If there’s one thing that’s been particularly consistent to campaigns of the far right in San Diego this fall, it’s the unusually desperate attempts to hide the real agenda from voters. It’s one that should be cause for optimism as long as voters pay attention, and betrays an almost impressive self-awareness from the top of the GOP that the party’s agenda has drifted well outside the mainstream.

From the special exemptions of Prop 32 to Brian Bilbray’s teetering re-election bid to Carl DeMaio’s bizarre mayoral campaign, extreme conservatives are doing everything they can to hide their record and who they are.

For the backers of Proposition 32, the deception was part of the design from the very beginning. They surveyed the political landscape and found that, unsurprisingly, nobody wants millionaires and corporations to be able to buy off our political process. Rather than abandon a wildly unpopular idea, they came up with a different plan: fake it.  

Cross-posted from San Diego Free Press

That’s Prop 32, from the same white knights of campaign finance reform who broke the system to begin with by using the Citizens United case to overthrow existing regulations on special interest money. This year, they simply took it a step further, called the plan reform and packed in enough special exemptions to create a system that only works for corporations and millionaires.

It makes sense because everyone wants campaign finance reform. But the reason they want campaign finance reform is specifically because of what Prop 32’s backers have done and continue to do.

The hundreds of millions of unregulated, unlimited political cash flowing into SuperPACs exists specifically because of Prop 32’s backers, and now its being funded by the Koch Brothers and other super-rich conservatives that saw Citizens United as the starting pistol to buy off democracy. Prop 32’s hoping to trick voters. Will they see through it?

At the same time, there’s Brian Bilbray. He has cobbled together a decades-long career of faking moderation when election time comes around, but the reality just doesn’t match the myth he’s built for himself when push comes to shove. Bilbray wants to cast himself as an environmentalist, but mustered just a 17% score on the League of Conservation Voters 2011 scorecard. And it was Bilbray’s early work trying to gut the Clean Water Act that once inspired Donna Frye to become a clean water activist.

He’s done his best to avoid the ramifications of the national GOP’s war on women, right on through to Todd Akin’s ‘legitimate rape’ comments. But the reality of his record remains, including a pitiful 8% score from Planned Parenthood’s scorecard. Brian Bilbray may not want to be lumped in with the war on women, but if that’s what he’s hoping for, maybe he shouldn’t have signed up for it in the first place.

All of that could maybe be overlooked if Bilbray had taken up the mantle of the millions of Americans devastated when the economy fell apart near the end of the Bush administration. But while Bilbray will certainly have populist talking points on the stump, it’s worth remembering that he voted for the Paul Ryan plan to dismantle Medicare and destroy Social Security in response to increased economic security.

And Bilbray’s plan for economic recovery? One part rewarding tax-evading corporate interests, one part Let them eat a Yacht Race! Not exactly your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.

For Carl DeMaio, the attempt to whitewash nearly twenty years as a professional politician has been even more depraved than elsewhere. After coming up with the likes of Newt Gingrich, Virginia Thomas, the Jack Abramoff crew, and the Koch Brothers, it seems to have dawned on Carl that the city of San Diego, well… really doesn’t like that at all.

During his tenure on the council, DeMaio has received the lowest cumulative score on the annual Environmental Quality Report Card. And despite being appointed since joining the council, DeMaio hasn’t appeared in the minutes of a single meeting of the San Dieguito River Valley Regional Open Space Joint Powers Authority since January 2011.

Reality didn’t matter to DeMaio though when he took a week out to declare himself an environmentalist. He didn’t get very far with that, so he moved on to a plan to encourage biking by investing in more roads. Doesn’t make sense? It isn’t supposed to. It’s just supposed to distract from his career-long record on the wrong side of these issues.

Word on the street is, DeMaio spent some time recently trying for an endorsement from the Victory Fund, which led to an unexpected declaration from Carl that he was pro-choice. It has to be considered unexpected since it was certainly news to Planned Parenthood. Why? Because despite the clear reasons that choice matters at the local level, DeMaio has always refused to fill out Planned Parenthood’s questionnaire. And today, if you’re looking for pro-choice candidates in November, you sure aren’t going to find Carl DeMaio on the list.

There are still more examples. He runs as a fiscal conservative while voting against hundreds of millions in taxpayer savings and getting the BS treatment from Mayor Jerry Sanders. He tried out medical marijuana but that fell flat once anyone read past Carl’s own statement.

