Tag Archives: Julia Brownley

Running from Romney-Ryan, or reveling in it? Case study in CA-26

IMAG0504Greg Sargent first observed six Republicans, including CA-26 (Ventura County) candidate Tony Strickland, running from the Romney-Ryan Medicare plan. Sure enough, here’s Strickland claiming that he would have voted no on the Ryan budget because – and this is a true profile in courage, or something – the Ryan plan would give vouchers in lieu of Medicare for those 55 and younger, while Strickland’s cutoff is age 50. In other words, while Ryan’s plan is a huge, neon-orange, screaming

if you’re under 55, FUCK OFF, YOU DON’T MATTER

Strickland’s version is

if you’re under 50, FUCK OFF, YOU DON’T MATTER

Oh. That’s reassuring.

On Friday, August 17, Strickland held a press event on the grounds of a local seniors’ center that followed the Republicans’ Ryan budget pushback to the letter: “Inoculate by pledging to save and protect Medicare; use credible third party validators (mom or seniors)…”

IMAG0506Here’s Strickland, inoculating and validating at a senior center with wheelchair-bound seniors on the sidelines, dramatically signing a pledge to protect Medicare and Social Security for anyone 50 and older as he repeats the lie, which is to say the pants on fire lie, that Obamacare steals $500 billion $700 billion from Medicare. At Crooks & Liars, here’s the entire video of Strickland’s lies, including the oft-repeated “death panels” lie. Of course, to Strickland and his advisors “protecting” Medicare and Social Security means turning Medicare into a voucher program and privatizing Social Security, all in order to continue to favor the very wealthy and the corporate special interests over the middle class and the seniors forming the chorus line of his photo opportunity.

How much does Strickland want to run from the Romney-Ryan plan to end Medicare as we know it? To get to the truth, a Ventura County voter could check his website… oops, issues “coming soon.” IMAG0505Or a reporter could ask how much of the Ryan plan he’s read… oops, turns out he’s only read enough to articulate one small difference between him and Ryan, never mind the rest of the Path to Poverty. But Strickland can’t run from radical Ryan. Ryan co-founded the Young Guns program, and immediately named Strickland as one of his Young Guns. Strickland chairs the Romney-Ryan election California team. No wonder he’s wrong for California, and too extreme for Ventura County.

A Ventura County voter who wants to really preserve Medicare and Social Security, without Romney-Ryan-Strickland doubletalk, could vote for progressive champion Julia Brownley. And a voter anywhere who wants to give the gavel back to Nancy Pelosi – CA-26 is a nationally prominent toss-up race – could donate to Brownley.

Los Angeles bans plastic bags. Next up: California?

The City of Los Angeles took a big step today in becoming the largest city in the nation to ban single-use plastic bags at grocery stores. The City Council voted 13-1 to phase out the bags. The bags will be phased out over 6 to 12 months, and a ten cent per bag fee will be charged for paper bags. An estimated 2.3 billion bags, made with petroleum products, are used in Los Angeles every year. They’re a horrible nuisance when they get stuck in oak trees, and they’re deadly to sea critters’ intestines.

oak tree with bags

Paul Koretz at rallyAt a rally this morning just before the City Council meeting, speakers touted the value of responsible environmental stewardship, the horrendous toll taken on marine life, the jobs created by manufacturing reusable bags, and the City’s desire to fund education and parks rather than street cleaning. Paul Koretz, the author of the ordinance (shown in photo), successfully fended off efforts to water down the bill by long time friends-turned-lobbyists. The rally was well attended by environmental and labor groups.

A patchwork of over 45 cities and counties, including unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, already ban the bag. A statewide ban, authored by environmental champion Julia Brownley (AD-41), nearly passed the state legislature last year but narrowly failed when donations from plastic bag manufacturers magically appeared in the reelection funds of a few wavering legislators the legislature gave due consideration to all issues. Brownley has indicated that she was waiting on the outcome of the Los Angeles vote. The bill has been revised a little, and should be passed this summer if all goes well.

