Thank God we have Jeff Denham in the State Senate. Without him California might have already succumbed to the Communist menace that seeks to overthrow our great American way of life by subverting our children and our schools in the service of…

Oh? What’s that you say? The Berlin Wall fell 20 years ago and the Cold War has been over for just as long? Huh. That’s odd. Because even though the State Senate passed Alan Lowenthal’s bill to remove membership in the Communist Party as a firing offense for public employees, Denham has denounced the bill as giving succor to our numerous Communist enemies around the world:

Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Atwater, warned “the Communist Party is not a dead organization … and (is) actively repressing human beings in Cuba and China in brutal ways.

“The state has every right to hold school employees accountable for their political standing, especially if that employee belongs to an organization that favors the violent overthrow of the government,” Denham said during the debate on the bill.

Denham said that it’s also “reasonable that use of public school property should be limited to groups who support our democracy and do not advocate the overthrow of government by force, violence or other possible means.”

I wonder if Denham got the memo that the Cold War is over – or are Republicans really so desperate that they have to turn to red baiting to try and improve their political fortunes?

Or perhaps the Yacht Party believes that only their efforts to overthrow government, by starving it of the revenues necessary to provide the basic services that keep a modern society functioning, is legitimate?

At least the recall is still on the ballot in the 12th district, and voters can decide for themselves whether they want to be represented by someone whose politics are 50 years out of date, or by someone  who actually understands the present-day needs of his constituents instead of spending his time chasing after the Red Menace.

Here in the dog days of April, as the state awaits the governor’s May Revise, frustration seems to be setting in over the budget. The real political battles will begin in earnest after the May Revise, but the jockeying for position has been going on for some time, including in the state’s media. Unsurprisingly, the media wants to spin the budget crisis as a failure of all Sacramento politicians, when in fact the current impasse is the responsibility of one group alone: the Republicans.

As an article in today’s Sac Bee would have us believe, there is “scant support for budget changes.” But a deeper look shows that while Democrats have already proposed budget fixes, such as closing the yacht loophole and creating an oil severance tax (as exists in nearly every other state), it is the Republicans alone that have blocked meaningful budget action.

And why have they done so? Republicans want us to believe that any revenue solution is economically damaging:

However, Sen. Dave Cogdill of Modesto, the GOP’s incoming leader, said the state should not take away credits at a time when the economy is struggling.

Other ideas that have yet to gain traction would raise income taxes on high-wage earners or amend Proposition 13 to assess businesses in the same way as residential property. The latter, known as “split-roll” property tax, would require that commercial and industrial properties be reassessed more regularly, bringing the state an estimated $3 billion annually.

Cogdill dismissed all as non-starters.

“We should help the general fund by stimulating the economy and be a more beneficial partner with industry, rather than stifling them,” Cogdill said.

But whose economy is stimulated by revenue cuts? Who actually sees this so-called economic growth? And who suffers from the spending cuts that are forced by the revenue cuts? A closer look at the overall situation shows that the Republicans’ claims are nonsense. Tax cuts provide economic growth for a wealthy few, but cause economic distress for pretty much everyone else – especially when those tax cuts come at the expense of education. More below.

Earlier this week I discussed Steve Lopez’ extraordinary column in the LA Times about how his daughter’s school has asked parents to fundraise to keep teachers on salary. The column sparked a dramatic reader response, which Lopez discusses in today’s column:

Tokofsky said he warned district leaders there should have been a parcel tax on the ballot this year to cover massive slashing by Sacramento — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed a $4.8-billion fleecing of the state’s children — but no one had “the guts” to tell the public the truth.

And what is that truth?

The truth is that political leaders love lying to us about what a civil society costs. They’re even willing to trade our children’s futures for their political futures, and California is now plummeting toward the bottom tiers in funding per pupil in the United States.

