With the belated victory of Kamala Harris as Attorney General, the full results of the 2010 election are in for California. There many things that progressives can be proud of – a sweep of statewide offices, picking up another Assembly seat, defeating prop 23 and passing prop 25. On the other hand, there are also some major disappointments – the defeat of prop 19 (marijuana legalization), the defeat of prop 21 (a VLF to fund the state parks), the defeat of prop 24 (rolling back corporate tax breaks), and the passage of prop 26 (2/3rds requirement for fees). Prop 26 especially complicates what this victory means for California.
Indeed, our situation is a lot like the national picture after the 2008 elections – we have an executive who straddles the line between the left and right wings of the Democratic Party, a big legislative majority, but not the ability to break the fiscal deadlock and really be able to govern our state.
So where do we go from here?
Finance:
The rather comfortable million-vote margin by which prop 25 passes would make me rather optimistic about the possibility for the passage of a majority-vote revenue proposal. However the failure of every revenue increase – prop 19, 21, and 23 – are daunting evidence to the contrary. Granted that the outcome might be different in a presidential electorate (younger, more minority and working class voters, higher turnout generally), but I think this shows how difficult it will be to thread the needle of the “Program/Government Blindspot” and the prevalence of austerity thinking, even if we link taxation to spending.
In the mean time, California Democrats have a daunting task ahead of them – to balance the budget without doing any more harm to already brutalized public services, and to create the economic growth necessary to ensure that the budget stays balanced. In the short-term, there are four things we can do:
Going back to the Steinberg Maneuver – According to the California Budget Project, Prop 26 doesn't establish a blanket 2/3rd requirement for all fees. A number of fees, including “charges where the feepayer receives a service, product, benefit, or privilege…charges imposed for entrance, use, purchase, or lease of state or local government property, penalties, fines, or other monetary charges resulting from a violation of the law, charges imposed for “reasonable regulatory costs” and assessments and property-related fees,” are not covered by the 2/3rds requirement. Thus, it's still possible to raise revenue through a two-step process in which said fees are raised by a certain amount by majority vote, then taxes are raised and the fees are lowered by the same amount by a majority vote. The issue here is whether we can get Governor-elect Jerry Brown to sign such measures, given previous statements of his.
We can try again with Ballot Box Budgeting – there's some indication that Brown's approach will be instead to put the budget to a vote as a proposition in a special election. The tricky thing here is how to persuade the public to vote for said budget; Schwarzenegger tried this in 2009 and it was dramatically unsuccessful. Perhaps the 2010 election signals a more realist (and realistic) electorate, but it's a roll of the dice.
Banks – I'vewritten before about the potential that a state reserve bank offers. That was true before the 2010 election, but it's even more true now. Given the newly-created restrictions on raising revenue, a state reserve bank offers an entirely new possibility, both for resolving the current budget crisis, and for creating the economic growth necessary for California's future development.
I believe that this bank would be even more likely to gain support if, within the state bank, there was created a series of Development Funds – a Green Development Fund, an Education and Innovation Development Fund, a Health Care and Medical Science Development Fund, and so on – that could make targeted investments into key sectors of California's economy, both public and private.
Jobs – with or without financing from a state reserve bank, a Job Insurance fund would fit under the exemption in prop 26 – since the “feepayer receives a service, product, benefit, or privilege,” namely eligibility for a job when unemployed. Ultimately, as I have said before, California cannot balance its budget with 12% unemployment because revenues will continue to decline, no matter how much spending is cut. What is needed is a sudden shock to California's labor market, and unemployment being cut in half is that shock – it will pump huge amounts of money into local retailers and other businesses, it will make employers see the ranks of the unemployed in their communities shrinking, and hopefully shift the “animal spirits” of both employers and lenders.
None of these steps is a total solution for the fundamental problem of revenues – given the problems we had with the budget even before the recession. But they will fill the gap so that we can debate the question of majority-vote revenues in an economic climate of balanced budgets, normal levels of unemployment, and higher economic growth.
This doesn't mean dismantling regulations in the name of the environment, but rather shifting the direction of regulation away from NIMBY no-growth, which only encourages sprawl and wasteful development, towards in-fill building of affordable housing in already-developed areas while protecting undeveloped land. It also means – and here is where environmentalists need to reckon with the realities of class and race – getting rid of the tools of modern class (and racial) discrimination: zoning rules that limit building heights to two-stories or less, that ban unrelated individuals from living in the same house (to prevent renters and subdivision), that establish minimum lot sizes to mandate , or that mandate the construction of garages. In other words, ending exclusionary zoning and encouraging inclusionary zoning.