Consumers have been accustomed to thinking of single use plastic bags as a convenience. They’re not. Rather, they’re an unnecessary use of oil, a hidden cost for grocers and consumers, and ultimately a hazard to marine life. My reusable cloth bags sit in my car next to my grocery store coupons, and both are used upon every trip to the market. I hope to see California follow Los Angeles’ lead.

Linda Parks: A New Breed of High Broderist Politician

It’s hard to say which has been more harmful to the body politic in this country: the extremist tilt of conservative Republicans, or the crowd of aloof both-sides-do-it anti-partisans who give them cover. Normally the latter are confined to the traditional media, who follow closely in the footsteps of their patron bipartisan saint David Broder. Conservative extremists in elected office and partisan think tanks move on apace with their agendas; Democrats and even some progressives bend over backwards to give them most of what they ask for, in spite of the awful nature of the policies being espoused; conservative extremists smell weakness and demand even more; negotiations break down; and the traditional press tut-tuts over the horrible “partisanship” of it all. The stories written by these press flacks heave exasperated sighs at both parties for the futility of the debates, while covering the actual details of the policy arguments, the popularity of the proposals involved, and the depth of the actual concessions from each side with all the rigor of a children’s pop-up storybook. Jackie Calmes’ now legendarily terrible piece in the New York Times about the deficit reduction debate last year has become something of an archetype for this sort of vapid reporting.

Unfortunately, the passage of the top-two primary in California has created a new hybrid breed of anti-partisan politician. This relatively new species seeks higher office by attempting to marginalize both parties with the sort of detail-free bipartisan platitudes which the establish press has made its hallmark.

Case in point: Linda Parks, candidate for California’s new 26th Congressional District. Parks is currently the 2nd District County Supervisor encompassing much of Thousand Oaks and the surrounding areas. In 1996 she switched her registration from Democrat to Republican in order to win elected office in the mostly Republican district. She has a decent environmental track record, and is a moderate Republican swing vote on the Board of Supervisors. The local Republicans have attempted several fierce primary challenges against her, all of which failed due to Democratic crossover support (the district’s registration makes it very difficult for an actual Democrat to win there.) However, there was little chance for her to advance higher than the Board of Supervisors due to a lack of support for her in either Party.

But now Ms. Parks has seized on the top-two primary system to run for Congress, courting the Decline-to-State vote while marginalizing both parties and maintaining a conveniently substance-free platform. Because Jerry Brown signed a law recently dictating that the ballot must reflect the Party in which one is registered, Linda Parks re-registered with no party preference a few weeks ago. The June ballot for this majority Democratic district will now have four Democrats (at least two of them conservative), a conservative Republican state senator named Tony Strickland, and the “non-partisan” former Republican Linda Parks. If the Democrats split their vote, it’s entirely possible if not probable that the November run-off in this Democratic district will lack a Democrat entirely, and be a face-off between Parks and Strickland. Fortunately, fantastic progressive Assemblymember Julia Brownley is running for the district, but it’s no guarantee she’ll make it past June without a lot of help.

Ms. Parks’ issues page is frustratingly but predictably vague, with neoliberal austerity-friendly platitudes like:

Congress needs to stop the brinkmanship politics and work together to balance our nation’s budget and restore our bond rating.  This will give businesses the certainty they need to invest in capital projects and expand their workforce. This in turn will create demand for goods and services which will buoy our economy.

So yesterday I issued a challenge on Facebook to Ms. Parks saying the following:

It would be nice if Linda Parks would inform voters what she thinks Democrats have been too “extreme” and “partisan” on. Women’s health? The environment? The lowest tax rates in modern American history? I’m really curious. No more platitudes, please. Specifics are needed.