Though it might be hard for Sacramento’s pols to understand, sometimes you’ve got to find the courage to tell yacht owners you’re closing their tax loopholes, tell drivers there’s a stiff price to pay for a break on the car tax, or do what Reagan and Wilson did, and raise taxes temporarily to avoid draconian cuts.

Darrin James, a teacher in Santa Ana, said teachers could be laid off by the hundreds in his district.

How exactly is laying off 20,000 teachers – for starters – going to produce economic growth? As we enter a recession, that’s 20,000 fewer people paying a mortgage, eating out at a restaurant, shopping at a mall.

More importantly, the long-term economic damage of these education cuts is incalculable. California businesses need educated workers if they are to survive. If they can’t find those workers here they’ll relocate to a state where education funding is taken seriously, or they’ll leave the country.

If middle-class parents have to dip into their own pockets to pay for teachers, that’s less money they have available to spend and keep the economy afloat. If lower-income parents must do the same, and find their health care benefits cut out of existence, then the economy will suffer as well.

The only people who benefit from these tax and spending cuts are those who are already so wealthy that they are insulated from its effects – those who can afford to send their kids to private school, or who can afford to live in a school district with a high property tax base like Carmel, or Beverly Hills, or Woodside.

It is THOSE folks whose economic growth is being protected by the Republicans. Education and health care cuts make California less competitive and leave fewer dollars in most Californians’ pockets, but they enrich those already wealthy.

This isn’t a speculative argument. All we need to do is look around us. Since California’s tax cut mania began in 1978 we have witnessed a generation of inequality, characterized by a growing divide between low-income and high-income earners and the evaporation of the middle-income strata. Here in the 2000s California has slashed taxes even further, and yet the state’s working families are further behind than ever before. 30 years of tax cuts have produced economic growth for those at the top, and produced slow but steady immiseration for everybody else.

As the legacy of California’s 20th century liberalism fades, this will become even worse. The only thing that has allowed any semblance of economic growth in the state for the last 30 years has been Pat Brown’s legacy of massive investment in public education and public infrastructure. The companies that employed Californians over the last 30 years benefited not from 1980s and 1990s tax cuts but 1960s spending on colleges, which produced the entrepreneurs and workers that kept those companies at the forefront of the American economy. They relied on 1960s-era infrastructure, from freeways to aqueducts to BART, to operate. Without renewed investment in schools and infrastructure, and now health care as well, California’s economy will sputter. And we have new issues, such as a climate and energy crisis, to contend with.

Steve Lopez was absolutely right to say that “political leaders love lying to us about what a civil society costs. They’re even willing to trade our children’s futures for their political futures.” But he should have been specific. It is Republicans who are lying to us about these things. It is Republicans who are asking us to trade our children’s future for their immediate political future.

What Republicans are ultimately asking us to do is trade our economic future for aristocracy. To open our wallets so that the wealthy don’t have to open theirs.

The only way that this situation will change is if the public steps up and forces the Republicans to climb down. That activism is already starting to emerge. But it is going to need our support and assistance. The stakes are enormous, but with public mobilization, we can win this fight and provide a viable economic future for this state. And without that mobilization, we will lose that fight, and become a state defined by aristocracy.

Conservative leader and former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich writes about the California court ruling that children – even home-schooled children – must be educated by credentialed teachers, saying it is an example of “Judicial Supremacy.”  In his article he quotes a Wall Street Journal editorial calling the ruling a “strange new chapter” in the “annals of judicial imperialism.”  Later in the piece he writes,

The decision represents yet another case of a special interest — in this case, the education unions and bureaucracy — using the courts to get what they can’t get through the popular vote.

This is yet another example of judicial supremacy: Rule by an out-of-control judiciary rather than the will of the people. It joins court rulings such as the removal of “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance on a long list of usurpations of the freedom and self-determination of the American people.

Lets take a moment to examine what Gingrich is really complaining about here.