He took a quick stab at being for the middle class and affordable housing over the summer, trying to pass off support from a landlord group as support for tenants. The claims were called “preposterous,” and the former CEO of the San Diego Housing Commission said in no uncertain terms that “Carl DeMaio is not an advocate for more affordable housing.”

Heck, DeMaio has even tried reaching out to the Latino community while trumpeting an endorsement from Pete Wilson, the father of Proposition 187. And after casting the only vote on the council in support of Arizona’s SB1070, his Latino outreach has featured a plan to have local police enforce federal immigration law.

The most amazing part is the special brand of doublethink that DeMaio has going on in all this. He isn’t just making up an entirely new self for the general election, he’s doing it while criticizing others for the same thing. Like last week at the KPBS mayoral debate:

“The U-T CEO mentioned that he got support from labor, and yet labor has not supported it, that he got support from business groups, but very few groups that are out there have supported the plan,” DeMaio said. “And so I just think that the email probably was making some claims that are not grounded in reality.”

Now, it wouldn’t be shocking to discover the UT making claims that are not grounded in reality. But compare that to DeMaio’s recent record. He’s an affordable housing advocate unless you ask affordable housing advocates. He’s an environmentalist unless you ask environmentalists. He’s a medical marijuana advocate unless you ask medical marijuana advocates. He’s pro-choice unless you ask Planned Parenthood. He’s a friend to the Latino community except for wanting them to be harassed by the police. He’s a fiscal conservative except for imposing a billion dollar tax increase without a vote of the public.

But when Doug Manchester and John Lynch — the very same duo who helped DeMaio defeat essentially the same tax increase in 2005 — don’t poll well, then maybe reality has come loose.

Does it work? Maybe not with anyone who has the time and interest to dig into the substance. But those who never catch more than headlines because they have lives full of working to make ends meet, struggling with health care bills, working into retirement thanks to Wall Street, trying to figure out what to do after a foreclosure… they understandably won’t ever have that time.

And that’s the whole idea. Keep up the game of whack-a-mole long enough that voters never get a chance to examine the truth.

It’s said that great writers steal outright, so here’s a heartfelt tip of the cap to the inimitable Ann Richards before saying: Poor Carl.

He’s never once had a job that asked him to appeal to a majority, or even anyone resembling moderates. So now that he’s stuck in a general election, he’s like Columbus discovering America. He’s found the environment. He’s found the middle class and working people. He’s found women. He’s found the sick and suffering. He’s found Latinos.

Poor Carl. He can’t help it. San Diego just doesn’t want what he’s been selling his whole life.

I’m proud to work for San Diegans for Bob Filner for Mayor 2012

Note: this is a cross-post from The Realignment Project.

Introduction:

In part 1 of a New Deal for California, I discussed why any effort to rebuild the state must begin with a frontal assault on high unemployment as the only reliable means of achieving budget stability – as opposed to self-defeating quests for balance via austerity. In part 2, I studied how the quest for a more perfect democracy is inextricably linked to a renewal of democratic control over the state's own revenues.

Today, I want to discuss two areas of policy that are among the largest spending categories in the California state budget, but which also represent two faces of the state, and two approaches to developing its youth, and two sets of values – namely, education and prisons.

Arnold's recent proposal to put a floor under higher education at 10% of the state budget and a ceiling over prisons at 7% of the state budget is only the most recent example of a long trend of discussing the two in the same breath. As I discussed in the linked article, Schwarzenegger's approach is fundamentally flawed, a mirage of egalitarianism masking a reality of utter callousness. A moral society cannot pay for the future of its most talented youth through the deliberate immiseration of its least advantaged.

However, a New Deal for California will have to grapple with the reality that California will either educate or incarcerate its young, and that the power to choose lies with us.

Higher Education:

In my previous posts on higher education, I've tried to get across the idea that the purpose of public higher education is to expand and improve the functioning of democracy, that higher education is a social and public good, not a private commodity, and that the way a public university is run speaks volumes about the values of the society. If there is an overarching theme here, it's that the choices a state makes on higher education both reflect and shape the nature of its society. A state where the children of the poor and the children of the rich are equally limited only by the boundaries of ambition and ability will be a society is genuinely one of equal opportunity and healthy, meritocratic competition. At the same time, states should also think of higher education as a social investment in a high-road economy, distinguished by high levels of skill and education, high wages, and high living standards.