Finally, it means supercharging public investments into green energy, mass transit, and other sustainable ventures. A statewide version of LA's 30/10 plan, aimed at speeding up and extending High-Speed Rail and local mass transit would be a huge transformation, both in terms of creating jobs and spurring growth, but also in lowering CO2 emissions and pushing land-use away into energy-efficient high-density development. Large-scale alternative energy projects, like the Beacon Solar Energy Project, San Fransisco's tidal energy project, should be built under public auspices, making use of the newest forms of technology. The advantage to this approach is that it allows the public sector to act as a yardstick competitor to California energy companies, spurring innovation and providing a guaranteed market for green manufacturing firms under democratic auspices.
All of this links together. Without financing, there's not going to be a green revolution in California any time soon. Without new sources of economic growth that don't depend on housing bubbles, California won't get the revenue it needs. In the end, the fight over our budget is really about the future direction of this state – whether we will have a government that can help build a broad economy or a night watchman state that is powerless to prevent corporate greed from running wild.
I usually don’t get to spend much time watching the events I put together at Netroots Nation. With a 3 day event comprised of over 100 sessions, over 300 speakers, over 100 sponsors and 2000+ attendees most of my time is spent in our show office. Thankfully I had a little more time at Netroots California to just take the content in. I was tied to one room for the most part, so there’s a lot of great stuff I missed. But for the sessions I did watch there are a few ideas that stuck with me.
Check them out below the fold.
1. The Lesson of how Jerry Brown won
The first session of the day featured a great presentation by Seiji Carpenter at David Binder Research and Bryan Blum at the California Labor Federation filled in a lot of detail on some innovative things labor did this cycle. You can find Seiji’s presentation here and I’d encourage you to page through it. There’s a lot of meat to this presentation, but I wanted to highlight a few things.
* A lot of people, myself included, had heavy criticism and concern that the Brown campaign was completely absent over the summer. Whitman was pounding away at him over the air for 112 days without any response from his campaign. However, Independent Expenditures were up on the air and they were able to communicate their intentions through press releases. They kept the campaign essentially tied over the summer. And if you contrast that with Angelides in 2006 he’d essentially lost by Labor Day.
* The campaign and IEs were able to focus on key demographics. They prevented Whitman from building a base among women. Undecideds moved toward Brown. Latinos came home to Brown and turned out in record numbers (a special shout out to SEIU’s Cambiando campaign here). Working class voters favored Brown. And in a historic shift Asian Americans overwhelmingly broke for Brown.
* Labor ran a program called Million More Voters that was intended to target voters with similar qualities to union members, and they identified 2.8 million people. Asian Americans were more than twice as likely to be targets so they invested a lot of time in researching those communities, something that hasn’t been done on a large scale in California before.
* The result of this work with the Asian American communities around California lead to a 42 point shift. Asian Americans broke 55 to 38 for Democrats in 2010 and 37 to 62 for Democrats in 2006. And the work done here should be particularly instructive for future campaigns.
* Brown won by 13 points in the end, but lost with White voters. That’s something to think about going forward.
So while this isn’t a campaign that I think anyone should repeat, those of us worried because Brown was not making efforts to reach out to youth voters or boldly articulating a progressive vision or running an effective modern online campaign or name your criticism… were wrong.
2. Open Primaries and Redistricting
In the State of California in 2011 and Beyond panel John Laird made a really smart point. He gave a few examples of politicians running last cycle’s campaign this cycle and being surprised when they lost. District 6’s newest supervisor, Jane Kim, wasn’t on this panel but that’s pretty much exactly what happened in her race with her opponents as evidenced by this article and this one.
The new variable in the 2012 cycle isn’t going to be the vastly different Presidential electorate, although candidates ignore that at their peril, it’s going to be the newly passed primary system and redistricting which will be conducted by citizens and not the legislature. In a lot of races around the state there’s a real possibility for both candidates that go through to the general election to be of the same party. In fact that came within a few hundred thousand votes of happening for the GOP in the attorney general’s race had it been in effect this year. It’ll likely lead to one candidate being either more conservative or liberal and one being more moderate. To not end up with a crop of moderates across the state and lose our progressive streak different strategies are going to be necessary. And this is going to be particularly true if one or several incumbents get redistricted into the same district. We’re going to have to think about how and whether to run primaries.
3. Narrative on government and revenue
One of the organizations I was really proud to have in attendance is California Alliance. The point their staff made across several sessions went something like this. Most voters don’t know how government works and they not only don’t trust it they actively despise Sacramento. It’s common for me to be able to walk into a room of activists or politically informed people and throw out terms like 2/3rds or Prop 13 and everyone know exactly what I’m talking about and why they’re a problem. California Alliance and a lot of other groups have made a case that the average voter doesn’t have that level of knowledge and the reason you often see these anti-tax votes or punitive votes is because they don’t like or trust Sacramento. You do have success on the local level raising revenue because voters can see what their local government does and there’s a lot more trust there. At that level it’s schools, fire fighters, police, fixing roads, etc.