Here’s how the American system of law and justice is supposed to work:  We have a Constitution and we have laws that we are all supposed to follow by mutual agreement.  And we have in place a judicial system for interpreting our Constitution and laws, again by mutual agreement.  So when there is a dispute we take that dispute to the courts, and the judges rule according to the Constitution and laws.  And then we agree to follow their rulings.

Newt Gingrich and the conservatives complain that this is “Judicial Supremacy” and “judicial imperialism.”  Wow, this sounds pretty bad!   But look at the meaning of these negative-sounding words.  Isn’t “Judicial Supremacy” really just another way of saying that we agree to follow “rule of law?”   When Gingrich uses language that casts a negative frame on the concept, isn’t he undermining public respect for the rule of law?   Gingrich and other conservatives are happy enough with our American system when it works in their favor but when it rules against their agenda they launch another anti-government screed.

This post is not written in opposition to home or private schooling, but to point out the importance to all of us that we all operate under the same set of agreed-upon rules.   At least in California, another agreed-upon rule is that our children should receive the best possible education.  Article 9 of our California Constitution states that a good education is “essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people.”  The wording at the beginning of Article 9 is as follows:

A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement.

To this end Article 9 describes how California will manage a system of free, public schools.  And Article 9 makes it clear that to this end our children deserve qualified, “credentialed” teachers.

Once again, We, the People of California have decided that a good education is “essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people.”  This is what we want.  Just what is it that Gingrich and other conservatives want instead if it doesn’t involve qualified teachers providing education to our state’s children?

Click to continue.

A recession? A depression?  The disparaging financial news released this week makes us all pause and question what our financial future really, truly looks like.

Living here in California, we know we are in serious trouble.  I believe that we do not fully understand the full extent of what kind of impact our $14 billion dollar budget deficit will have on us as residents in California.  The next few months our legislature will be discussing our budget and wrestling with some tough decisions.  I am concerned that budget cuts will directly impact programs that are traditionally considered “women’s issues” or those that affect women and families the most.  Especially the one continually named as a high priority by women — our California educational system.

It was announced by the California Teachers Association last Friday that 1600 pink slips for potential layoffs were sent to Los Angeles area teachers because our Governor has proposed cutting $4.8 billion from the state’s education budget.  Additionally, we are told a total of 10,100 notices may hit the statewide before this budget is passed.  Is it really a prudent policy to layoff teachers, the majority of whom are women, instead of figuring out different ways to address our $14 billion dollar budget deficit?  Does education always have to be the first item cut when addressing a budget deficit?  This is a huge concern for California women and an area our women elected legislators continue to champion.

Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, Chair of the Assembly Subcommittee on Education Finance, is one such advocate.  This week Assemblywoman Brownley stated in a Democratic weekly radio address that protecting our state’s schools from drastic budget cuts should be a top priority during ongoing budget negotiations. Assemblywoman Brownley announced the proposal of a bill that would generated an estimated $1.2 billion to be used to prevent teacher layoffs by the Governor’s proposed budget cuts.  Assemblywoman Brownley is a long time supporter of the educational system.  She is serving her third term on the Santa Monica-Malibu School Board and is Board President for the third time. Through her efforts on the school board, Julia  along with the SMMUSD, CEPS, local PTA’s and other education advocates secured $16,000,000 in additional funding annually for Santa Monica and Malibu schools.  But women like Julia cannot do it alone.

Bella Abzug said “A women’s place is in the House…and in the Senate.”  To get them there, a woman has to be on the ballot. This year more than ever that is true because women are a declining resource in Sacramento. The current presidential race has shown us that women are a significant force as registered voters and research indicates that elected women consistently champion the causes women feel are a high priority in their voting demographics for legislators.  It’s time for women voters step up to reverse this downward trend by electing those women who have walked in your shoes and understand the importance of protecting women’s issues – the high cost of health care, improving the public educational system, protecting the environment and standing firm for reproductive choice.  Here at the CALIFORNIA LIST we have created a sustainable network to increase the pipeline of Democratic women candidates and elected officials in statewide offices.