A number of respected people in the county “liked” the post, and Ms. Parks responded:

I know that to some, party is very important. I’ve heard some representatives say Republicans and Democrats won’t even look at each other when passing in the halls of Congress. I think I embrace many of the principles that you do. For example, I am pro-choice and pro-environment, and have a record of balancing the County’s budget, which had a structural deficit, growing a 10% reserve fund that increased the county’s bond rating. This makes borrowing cheaper so that we can build bridges, among other things. I do have a focus on making government operate more efficiently while providing services, like public safety, public health, and protecting the welfare of seniors, the mentally ill, and veterans. I’ll bring this non-partisan way of looking at problems to Congress, focusing on the issues that are important to Americans – like improving the economy and helping grow jobs -and I won’t be alone because there are others who are committed to setting aside partisanship to get us working again.

When it was pointed out to her that this was yet another platitude, she again came back with a response that would have made David Broder proud:

I think steadfast refusal to compromise and work towards common ground is polarizing. Hyper-partisanship (putting party before country) is the problem. For example one may agree with my positions but oppose me based on my party or in this case my non-party.

Somewhat exasperated, my response:

Please give me an example of Democrats at a local, state or national level “refusing to compromise” in a way that would have improved the policy outcome. Again, specifics please. Until then, these are simply platitudes that reinforce the false idea that 1) both parties are equally to blame; and 2) the “compromise” position would result in the most popular outcome. Neither claim is true.

Pressed on the subject, she resorted to yet more fact-free platitudes:

David asks for specifics on how Democrats have been too extreme or partisan or have refused to compromise. The failure of the parties to compromise is well documented. For example, S&P lowered our nation’s bond rating stating how they are “Pessimistic about the capacity of Congress” because “in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he’s learned that it takes bipartisan support to succeed in national security and foreign affairs and finds the current hyper-partisanship leads to polarization and eventually paralysis, jeopardizing our nation’s defense. Ben Bernanke discusses in the NY Times “Politics Hurt Markets and Nation.” So much can happen, in terms of give and take and collaboration if the parties worked together. I’d like to see a bipartisan committee that can bring the sides together.

Trying not to lose patience with the myriad ways in which her response demonstrated studied ignorance of the details of the negotiations, I shot back with:

1) Whose fault was the failure to reach a budget deal? On what speicifc items should Dems have compromised even further? 2) Did the S&P downgrade really hurt the nation’s economy or lower Treasury yields? How much should we have cut from Social Security and Medicare to please S&P and the Republicans? 3) On what pieces of foreign policy have Dems been too partisan, or undercut Secretary Gates. Specifics please. Also, bipartisan compromise gave us the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 and the AUMF for Iraq. Were those good ideas because they were passed with bipartisan votes? Specifics please.

She has ignored my queries. And why not? It advantages her nothing to actually face the issues honestly, any more than it does pundits like Broder or Thomas Friedman. Their arguments break down instantly when subjected to the remotest scrutiny.

Digby and I spent much of the late summer of 2011 pointing out time and again the number of ways in which the President and other national Democrats were going far, far out of their way to give Republicans 90% of what they wanted toward reaching a “Grand Bargain” on deficit reduction. I went to Washington, D.C. that summer and met many Democratic representatives who privately expressed to me their furious rage with hard-right tilt of the negotiations, driven in large part by the President and his advisers.

On the S&P downgrade, this blog was also at pains to point out that S&P was never an honest broker in making the downgrade in the first place. More importantly, I also noted that the downgrade had the opposite effect from what others predicted:

A downgrade in U.S. debt means functionally that U.S. treasury bills are, in S&P’s oh-so-wise opinion, less trustworthy and a greater credit risk to investors. This comes only a day after investors fled the DOW and S&P500 into the safe and waiting hands of…you guessed it: U.S. treasuries. The same treasuries that S&P suddenly finds a more dangerous buy. So what does that say about the stock market, and the S&P500? Perhaps S&P might wish to re-evaluate the credibility of its own market index.