So one of the key things everyone needs to be thinking about in their work is how we can build a narrative about the role of government in California, why it’s important, and why we need reforms to revenue to keep the California dream alive.
4. California vs. The Nation
It was pretty hard watching election returns come in from across the country on election night. Across the board Democrats lost seats culminating in a 60+ seat loss for the House. The GOP also claimed several key governorships and state houses on the one year it matters, when redistricting will be done. But that wave washed ashore at the Sierra Nevada and stopped, as a Courage Campaign email poetically put it. Here in California we’ve almost swept the ticket, and that’ll be complete when Kamala Harris claims victory. We pretty much maintained all seats and fended off some formidable challenges. Progressives didn’t get everything they wanted from propositions but we overwhelmingly shut down corporate money.
During “The Big (Progressive) Picture: The National Landscape Going into 2012” panel Rick Jacobs at Courage campaign noted that it’s looking likely that 5 key leadership positions will be occupied by California Republicans giving California an outsized voice in their caucus leadership. He suggests that we’ve got an opportunity over the next two years to influence national politics by focusing activism on these GOP leaders at home. They’re well aware they’ll be facing re-elections in 2 short years and with big changes happening in California they’re targets. That’s worth considering for all activists as we look at both local and national debates.
5. If you contact voters, you win
This sentiment was echoed by multiple people across sessions. A wide spectrum of organizations put in a lot of voter contact work here, made some impressive new moves this cycle, and increased funding for these activities.
But this has been a debate that’s raged on for a while in California. Most of the money spent in campaigns is for TV time. Our consulting class makes big money pushing this tactic so it’s hard to advocate change and more effective uses of that money. I think this election began to show the effectiveness of field operations in California in ways other cycles haven’t. Some of the biggest wins here were won without large budgets for TV.
So we’ve got to continue the fight to fund organizing more heavily. But the other problem expressed was collaboration. When it comes to initiative fights and candidate elections we are able to accomplish proficient communication among campaigns. What isn’t happening yet is effective sharing of resources and division of tasks. As an example, Becky Bond was talking about CREDO’s work on the No on 23 campaign. They had setup field offices in cities around the state to make calls. But other environmental organizations had setup their own offices in those same cities and they weren’t co-located spaces. There was also a division early on between organizations working in communities of color and environmental organizations. The coalition of environmental organizations didn’t want to fund field work in those communities and so a separate No On 23 campaign was formed to work in those communities.
In the end we won on 23, but in my view we won it ugly. There’s a lot of work to be done to foster greater collaboration among organizations and activists in the state and to start playing offense on initiatives over multiple cycles like the conservatives and corporate interests do. This last piece was the driving factor for creating Netroots California in the first place. The content was certainly interesting, but the value will be whether we can forge new relationships and maintain them going forward.
So in conclusion that was my viewpoint on the day. I didn’t get a chance to see a lot of things I really wanted to see, so I’d be eager to hear the thoughts of others.
This past June, the voters of this state passed Prop 14, the “open primaries” act that would effectively eliminate all but the top two candidates for the general election. If this law had been in effect this year, it would have changed several results.
(I am assuming that all Green votes and all Peace and Freedom votes would swing to the Democratic candidate, and all Libertarian and American Independent votes would swing to the Republican candidate. I know that’s not necessarily valid, but I’d argue it is a good first order approximation.)
In the Attorney General’s race, the race would still be tight. As of now (9:30 PM Saturday) Cooley has a 20,657 vote lead on Harris. AI & Lib would have added 328,546 to Cooley, Green & PF would have added 322,158 to Harris, increasing Cooley’s lead to 27,045. We’d still be counting votes.
In District 11, the only third part candidate was an American Independent — adding those votes to Harmer would have given him a decisive victory over Jerry McNerney.
In State Assembly District 5, Richard Pan’s margin would have been enhanced had the Peace & Freedom candidate not been on the ballot.
Of course, the real risk of Prop 14 comes in the case of multiple members of a single party advancing, or split races in a single party leading to a minority party advancing.
Prop. 25-END 2/3 REQUIREMENT FOR BUDGET: YES! YES! YES!
Prop. 26-Polluter Protection: NO!
Prop. 27-Dissolve Redistricting commission: YES
Alameda County:
Measure F-YES
School:
Measure L- YES (soft)
City of Oakland Measures
Measure V- YES
Measure W- YES
Measure X- NO
Measure BB-YES
I spent a lot on time on this, and if you want to see the reasons behind my choices, check out the extended text.
Conan Neutron voting guide: 2010
Oakland Mayor: Rebecca Kaplan
The easiest choice i’ve ever had since moving to Oakland in 1995. Instead of voting for a lesser of two evils, i’m voting for one of the most inspiring candidate i’ve ever had the pleasure to see, talk to, work with and vote for. All I knew going into this election cycle was that I wanted ANYBODY BUT DON PERATA. I also knew that Jean Quan is entitled, petulant, and obnoxious. I never knew how entitled, petulant and obnoxious until I had to sit through so long of hearing her talk. Sheesh. But dude, seriously Rebecca Kaplan is fantastic, she’s right about almost everything, but pragmatic too. A pragmatic progressive?!? Wha? wha? wha?