This election cycle we have identified 26 women running for State seats in the Senate and Assembly worthy of your consideration.  Women like Assembly candidate Joan Buchanan (D-District 15) who knows first-hand the kind of help schools needed. Her nearly 20-year service on the San Ramon Valley School Board includes 4 terms as President.  Currently over 94% of the district’s graduating seniors attend college or university. And, despite being severely underfunded, SRVUSD has received state and national recognition for student achievement. SRVUSD now ranks among the top 5% of all school districts in California.  Joan’s expertise in budgeting and organizational development has served the community well. She led successful negotiations with both teachers and developers and she created the District’s trust fund that protects retirement benefits.

There are so many issues, like education, that need to be thoughtfully addressed and women legislators consistently step up to the plate as leaders in these issues. But the sad fact is that women currently only make up less than 28% of the California State legislature.  I urge you to visit our website and read about each of the spotlighted women candidates.  Electing women matters – join us as we work to help build the pipeline to the future!

Bettina Duval is the founder of the California List, a political fundraising network that helps elect Democratic women to all branches of California state government.

Dave Johnson, Speak Out California

In Dubai, people get free housing, free medical care, AND $5,000 per month.  The people of Dubai share in the country’s oil wealth.

In Alaska, people not only do not pay state taxes, the state government writes every state resident a check every year.  The people of the state of Alaska share in the state’s oil wealth.

Approx. 12 percent of America’s oil production comes from California.  As I write this oil sells for $108.14 per barrel.  In 2005 the oil companies were pumping oil out of our state at a rate of approx 230 million barrels each year.  Oil company revenues and profits are the highest ever from any companies in the history of the world, ever.  Did I mention “highest” and “ever”?

But the people of our state, in our wisdom, have decided that instead of asking the oil companies to give back a bit, we will instead give them our oil.  Give them.  And then we buy it back to put in our cars, etc.  Yes, we, the people of the state of California have made the choice to give away our oil to greatly enrich a select few. (And this post is not even a discussion of the dozens of other ways that we have made the choice to allow the few wealthiest among us to avoid giving back by paying taxes.)

Today in California we are facing a budget shortfall.  And instead of asking oil companies and others to give back a bit we are on the verge of deciding instead to cut our school budget.  Again.  This time by 10%.  We are on the verge of deciding to cut health care.  Again.  And courts, police, and every other state service by 10%, again, rather than ask oil companies and others to give back from what they take from the state.

The way we solve this budget shortfall is a choice we make.  Our choice.  Our choices reflect our values and priorities.  And we all make these choices whether we think we do or not.  If you don’t vote, you are choosing.  If you vote for someone because you would like to have a beer with him or her, you are choosing.  If you choose to vote for candidates who tell you there is “waste, fraud and abuse” and then after they have been in office for decades, continue to claim there is “waste, fraud and abuse,” you are choosing. If you choose to let your government borrow and borrow, you are choosing.  You will have to pay that back with interest later, of course, but you are choosing.  

And if you choose to let your state give our oil away to wealthy corporations so they can sell it to you and get even wealthier you are choosing to make up that potential tax revenue yourself, through cuts in your children’s education and health care and law enforcement, or maybe through increased taxes in the future, but one way or another you are choosing.  

What are our priorities?  Further tax relief to the wealthiest corporations, or educate our children? Here you are on the verge of choosing to cut your schools by another 10%.  Is that the choice you want to make?

There is something else you can choose to do today.  You can choose to write to your legislators and let them know what your choice really is.  You can choose to talk to your family and friends and explain these choices and ask them to write to their legislators as well.

Click here to find out how to contact your California legislators.  If you so choose.

And give a click to Speak Out California.