A New Deal for California is absolutely about making that investment and choosing that high-road, but one of the things you see in public discourse about higher education in California in progressive circles is a certain fuzziness – when it's razor-sharp conviction that wins the day in politics. There's the required genuflections in the direction of the 1960 Master Plan, and perhaps even a statement about how “college should be free!” or how cheap it was to attend the U.C when they were young, but nothing about how we proceed from where we are to were we want to go.

By contrast, I think a New Deal for California had to start with a genuine commitment to a new Master Plan for California that charts a path for gradually reducing tuition to $0 for the U.Cs, CSUs, and Community Colleges over the next 20 years. We should be clear about how much this will cost: it will take about $1.7 billion a year to make the U.C tuition-free, about $2 billion a year to make the CSUs tuition-free (about $5,000 a year in tuition times 417,000 students), and about $1.78 billion a year ($614 a year times 2.9 million students) to make the Community Colleges tuition. Altogether, we're talking about $5.8 billion per year, or an extra $290 million per year.

Assemblyman Torrico's AB 656, which would establish a 10% excise tax on oil extraction to provide about $2 billion a year to higher education (a system already in place in Texas, which funds the University of Texas through an oil excise tax). That gets us about a third of the way to our goal. The rest could be assembled from a variety of revenue sources – this is not beyond the means of one of the richest states in the Union,  and one of the richest economies in the world.

One idea that has been suggested in the United Kingdom by Ed Milliband (Labour M.P, Shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary) is to replace tuition costs with a “grad tax.” The idea would be that, instead of requiring students to pay tuition and go into debt up-front, which acts as a prohibitive burden for many working-class students and constraints the future career choices of graduates, that we instead ask graduates to pay a progressive surcharge of between “0.25% and 2% of their income over a 20-year period,” enabling graduates to contribute, according to their ability to pay, to higher education whether they work for a non-profit or a Fortune 500 company.

As I have said before, the ultimate goal that we should be thinking about is not 100% of the youth population attending university, but rather that 100% of the youth population being able to achieve whatever level of skill or training that their ability and ambition provides for. This means treating skills training- whether it comes in the form of a union apprenticeship, vocational or technical college, or a professional course in a community college – as just as important as any other form of education. It means paying more attention to helping students get employed as well as enrolled (such as is the case in the German and Japanese education systems). And it means making sure that students graduate high school able to take advantage of higher education/training.

A Word About K-12:

I'll only say a few words onK-12 education, since it's not an area of public policy that I've actually done much work on. As someone who's been a TA at the U.C for four years, I can certainly attest to the fact that California needs to do a better job at preparing students, both for college and employment, because it's quite surprising how many of the top 12.5% of high schoolers in California have real problems with constructing essays or interpreting reading.

Here's what I'll say – I believe that the “Educational Equality Project” reform community has over-emphasized college preparation, has tended to over-emphasize incentives over resources, and relies too much on an economistic model of corporate efficiency. I think primary and secondary schools should emphasize employment as well as college, and experiment with the German and Japanese model of partnering with employers to offer students additional paths for career development; in part, I think this comes from an approach to manifest class and racial inequalities that opts for individual, behavioral intervention (assuming that schools can “solve for” poverty without outside interventions on social conditions, and emphasizing college attendance without consideration for labor market conditions).

Moreover, I think reformers have under-sold the degree of resources that will be needed to correct inequalities in resources (which is why California needs to move to equalization of funding across school districts) as well as social and cultural capital. Things like increasing instruction time, providing tutoring to struggling students, and lowering class sizes are all well and good – I'd even add commitments to expand Head Start to 100% of those within 150% of poverty, and extend it, “Follow Through” style, to prevent “Head Start fade” in primary school –  but they will require a significant commitment of funds to work.

I think the rhetorical emphasis on incentives over resources comes from two sources: first, it comes from the unspoken recognition that a lot of the key policies adopted in heavily-promoted charter schools aren't costless, which raises questions about scaling. KIPP is lauded among EEP-style reformers, but a 60% longer school day/year, 24/7 teacher availability, and weekend work costs, and not just in dollar terms – 50%-plus turnover rates are common in KIPP schools. Second, it comes from what Matt Yglesias refers to as a “Green Lantern” theory about education – if teacher productivity and efficiency are what matters, then you don't have to deal with the fact that California schools are 43rd in the nation in per-pupil spending, because all you have to do is push teachers hard enough. At the end of the day though, resources are real and it is not impossible for California to commit to raising its commitment to the top 10 in the nation over a period of 10-20 years, similar to the commitment to tuition-free higher education as well.