I’m talking about things like proper digitizing of public records to speed city hall efficiency, putting permit applications online. Ridiculously no brainer stuff that takes a pretty big brain to make part of your campaign. Also stuff like reforming Oakland’s preposterously outdated and draconian cabaret licensing so we can have new venues, bar and places to eat. I’m sick to death of people paying lip service to Oakland’s potential, I want somebody to deliver results… and after Ron Dellum’s shameful reign I think we’re due. I am straight up telling you, if you are not paying attention to Rebecca Kaplan, you need to, she is everything this city needs. And if you don’t live in Oakland but know somebody that does, tell somebody.
Here’s a video of her top 3 priorities at a debate I took:
Anyway:
We have ranked choice for the first time EVER in this election. You should take advantage of this. But if your first choice isn’t Rebecca Kaplan, who is far and away the best candidate, then I’m as surprised as I am disappointed. It doesn’t have anything to do with the landmark of her being the first openly gay mayor in a bay area city, it’s because she’s the best damn person for the job. ’nuff said.
So since it’s ranked choice:
2nd Choice: Don Macleay
3rd Choice: Larry Lionel “LL” Young, a young dude to watch for, for sure
But really, it should be Kaplan 3 times.
Here is the important part:
NOT Don Perata or Jean Quan.
I cannot stress this enough, I dislike them both for very different reasons, but with a field so wide picking either of these clowns would be a major mistake. They are truly terrible, both… and I will go into detail if I must, but don’t vote for them because you “recognize the name”, they both are fatally flawed, and we have an excellent candidate in Rebecca Kaplan. I haven’t been this “all about” a candidate in a long, long time. She’s great. If you live in Oaktown and are not stoked about voting, I urge you to learn more about Kaplan and GET STOKED.
Governor: Jerry Brown
Let’s be clear, if you vote for Meg Whitman, I don’t want to know you. Sorry. I know I say a lot of mean things all the time, but it’s kind of true. I was hard on Jerry Brown when he was my mayor, really hard. I still disagree with some of the choices he made, but he’s been an alright Attorney General, and he’s the kind of guy that’s the good kind of career politician. He knows how to get stuff done. Also I get sick of Richie Rich types trying to buy California elections, that counts for Meg Whitman too. Jerry Brown is not a perfect dude, but Meg Whitman is a nightmare without a dream.
Jerry Brown all the way, no waffles.
Lt. Governor: Gavin Newsom
This is a soft endorsement.
Let me explain. I was very critical of Gavin Newsom when he chose to run for mayor, I think he did a fine enough job as mayor, but understand people in SF that are irked at him. He’s also a hell of a politician, and he’s shown, to a certain degree a willingness to learn and change. I actually think he could learn a lot from Jerry, so I endorse him softly… and mostly because of trepidation about his. For people, especially out of state people that think he’s some kind of progressive icon. Dude isn’t. Straight up. But here’s the thing: I don’t buy into the St. Maldonado thing at all. That guy skeeves me out. By the way, the Green Party candidate, James “Jimi” Castillo has his vocation as “Cultural Spiritual Advisor” that is damn hilarious. It doesn’t have anything to do with anything, but geez dude… typecast much? Whatever, i’ll vote for Newsom.
Secretary of State: Debra Bowen
Most people don’t pay attention to Secretary of State, I do. Debra Bowen might be the finest secretary of state in my lifetime. I talk mad trash about pubic servants just switching up jobs. Debra Bowen is the only one I look forward to moving to a position where she can really do some good. She’s smart, savvy and a great worker. You’d be a fool to pick anybody else. Easiest choice if you aren’t voting for Oakland mayor.
Controller: John Chiang
State controller protects the integrity of public funds. With a hell of a lot of public funds locked away, and with a constant budget crisis, this position went from… wha?? to VERY important. He was a voice reason on selling state buildings at fire sale prices (you sell HIGH, not low). When Schwarzenegger issued an edict to cut all state workers to minimum wage, he refused. That was the right move, it was a total ridiculous move when there was no budget. Strickland is not all bad, he sued the Davis administration to disclose details of the energy deals. Guess what? Public access to those records… aaaaand all that money went to Enron. He gets a thumbs up from me for that. But guess what? He supported a constitutional amendment to nullify national health care legislation. No excuse for that. Chiang wins.
Treasurer: Bill Lockyer
Oh Bill Lockyer, you’re still in public office eh?