Today’s LA Times picks up where I left off on Sunday, showing how the proposed budget cuts are sending school districts scrambling to get layoff notices out by the March 15 deadline. Although these notices may not always lead to an actual firing, they do have a destructive effect on teacher morale. Already several of my family and friends who teach K-12 in Orange County have begun dusting off their resumes in anticipation of losing their jobs.

In my post  on Sunday I argued that the cuts, if allowed to happen, would have a reckless and destructive impact on California’s economy. The LA Times article points out that there is another potential catastrophe that these cuts might cause. If teachers are fired and class sizes increase, it is going to be more difficult than ever to meet the unreasonable mandates of the odious No Child Left Behind law.

Rialto Unified has made some recent academic gains, and its superintendent worries that deep cuts could stall progress. The district scored a 661 on California’s latest Academic Performance Index, below the state’s target of 800; the API measures schools and districts on student scores in math, English and other subjects.

While the state API is a different metric than NCLB, if a district is having trouble meeting the API target, it is likely to have trouble meeting the much more onerous NCLB targets. As most educators – and anyone who has been a student – knows, the larger the classes, the more difficult it becomes to learn and achieve.

Among the penalties for missing NCLB targets include “replacing staff” or a takeover by “a private education firm.” Either outcome involves less schools, less local control, less parental involvement, and an even deeper economic hit to thousands of working Californians.

Arnold’s proposed budget cuts could therefore touch off a cascade of events that delivers a crippling blow to our public education system. The always excellent California Budget Project has put together a detailed list of the impact of those cuts, including a district-by-district list of cuts. Most district will lose at minimum $500 per student, with some rural districts going well above $1,000 per student. Those are staggering numbers.

This was supposed to be the year of education. Perhaps it still can be – it can either be the year we saved education, or the year we destroyed it. Sometimes our choices really are that stark.

One of the most popular stories at SFGate today is about the Quaker who was fired from her job at CSU Hayward East Bay for changing the text of the required loyalty oath that all California public employees must sign as a condition of employment:

“I don’t think it was fair at all,” said Kearney-Brown. “All they care about is my name on an unaltered loyalty oath. They don’t care if I meant it, and it didn’t seem connected to the spirit of the oath. Nothing else mattered. My teaching didn’t matter. Nothing.”

A veteran public school math teacher who specializes in helping struggling students, Kearney-Brown, 50, had signed the oath before – but had modified it each time….

Each time, when asked to “swear (or affirm)” that she would “support and defend” the U.S. and state Constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Kearney-Brown inserted revisions: She wrote “nonviolently” in front of the word “support,” crossed out “swear,” and circled “affirm.” All were to conform with her Quaker beliefs, she said.

The school districts always accepted her modifications, Kearney-Brown said.

But Cal State East Bay wouldn’t, and she was fired on Thursday.

Unless we believe that Quakers are somehow America’s biggest threat, this should be seen as a totally ridiculous and anachronistic injustice. The loyalty oath – sometimes called the “Levering Oath” after the Republican legislator who rammed it through the state legislature in 1949-50 – was a particularly pernicious and pointless instance of McCarthyite hysteria. Republican Governor Earl Warren had initially opposed the oath, but when UC President Robert Sproul imposed the oath and fired 31 tenured professors who refused to sign it on grounds of academic freedom, Warren decided to support the oath to secure his 1950 reelection bid.

In short, the oath was created to further the political ambitions of Levering, Warren and Sproul. It did nothing to help California or the nation fight the Cold War, created deep and lasting divisions at UC, and is today seen as a rather silly piece of paper that folks sign as part of the usual fat packet of paper public workers have to sign upon accepting employment.

It’s been 59 years since the oath was created and 19 years since the Berlin Wall fell. Must we lose more qualified, dedicated, longtime teachers to this relic of the past? I know California legislators have better things to do, but if any of you politicians who are reading this site – and I know you’re out there – want to write a law to repeal this waste of paper, it would be welcome.