And yet politicians like Linda Parks and their High Broderist friends in the traditional press will continue to make these sorts of vapid statements because they can, and because nobody “serious” pays attention to Paul Krugman or to dirty hippies who just happen to have a blog–no matter how knowledgeable we are, or how right we’re proven time and time again.

Perhaps the greatest irony is that while Linda Parks and the arch-conservative Strickland gang on the Republican side of the CA26 race despise one another, Parks’ fact-free platitudes help give extremist Republicans like him all the cover they need to do what they do. I don’t necessarily blame politicians like Linda Parks for having no awareness of macroeconomics, or for thinking that a nation like the United States has to balance its budget as neatly as a County Board of Supervisors does. That’s a piece of parochialism for which she may be forgiven, as opposed to members of the press who should know better.

But I do blame them for being so unaware of their surroundings that they help along the very extremism they pretend to oppose.

Cross-posted from the original at Digby’s Hullabaloo

Will vanity Democrats put Republican in office? Case study in CA-26.

Ventura County, California was long represented by useless back-bencher Elton Gallegly (R-CA-24). Now he’s retired, the lines have been redrawn to a slight Democratic advantage, and Democrats should have one of their best chances of picking up a House seat…unless vanity candidates, ostensibly Democrats, give the seat to the Republicans. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee lists the newly renumbered CA-26 as a “red to blue” race.

Below the fold, a case study in California’s new “top two” primary rules, and in ego.

On the Republican side, Tony Strickland is the young, energetic, ethically challenged teabagger into whom the national Republicans have poured their wealth ($250K and counting) and their hopes of winning this election and then cruising to reelection every two years for the next several decades. He’s running against Linda Parks, so moderate (think Olympia Snowe with environmentalist leanings) that she’s officially reregistered as “no party preference.” Both have high name recognition.

The Democrats began with county supervisor Steve Bennett as the front runner. Also filing were tennis pro David Cruz Thayne, harbor commissioner Jess Herrera, and Moorpark city councilmember David Pollock. Bennett withdrew literally minutes before an endorsement vote at the state Democratic party convention Feb. 11. Activists, including me, immediately began drafting Assemblymember Julia Brownley, and on Feb. 21 she stepped into the race, where she immediately became the front runner. However, unless the Democrats unify behind her, voters will diffuse their votes among four candidates and lose in a free-for-all, leaving Strickland to face Parks in the November election under California’s new “top two” rule.

Julia Brownley is both progressive and viable. She has a passion for education and a track record on environmental issues (she wrote AB 1998, the ban on single-use plastic bags, that nearly passed last year). She’s a coauthor of SB810, the California single-payer healthcare bill, and supports the California DISCLOSE Act requiring disclosure of money in politics. In her first ten days in the race, she’s raised over $150,000.

Who is David Cruz Thayne? He’s hired high profile consultants, including Garry South and Joe Trippi. He was chief of staff for the (Democratic) minority leader in the Utah state legislature, but apparently never run for office before. Fresh faces are welcome, but he hasn’t demonstrated strength as a candidate.

Cruz Thayne’s fundraising has been both anemic and questionable. In six months, he’s raised about $65,000, possibly as much as he’s spent on his expensive consultants. Review of FEC and Open Secrets records show that $5,000 came from Joe Hess, chief executive officer of Hess Oil Co., and his wife. Republicans are constantly floating proposals to get to local offshore oil, and environmentalists must constantly oppose their efforts; the last thing the area needs is to be represented by a Congressman friendly to Big Oil. Most of the rest came from friends-and-family in Utah and Malibu. He has no ActBlue support at all.

Cruz Thayne doesn’t appear to be knowledgeable on issues. I asked him the same question I ask all candidates – “I’m a single issue voter on climate. Give me your elevator pitch on why I should vote for you.” He told me that he drives a biodiesel car, which is nice but doesn’t demonstrate a grasp of policy. At a local debate, he was unfamiliar with DOMA, let alone why repealing it should be a Democratic priority.