If there’s a poster dude for the whole switching around offices thing, this guy is it. Straight up…termed out as State Senator, then Attorney General, then Treasurer. But! He’s showed some creativity keeping California safe from wall street and… well California. He’s a big advocate of California bonds, and weighed in with the cat herding in the legislature when there was no reason to. Oh Bill, I give you the Spock eyebrow every election, but this one you are getting re-election from me. I don’t have time to quibble about you, i’ve got an alphabet soup of state propositions to parse.
Attorney General: Kamala Harris
Kamala is against the death penalty and so am I.
Do you need more?
If the marijuana proposition passes Cooley might try to overturn it.
Maaaan, what staaaaate do yoooooou thiiiiink you liiiiiive iiiiiiiin?!?!?
F that guy. Kamala isn’t perfect, but I think she’ll be a great AG
Insurance Commissioner: Dave Jones
This is right about where normal folks eyeballs start to roll back in their head… Lord, Insurance Commisioner?? What does that even DOOO?!?
Well guess what? The Insurance commissioner regulates the premiums that consumers pay for all insurance for home and vehicles and indirectly for businesses. The next insurance commissioner will also play an important role in implementing the comprehensive healthcare reform law. At the same time, the commissioner will have to guard against insurers acting up and reducing their offerings as new regulations come into effect. Villines was an aide on environmental issues with Pete Wilson. Yes, that Pete Wilson. Dave Jones is big into consumer protection. We could use that.
US Senator: Barbara Boxer
Barbara Boxer is one of the best Senators this state has ever had. Of our two Senators she is the one I get excited about voting for. She voted against the Iraq war, against FISA, and has been for some incredibly meaningful legislation. People count her out on every election. They always count her out and she always surprises everybody. Carly Fiorina is a passionate advocate against health care reform and an outsourcer (HP). Barbara Boxer is great, she’s a better Senator then you probably give her credit for. Vote against her at your own peril. In the top 4 easiest choice on the ballot for me.
US Representative: Barbara Lee
c’mon man, if you have to ask?? Barbara Lee speaks for me.
Against the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war and whatever war these fools want to involve us in next. She was against Stupak, all of Bush’s foolishness and quietly does her job in a fantastic way. She’s an inspiration, I wish we were related. I feel happy to have her as my congressperson.
State Assembly, 16th district: Sandre Swanson
Other than endorsing Clinton in the 2008 Presidential election, i’ve never found anything to make me too bummed out about the guy. I kind of wish he “went for it” a little more. Jim Faison is into offshore drilling and is super xenophobic about immigrants. No contest.
Sandre, you will win. Now do something important.
For serious. Do something important.
State Measures:
Prop. 19-Legalize, Tax and Regulate Marijuana: YES!!!
Let’s be clear the level to which this affects me on a daily basis is nil. Schools and workplaces are still drug free, we get a revenue stream. This is a culture changer. The time has come, prohibition does NOT work. Local government can choose to tax this or not. If alcohol is legal and taxed, marijuana should be too. It’s about time.
Prop. 20-Congressional Redistricting: NO
But, but, but, our congressional districts are gerrymandered and… and… yes. This is true, and the incumbent protection racket gets a lot of people switching jobs constantly. I really dislike that. This sucks, right wing forces try to sneak one of these on to every ballot. Just because of that you should vote it down. It’s designed to reduce the amount of democrats and progressives in power. Now if I could PICK the democrats, we’d have a deal. A decent idea that has yet to be presented by a non-wealthy right wing activist.
Prop. 21-State Parks: YES
Vehicle registration fees are already kind of expensive, but if you can’t spare $18 to maintain clean beaches and awesome state parks, well… come on now… what kind of cheap skate are you?
Prop. 22-Local government funds: NO
Well intentioned, but no. The idea is to help local government out with immediate payments, but guess what gets to take the hit? Public education and other public services. Good idea, especially living in a city that is in a massive, massive budget shortfall, but yeah… not down with it.
First do no harm.
Prop. 23-Suspend Air Pollution law: NO! NO! NO!
Fueled by texas oil companies.
Do you need more?
ok, it basically repeals California’s global warming law and guts all of the progress we’ve made in gee and clean energy. F this proposition in the face!!!
Republicans leveraged the 2/3 rule in 2008 and 2009 to force the creation of a tax loophole that adds $2 Billion a year to the states’s deficit. Yes, I said… TWO BILLION A YEAR. I pay until it hurts like every other tax paying citizen. The fact that these corporations don’t have to makes me want to reach for the pitchfork and the torch. Vote yes on this one please.
Prop. 25-END 2/3 REQUIREMENT FOR BUDGET: YES! YES! YES! A thousand times yes
Let me put it this way, if you vote no on this, you have no right to EVER, EVER bitch or complain about the state budget or deficits again. The fact is the need for a 2/3 majority was a “from hate’s heart I stab at thee” stratagem that has effectively crippled the state legislature. This. Must. End. A 2/3 majority is almost impossible the way this state is setup… I get a little embarrassed every year a budget is not passed. You should be too. This fixes that.
