association have already begun asking members to call their legislators, particularly Republicans, to express their extreme dismay at cuts that will hurt school children and force severe cuts in spending.

Many school districts have already adopted budgets for the coming school year based on assurances that education would not be cut. Cuts in education now would force districts to dip into precious reserve funds. Education leaders say the proposed cuts would “wipe out a good chunk” of their discretionary spending.

Republicans are asking for draconian cuts in other areas of at least $2 billion, and the proposed education cuts may be a ploy to get Democrats to move away from their opposition to these cuts to social services by forcing them to make a choice between cutting social services or cutting education.

The two leaders of Republicans in the legislature refuse to stand by their plan to cut education. In order to avoid answering questions and defending the move, “Assembly Republican leader Michael Villines of Clovis and Senate Republican leader Dick Ackerman of Irvine left through a back door after two hours of budget negotiations with Democrats Tuesday evening,” reports the Los Angeles Times.

Republicans aren’t even on the same page as their own governor. The current plan being offered by Democrats is similar to the one crafted by Governor Schwarzenegger. Because of the similarities, it was thought early on that the budget process would be completed on time. That bubble was burst when Villines and Ackerman demanded unspecified cuts to social programs. Assembly Speaker Nuñez has been critical of members of the governor’s own party for not supporting his plan. Six Republican votes are required to reach the 2/3 threshold for passing a budget.

This whole episode, the Republican determination to cut funding for social programs and education, reveals just how soulless Republicans, as a party, are. They have no qualms about cutting services for the less fortunate and truly needy families. No qualms about cutting off educational opportunity for school children. The Democrats, on the other hand, have been extremely reserved about proposing tax increases on the wealthiest Californians. So much for Republican rhetoric about family values and bi-partisanship.

The amazing thing in all this is that six Republicans can’t be found who will break with their party leadership and do the right thing by supporting children, schools, families, working Californians, and the poor. Shame on you.