Local activists call Cruz Thayne an empty suit. He’s acquired a handful of endorsements by Latino legislators outside the district, but no local endorsements at all. He’s not taken seriously. He’s simply a vanity candidate.

Jess Herrera is equally unimpressive. His website doesn’t mention his party affiliation, but does recite that he’s

* Right for Ventura County

* Right for America

* Right on the Issues

Again, he’s been endorsed by a handful of Latino legislators – Joe Baca, Cruz Bustamante, Gil Cedillo, and Lou Correa (but, oddly, no local politicians). And, as the repeated emphasis on being “right” hints, Herrera has a history of Republican endorsements. He’s been endorsed by District Attorney Greg Totten in the past. More troubling, in 2010 he was one of the few county elected officials to endorse Don Facciano in a treasurer’s race, an extremist so far to the right that his conservative opponent picked up endorsements across the political spectrum. And Facciano is now returning the favor, appearing at a fundraiser for Herrera.

Herrera’s fundraising is rumored to be weak; his ActBlue page currently shows a total of two donations. In short, he’s, at best, a vanity candidate.

David Pollock is a Moorpark city councilmember. He’s generally seen as progressive, and has gotten some buzz on a shoestring budget. I’d like to see him run for higher office, e.g., county supervisor or Assembly. However, it’s a big leap from councilmember of a relatively small city to Congress, his fundraising hasn’t impressed, he doesn’t have name recognition, and he’d be crushed by the Strickland juggernaut. His name on the ballot in addition to Brownley’s simply splits Democratic votes and increases the odds that neither will finish in the top two, leaving the November race between hard right Strickland and moderate Republican Parks.

A March 9 deadline looms. It’s time to ask Cruz Thayne, Herrera, and Pollock whether it’s more important that they have “failed candidate for Congress” on their resumes, enabling a Strickland-Parks election, or whether they will unify behind Julia Brownley so that the best Democrat can win the primary, win in November, and return Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

full disclosure: I’m an elected state Democratic Party delegate from AD-41, Brownley’s current district, although I only met her for the first time last Thursday. At the state party convention, I voted “no endorsement” after Bennett dropped out.

CA-26: Asm. Julia Brownley to seek Congressional seat

Race could be critical for Democratic hopes in the House

by Brian Leubitz

Since Sup. Steve Bennett dropped out of the race for CA-26, the Democrats have been looking for a candidate that could raise the money in what is likely to be a pretty expensive race.  Bennett had been pretty successful at fund raising, and has promised to help for any future Democratic candidate.  Until now, that has been limited to David Cruz Thayne, who is described as a “businessman” on the CA-26 page on AroundTheCapitol. But considering that Tony Strickland appears set to contest this race, his fundraising left a lot to be desired.

So, enter Asm. Julia Brownley, who represents much of the district in the Assembly in a district that runs the coast from Santa Monica to Oxnard:

I’m thrilled to announce my candidacy for Congress in a district I’ve represented for over five years. It’s clear that we need to end the partisan gridlock in Washington and start representing the interests of the voters who elected us. Ventura County residents want to get back to work, they want their children to have the same quality education they had, they want to make sure our coastlines are protected and they want access to affordable health care. These are the values I’ve fought for on behalf of my constituents and I’d be honored to be able to continue that work in Congress.

Brownley received Bennett’s endorsement, so perhaps this could really be all one big story. But whatever it happened, it certainly made the DCCC happy. In Brownley they found somebody with good name ID and fundraising acumen. Assuming the top-two is between Strickland and Brownley, expect to see a very expensive campaign.

Finally, as David Nir points out, this likely puts the kibosh on the pressure to move Brad Sherman over to this seat instead of the new 30th district. Game on, “-ermans”.

Holding Our Elected Officials Accountable

California’s system of government is designed to produce bad outcomes, no question about it.  But that does not let Democratic lawmakers off the hook for their actions.  The process denies the ability to budget in a sane manner, but nobody put a gun to their head and forced them to sign on to a budget that rips the social safety net to shreds.  If progressive Democrats in the legislature were willing to say no a little more, they might gain a measure of respectability and have at least some of their demands met.