—
WOW, THERE ARE STILL MORE MEASURES AND PROPOSITIONS… I SURE AM GLAD WE HAVE A STATE LEGISLATURE THAT MAKES ALL THESE LAWS AND STUFF SO I DON’T HAVE TO LEARN ABOUT ALL THE BANAL MINUTIA OF EVERY ISSUE… OH WAIT…
—
Prop. 26-Polluter Protection: NO!
Oh good! Another proposition put on the ballot by right wing corporations. Man, isn’t direct democracy great? Anyway, this is all about undermining global warming law and making it impossible for corporations to actually pay for their cleanup costs.
Let me put it this way: Do you feel like BP was victimized and treated unfairly for ruining the gulf of mexico? Then vote yes! Otherwise this proposition can go straight to hell. NO!
Prop. 27-Redistricting commission: YES
dissolves the redistricting commission put together by prop 11. Like I said earlier, it’s a decent enough idea, just championed by fools, villains and jackasses. Dissolve these useless commissions! Tear it down and start over. If the conservatives of this state were to somehow gerrymander themselves into a majority you would never hear the end of the unconstitutionality of redistricting. Screw those guys. I don’t even know who these 14 people are, why should they have the say in redistricting? Prop. 11 was stupid and was enacted by people voting for something stupid. To hell with it!
Alameda County:
Measure F-YES
We need money, this raises utility taxes 1.0 percent, which includes cable.
Whatever, your damn cable television isn’t going to do you much good when somebody steals your damn wide screen TV.
Vote yes.
School:
Measure L- YES (soft)
Raise taxes to pay teachers more.
Look man, I worked in education for a couple years. It’s a rough damn job. Your kids are a nightmare for these teachers, and for my friends that are teachers, you are saints. There’s going to come a day when these kinds of measures can’t be the answer, in the mean time… i’d like the teachers to get a lil’ something. ok? It’s also easy for me to say because I do not own property. OUSD was so bad that the district got taken away… believe me those fundamental differences are still there and many people that ought to know better ignore best practices developed by charter schools (like my old employer). I understand if you would want to vote no, but I say yes.
City of Oakland Measures
Measure V- YES
Tax Marijuana to fund city coffers
Are you Effing kidding me? YES!
Dude, it’s a growth industry (heh.) and the city needs the money.
Where’s the argument?
Once it is legalized Oakland is going to become even more of a “mecca” for marijuana than it is now… let’s get some of that green! (so to speak.)
—
JESUS H. CHRIST WITH THESE MEASURES… OK A FEW MORE TO GO…
—
Measure W- YES
$2 telephone tax to city coffers.
Hardline phones.
I haven’t had a hard line phone in 6 years. City needs money, wha’chu gonna do?
I’mma vote yes not his one.
Measure X- NO
Supposedly to stop more layoffs of cops. Whatever. Only 75% has to be used for police and fire, there’s no guarantee that is where it will go. To hell with this. Have the stones to legislate city council. I’m supporting a lot of tax hikes for people that aren’t me, this isn’t one of them. $360 per single family residential unit is a lot.
Measure BB-YES
This is a big one, Measure Y was a thing that passed a few years back to establish after school programs for at risk youth… it works, it has good results. But guess what? There was a requirement for minimum police staffing levels. WOW, WHAT A GREAT IDEA IT WAS TO LAY OFF THOSE COPS! NOT ONLY DO WE GET A JUMP IN CRIME, WE LOSE A BUNCH OF MONEY. Idiots! Kaplan voted no, Quan and her ilk voted yes on that… to hell with them.
Anyway, I could see a no vote on this, but here’s the thing, we don’t need to be incarcerating these kids, we should really stop them from having to restore to this in the first place… most importantly it abolishes the minimum staffing requirements so the city can collect it’s damn money. Worthwhile.
Man, is that it?
Yes! yes, it is.
I don’t have any information on judicial appointments, sorry… I keep meaning to look that up every year… but there isn’t much to look up. Bummer, I know… but I’d rather get this out when it was useful than not. Call me a pragmatist like that I guess. Anyway, feel free to disagree… but I trust you, I’ve spent WAY TOO LONG researching all this stuff, so i’m not just shooting from the hip here.
I hope this is of help to all of you.
And if you like this or find it useful, PLEASE share amongst your friends.
It’s great to be back here blogging with you at Calitics!
First off, I’d just like to thank you for all of your support in the past. I really appreciate everything you’ve done — and continue to do.
It’s no secret: I’m in the middle of a tough re-election campaign against my right-wing opponent, Carly Fiorina.
Carly Fiorina is relying on her multimillion dollar personal checkbook to fund her Senate campaign against me. She’s already poured in millions of dollars, and she’s ready to spend millions more. And if that isn’t enough, George W. Bush’s top operative Karl Rove just launched $1 million of attack ads against me in Los Angeles.
But I have a secret weapon, something even more powerful than all of that: You, and the grassroots support of tens of thousands of supporters across California and across the country.
So, on September 1, our campaign is launching a new online effort — “100,000 Strong for Boxer” — our first ever “money bomb,” to demonstrate our campaign’s strong grassroots strength all on just one day.
Beginning today, we’re collecting pledges from friends like you to make September 1 a big success — and I’m asking you to stand up and be counted.
We’ve set a huge goal of 10,000 individual donations for our September 1 effort — which will also help us break through an amazing mark of 100,000 total grassroots donors to our campaign to-date.
It’s our most ambitious online fundraising push yet — and we can’t do it without you. Our opponents will be watching closely to see if we make it.
You can help us show that 100,000 grassroots Boxer donors are strong enough to combat Fiorina’s big checkbook, all in one day.
Fiorina and her allies, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee and Karl Rove, have already reserved nearly $9 million in TV time on California’s airwaves — and I’m sure that’s only a down payment.
The voters in California are going to have a clear choice in this election. I’m proud of my record on jobs, health care, the environment, choice, good public schools, and so many other issues we care about.
But I need your help to get our message out, in the wake of the millions upon millions that our opponents will put on TV:
Candidate Lutz hosts hunger strike kickoff rally at El Cajon Promenade
Time: 5:30pm, August 13, 2010
Location: El Cajon Park Promenade, near the Lutz for Congress Campaign office at 165 E. Main, Suite B, El Cajon CA.
Media is invited.
San Diego County, Calif. (August 13, 2010) – “This is ground zero in our hunger war,” said Raymond Lutz, congressional candidate for California’s 52nd district, as he held up the new banner that would hang from his El Cajon “Isolation Booth.” The banner, which reads “Hungry for accountability in Congress: It starts with Debate,” also jabs his opponent, Rep. Duncan D. Hunter with the comment, “We’re ‘Hunting’ for an opponent.”
Lutz kicks off his hunger strike with a bang, as the El Cajon Park Promenade, which has been completely re-built, hosts its first concert performance for 2010, tonight at 5:30p.m.
“This strike is about all the issues that aren’t being debated because of Hunter’s ego,” Lutz said. “For instance, what is Hunter’s plan to help the 430,000 hungry people in San Diego at or near the poverty line? After 19 months in Congress, I’m still waiting to hear word one about them.”
Lutz will be at his self-described “food isolation booth,” equipped with a cot for him to lounge on, with petitions available for supporters to both pledge to go without food for a day and donate the cost of a day’s food to Lutz’s campaign.
In an earlier statement, Lutz had pledged, “Until Hunter steps up to the plate to debate, I’ll be stepping away from the dinner plate.” The candidate, known for standing up against Blackwater in small communities throughout San Diego county, has pledged to sit in his public isolation booth many days throughout the hunger strike.
“Our democracy is broken, we keep electing unqualified incumbents because the voters never see the candidates in honest debates around the district, in their own neighborhoods, and don’t have an opportunity to compare them head-to-head,” Lutz continued. “The only thing they have to go on, is party affiliation, 30-second negative ads, soundbites, and how big the signs are. Honestly, I’m not surprised Congress gives us poor results. This situation needs to be turned around, and with your help we can do it.”
Wally Herger, CA-02, just prevailed in his primary against a teabagger, but will he survive this fall against Democratic candidate Jim Reed, who is far more in touch with the beliefs of his California constituents when it comes to drilling and environmental issues?
You might think a Republican would reconsider the safety of deep water drilling after the endless eruption of the oil volcano in the Gulf.
You would be wrong. Herger still maintains that with our superior 21st Century technology we can drill-baby-drill with no harm to the environment.
Those of us in the reality-based community, including Jim Reed, see it differently.
I’ve long supported efforts to allow for the exploration of oil and natural gas in a small section of the frozen “ANWR” tundra in Alaska. ANWR spans nearly 20 million acres, but energy exploration would only occur on 2,000 acres, or .01 percent of the land area. And importantly, 21st Century technology would also allow us to recover energy resources without harming the environment.
Wondering If Herger might have updated his files on that amazing 21st Century technology keeping us safe story, I spoke with Herger’s Chico office where his representative got back to me and confirmed that yes, Herger IS still in favor of deep water drilling.
At least he’s consistent. Why bother to re-think a position in the face of compelling new evidence when it’s so much easier to just rubber-stamp your party line, even when failing to think for yourself can cause irreparable harm to your own constituents?