The problem is that it’s very difficult to get a bead on who votes for and against a budget, given the state’s process.  There were 26 different budget trailer bills, and lawmakers had the opportunity to pick and choose where to take stands.  Progressive activists need that information of who voted on what in order to make choices about their representatives.  It’s not the sum total of the equation – leadership can cut deals with individual lawmakers to vote no on trailer bills where their vote is not needed for passage and yes on others, and there’s all manner of horse-trading that goes on.  But in the end, all we have are the votes.  And so we can judge our elected officials based on what votes they made.

Marty Omoto has helpfully strung together all the votes on the main budget bill and key trailer bills, and he will follow this up in subsequent posts.  Have a look.  Hone in on your representative.  Did they vote in your interests?  Did they take any notable stands?  Or did they go along with the leadership?  If so, is there any need for them to participate in the Legislature, or couldn’t a lever pulled by the leadership work just as well?

I’m going to look at my two lawmakers, on the flip.  By the way, I also have a list of all Assembly votes on almost all the budget trailer bills, ping me if you want a copy.

For the time being, I live in the 41st Assembly District and the 23rd Senate District.  My lawmakers are Julia Brownley and Fran Pavley.  How’d they vote?

Brownley voted yes on every single budget bill except for four based on my records: AB X4 7, AB X4 8, AB X4 19 and AB X4 23.  AB 7 (for short) privatized the social services enrollment process.  AB 8 instituted so-called “anti-fraud” provisions to CalWorks to reduce or limit eligibility, and eliminated cost of living adjustments to the welfare program. AB 19 dealt with in-home support services (IHSS) in a similar way as CalWorks, adding fingerprinting and background checks and other anti-fraud measures.  AB23 was the Tranquillon Ridge offshore drilling deal.

So basically, Brownley objected to the policy changes made to human services programs but voted with the leadership on pretty much all the program cuts.

As for Pavley, she voted against AB 7 (privatizing social services enrollment), AB 8 (anti-fraud changes to CalWorks), AB X4 9 (cuts on spending to developmental services like Early Start), AB 19 (the aforementioned IHSS bill) and AB23 (Tranquillon Ridge).  She also voted against AB27, the use of redevelopment funds by the state.  Everything else was a yes.

I think if you go through the votes, with rare exceptions you will see this as the norm for Democratic legislators – picking a few issues, usually on issues where their votes were not needed, to draw a line in the sand, but being generally not too troublesome and following leadership.

In general I think Julia and Fran are solid legislators, but I think it’s reasonable to ask whether that’s good enough.

While California Dreams- Weekly Update Vol.1, No.14

This article written by: Former Assemblymember, Hannah-Beth Jackson of Speak Out California

A weekly update on the goings-on in Sacramento
For the week ending September 8, 2007

Key bills and issues we’ve been following during the
past week and beyond

The first of the final two weeks of the regular session is now done, with hundreds of bills having been heard and or otherwise disposed of.  Healthcare, predictably continues to be front and center. The environment has seen some good news and bad, while civil rights–for both the gay community and working women round out the headline grabbers for the week.

Ballot initiatives and threats of same continue to be bandied about, while the Republican play to steal yet another presidential election is taking on broader national attention as its implications for Republicans holding the White House become known. Term Limits has dodged a bullet and will now appear on the February ballot, creating greater pressure to get a redistricting measure passed before the coming recess.  And the Perata Iraq initiative sits on the Governor’s desk, most likely facing a veto. Of course, the Gov didn’t endear himself to his party this weekend at the Republican state convention, but that is of little concern as the Reps continue on a downward spiral in this state.

So let’s get to the details:

SB840/Universal Health Care and AB8 .

With all the hype about AB 8, Senator Kuehl’s true reform healthcare measure, calling for a Medicare type system to cover all Californians and still have us choose our own doctors, appears to be DOA on Schwarzenegger’s desk. With the legislature’s leaders heavily in negotiations with the Governor on a bill that keeps the insurance industry well in the game, there is just no way to fix this truly broken health care system. With a private, for-profit health INSURANCE industry in place, the only move that can be made essentially requires us to try to shove a square peg into a round hole. It can’t be done, but that isn’t deterring them from trying. For an excellent piece on why this process is not the answer, please go here: http://blog.bayneweb…

Schwarzenegger is insisting that everyone have health insurance. This is NOT universal healthcare, it is universal insurance- whether people can afford it or not. This deference to the insurance industry is maddening for those who realize the private companies are a major part of the problem and need to come out of the equation completely. Nonetheless, there have been concessions of transparency where the insurance companies would have to reveal what they pay and where the dollars that they rake in go.

The negotiations are complicated and keep changing almost by the minute. Rather than give you a play-by-play on all the moving parts, let’s break this down to the core issue in all this: Who will pay the bulk of the health care costs and who will be covered by the program? With so many major players in the mix –the hospitals, big and small employers, workers, the poor, doctors and healthcare providers, federal dollars, etc. there is real concern that we could be rushing into another end-of-session energy-deregulation type debacle.

With that in mind, there are those who are urging the leadership and legislature to go slow, and allow the governor to call a special session (he can do it anyway) and try to think through the process more carefully and deliberatively. Another option considered is to put an initiative on the ballot that addresses the funding mechanism, since there is no way the obstinate and out-of-touch right wing that has a hold on the Republican Senators will even consider such a mechanism—even if those having to belly-up are willing to pay! For more on this aspect of the story, check out this article at the California Progress Report, as well as Julia Rosen’s piece here.

Environmental efforts

While two important environmental bills apparently delayed until next year’s session, a major breakthrough has occurred on the water/flood control scene. A package of bills reflecting a compromise has been reached which will address the uncontrolled development on flood-prone lands in the Central Valley region without imposing moratoriums on construction or impeding local economic growth. The dam on overhauling the state’s antiquated and ineffective approach to flood protection and water planning appears to have been broken—-or so the claims go. For an analysis of what this compromise looks like, click here for the SacBee article and here for the California Progress Report’s coverage.

Sadly, two other key environmental bills that we’ve been touting haven’t made it through the process this year. One is Senator Alan Lowenthal’s  SB974, an important bill to clean up the air near the ports of California– Long Beach , L.A. and Oakland . For more on this story,please visit our blog: http://speakoutca.or…

The other is Senator Joe Simitian’s SB 412, which would require that California establish the need for LNG plants before allowing them to be built in the state. Seems like a no-brainer, but this bill got in the cross-hairs of end-of-session wrangling between the Senate and Assembly. While Speak Out California has been urging the leadership to move this bill back onto the floor for a vote, we’re still waiting. If you would like to help by sending emails to Speaker Nunez, go to our action alert to sign up here.  We’ve also blogged here on this issue: http://speakoutca.or…

For more information about the successes and failures of other measures, California Report’s chief Frank Russo has done a yeoman’s job of covering them here.

Civil Rights push for gay marriage and workforce equity

The Governor will see AB 43, Mark Leno’s gay marriage bill back on his desk again this year. For the second time, the Legislature, on a strictly party-line vote, has passed this measure and will likely see the governor veto it again. This is a hard sell, with the Governor having ducked the measure last year, saying the Court should decide. The Supreme Court turned around and said the legislature should decide. Well, they have. Governor?

Two measures that we’ve been following on our weblog over the past few weeks have now passed both houses and are on their way to the Governor’s desk. The first, AB 437, by Assemblymember Dave Jones, ensures that victims of pay discrimination continue to have a fair opportunity to seek redress in the courts. The measure clarifies that the time period for alleging pay discrimination claims runs from the date of each payment of a discriminatory wage.