While Herger gives pleasant lip-service to alternative and clean energies on his website, his voting record shows where his heart truly is– with the oil companies. Votes on energy:
Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation.(May 2008)
Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)
Voted NO on investing in homegrown bio-fuel. (Aug 2007)
Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refineries. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
I am against any expansion of off shore drilling and the gulf accident just proves there will be human error with disaster to follow.
Cheers to Jim Reed be his willingness to dive into a notoriously thorny political site like the Daily Kos and to stick around to answer all questions for the next two hours. Check out Reed’s diary for an impressive example of an intelligent, decent, open-minded approach to differences of opinion.
Why “Where’s Wally”?
In this 30 minute interview with Jim Swanson of Progressive News Radio Jim Reed makes a convincing case for how Wally Herger has become an increasingly lazy and ineffective legislator. In 24 years in office Herger has only sponsored one piece of legislation where teamed up with Diana Feinstein. He’s voted with the Republican party 94% of the time, and some of those times appeared to be errors on his part.
As Jim Swanson of Progressive News Radio comments,
A Republican with a horrible voting record, even for topics that matter for his constituency. He does hold the honor of being in the top ten percentile of the worst Congressional Representatives in the United States government. As he no doubt sits at his desk in Washington, D.C., doodling on paper, reading the latest edition of “Field and Stream” and waiting for House Minority leader John Boehner to phone Wally’s office and tell him how to vote, the time has plainly come to send Wally home to retirement.
As a personal anecdote, I and many other of Herger’s constituents have written lengthy letters in support of HCR and energy independence, only to get “Thank you for support!” form letters in reply. Apparently even his staff doesn’t bother to read his mail.
As we know, ousting Herger will take some money. As Gail Collins wrote in The New York Times::
We have been entertaining ourselves with theories about how this election year is going to be all about voter anger. Or Washington insiders. Or health care. Or TARP. But, really, it’s going to be about money. Gobs of cash falling on campaigns like tar balls on a beach.
(More great information – promoted by Brian Leubitz)
While the range of competitive House districts has narrowed considerably, I am still including all 8 Obama-Republican districts to watch their trends. I also added state legislative seats that are open this year in which the incumbent is not term-limited.
Competitive and/or open state legislature districts are over the flip…
Our current numbers in the Senate are 25 Democrats/14 Republicans/1 Vacant, with winning 2 GOP-held seats necessary for 2/3; and in the Assembly 49 Democrats/29 Republicans/1 Independent (who is term-limited)/1 Vacant (Dem seat which will be filled before Election Day), with winning 3 GOP-held seats necessary for 2/3. Incumbents running for reelection are italicized.
With the filing deadline passed, we are beginning to see how the fields are shaping up for the 2010 elections in California. While the range of competitive House districts has narrowed considerably, I am still including all 8 Obama-Republican districts to watch their trends.
Competitive and/or open state legislature districts are over the flip…
Our current numbers in the Senate are 25 Democrats/15 Republicans, with winning 2 GOP-held seats necessary for 2/3; and in the Assembly 49 Democrats/29 Republicans/1 Independent (who is term-limited)/1 Vacant (Dem seat which will be filled before Election Day), with winning 3 GOP-held seats necessary for 2/3.
This morning we launched WikiMeg, the first open source, political research site of its kind – open to all, by all and for all. At Level The Playing Field 2010, we are embarking on a bold new experiment in democracy. (Check out this morning’s front pager in the Chronicle here)
We hope the WikiMeg space will serve as a digital laboratory for free speech. It’s based on the idea that by harnessing the collective brainpower of millions of Californians, we can help level the playing field against Meg Whitman’s $200 million television campaign.
We are asking everyone and anyone with factual information to share – from laid off eBay workers and those frustrated with Whitman’s eBay policies towards sellers to shareholders to regular voters – to help us fully vet Meg Whitman’s job application.
And as the campaign goes forward, we’re asking you to help us track what she says, where she says it and make sure it is correct. And if not, we’ll – well, you actually – will call her on it.
Help shed light on the choices Whitman made and the values she demonstrated over a lifetime in the corporate boardroom. Together we can get to the bottom of what Whitman is hiding by refusing to release her income tax returns as nearly every other gubernatorial candidate has done for the last 30 years.
Of course, free speech and civil discourse go hand in hand. We are asking all those participating in WikiMeg to help set an example for how virtual tools can promote genuine democracy. Please be respectful to others. Be factual and always hyperlink to your source. If you are the source of first-hand information, say who you are and how you know what you know.
Here’s how it works:
All pages on the site are open for public editing and the community of users will also review them. If you have information that you would like to share about Meg Whitman, please feel free to edit the pages where the information is categorized or to post new information.
Each page has its own discussion tab where comments and thoughts can be left in a threaded discussion style forum. Live chat is also available for real time conversations.
The initial categories are eBay Stories, Meg History, Meg Sightings, Meg’s Campaign and Videos.
Thanks for participating in the democratic process. Have fun and good hunting…WikiMeg