The second, AB435 by Assemblymember Julia Brownley, addresses workplace discrimination against women. The measure extends the statue of limitations for an employee in order to file a civil action against an employer for wage discrimination and also extends the time period that an employer is required to maintain wage and job classification records.

Click here for more on both these measures.

Initiatives on the move

Without a doubt, the most talked-about initiative this week is the transparent attempt by the Republican party to co-opt California’s 55 electoral votes in order to swing the next presidential election back to them. The initiative is couched in pleasant and reasonable language; talking about fairness and every vote counting, etc. But there is nothing fair about this initiative, designed to replace California’s winner-take-all system of handing all its electoral votes to the state’s popular vote winner (as is done in 48 other states) with a system that gives electoral votes by congressional district popular vote. Bottom line: In a state where the Reps have about a snowball’s chance of winning, this measure, if passed, would send them home with about 20-22 of the state’s 55 electoral votes. It is a cynical and serious plot to keep the White House, even though they haven’t really WON the presidency since 1988.

The Dems are rightly, crying foul here. This past week, National Democratic Party Chair, Howard Dean called this, “just another Republican attempt to rig an election.” Check out the San Francisco Chronicle article here. Unless enough people know about this ploy, the measure will likely qualify for the ballot and cost the Dems between $10-20 million to kill it, moving money from places it would otherwise be spent for democratic candidates and issues. Likely exactly what the Reps had in mind when they pulled this stunt. Smells a lot like Karl Rove is still alive and well.

When we reported last week’s edition of While California Dreams, it appeared that the Term Limits/Extension initiative might not make it onto the ballot because it appeared to lack the required number of signatures. Seems this was a false alarm-as two counties reconsidered their counting techniques, recounted, and decided that the signatures qualified after all. A collective sigh of relief was purportedly heard emanating from the Capitol as current, otherwise termed-out legislators still stand to gain additional years if this measure passes.

This event may very well lead to additional ballot measures. The conventional wisdom goes that Schwarzenegger’s support is either necessary or very helpful to get the term-limits/extension measure passed, but he won’t play ball unless a redistricting measure is also included, which will take the ability to configure legislative districts out of the hands of the legislature. Without such a measure, there is concern that the Gov. might even oppose the desired term-limits/extension measure, thus likely condemning it to fail. Speaker Nunez is purported to be scurrying hard to put an initiative together that will meet the Gov’s requirements, while Senator Perata has made it clear it won’t get by the Senate if it also includes putting Congressional redistricting into the hands of an outside body. The key question is whether such a compromise is in the offing and whether it flies with the Gov. No answer on that one yet.

As we reported last week, Senator Perata’s advisory initiative is on the governor’s desk. Perata wants the people of California to be able to weigh in on the war in Iraq and let the President and Congress know whether we want an immediate withdrawal of our troops. The vote was predictably along party-lines and the odds are that the Gov. will veto it along the same party line. But the problem for the Governor “of the people”, as he likes to define himself, is that he can’t argue that the people shouldn’t have a chance to express their opinion on this measure, without being labeled a hypocrite. Don’t bet on seeing this reach the ballot, however. There’s very little upside for the Gov in signing the measure to send it to the ballot. He’s too good a politician not to realize this.


The Rest of the Story

Our blogging offerings for the week:

End of Session Drama Begins

Senate Bill 974- The Art of the Possible

To read and comment on these entries, just go to: www.speakoutca.org/weblog/

With only a few days left in the first year of this legislative session, there will be a mad-dash to end the year on an upbeat of legislative accomplishment. This is also the time when good intentions and bad bills can wreak havoc on our state so we’ll be watching bills carefully and sounding the alarm if we think there are concerns that you might want to express to the legislature or the Governor when these measures get to his desk.

We welcome your comments and suggestions and hope you will send this newsletter to your friends and other like-minded progressives. Urge them to sign up to Speak Out California and keep the progressive voice alive!

Until next week,

Hannah-Beth Jackson and the Speak Out California Team