Finally, as I've said before, I think the debate over accountability and results has become poisoned by the link between the models of accountability used by reformers and ideas about corporate efficiency, leading to a massive level of distrust among teachers and their unions. I've said it before, but it bears repeating – I'd be very interested to see how EEP reformers would react to an offer to have accountability and performance targets negotiated right into collective bargaining contracts, and put the unions in charge of and responsible for teacher quality.

Prisons:

All of this discussion of resources brings us to the piggy bank that both Schwarzenegger and I are hoping to use to improve the quality of education – California's overstuffed prison population, the second-largest in the nation. Right now, California imprisons 616/100,000 persons, and its prison population has been growing 500% over the last twenty years. This expansion has led to a growing budgetary burden, overcrowding, and a series of lawsuits over health and safety standards. No one particularly disputes that something needs to be done, but there are different ways to go about it.

Schwarzenegger's vision is to combine privatizationand outsourcing – essentially to shove our prisons off our books and avoid changing the way we deal with our offenders. This is morally unacceptable for any sane society. Private prisons are rightly notorious for corruption, abuse, and the further cutting of corners on medical care, living conditions, and safety standards. Shifting our prisons to Mexico is simply an attempt to do privatization without getting tripped up by lawsuits filed in American courts when the inevitable lawsuits alleging subhuman standards emerge. California should certainly commit to keeping prison spending below 7% of the state budget, but this is not a just way to do it.

However, there are ways to solve our prison problems. California's shift to drug courts and rehabilitation has paid dividends in the form of 10,000 fewer prisoners on drugs charges than in the 1990s, but there are still 30,000 prisoners on non-violent drugs charges who could be better dealt with outside the prison system. The bigger target is California's broken parole system – about 70% of parolees are re-incarcerated (the vast majority of cases being not new criminal violations but rather some technical violation of the terms of parole), at a rate that has increased six-fold in the last 20 years. As a result, about two-thirds of prison admissions are parolees rather than new offenders. There are better ways to handle our parolee problem than the current system of catch and release, and solving our parole problem would largely solve our overcrowding problem.

Dealing with these two factors would allow California's criminal justice system, including the police, courts, prisons, and parole systems, to focus on doing a better job with the prisoners we've got. This means more, not less, effort directed at deterring violent crime and higher rates of arrest; this means freeing up resources to separate out first-time and non-violent offenders from hard-core criminals and violent offenders, with an eye towards reducing our state's abysmally high recidivism rate. In the end, being smart about crime works better than toughness for toughness' sake.

On an ironic note, one of the few truly successful anti-recidivism strategies in the U.S has been the oft-targeted, poorly-funded college education programs. Expanding the commitment of college for all to the prisons might itself help to solve our prison problem.

Side-note – on Interdependent Parts:

In earlier segments of this series, I talked about the need for an overarching vision for California, beyond just the policy-specific pieces. To that end, it's important to see how education and prison policy fit as parts of a larger whole. For example, let's examine the impact of full employment policy and changes to democratic governance and revenue on these two areas of public policy.

To begin with, full employment would greatly increase the public revenues available for K-12 and higher education. It would also add on a crucial back-stop to our system of educational development, ensuring that U.C and CSU and CCC graduates who've received incredibly expensive training don't get thrown on to an overcrowded labor market (as is happening now) where they can't find work, leaving their training to go to waste. It also means that rather than focusing solely on college attendance as our only strategy for getting kids out of poverty that we can offer them a chance at high-wage full time employment. Prior to the unraveling of high-wage labor in the 1980s, a high school graduate who had neither interest nor aptitude for an academic career could get a job for life as a skilled, semi-skilled, or even unskilled worker and be assured of economic security and a middle-class standard of living. With full employment, there's no reason that we can't build our way to an economy that provides opportunity to those kids as well as the college-bound.

Full employment would also greatly reduce our prison burden. We know that anywhere from one-third to two-thirds of prison admissions are unemployed at the time of incarceration, that many property crimes are associated with unemployment, and that the increased difficulty of finding employment as an ex-offender is a major cause of recidivism. While certainly not a silver bullet (violent crime is not particularly correlated with employment rates), full employment can only help. (On a slightly more cynical note, one of the reasons why prison guard unions have resisted parole reform, decriminalization, and other efforts that might reduce the prison population is out of a desire to protect the jobs of their members. In a full employment economy, where workers could be assured of having a job, this political inertia could be more easily overcome).

A similar case is true for democracy and revenues. A more functional democracy, where legislators could more easily match our revenues to the level and kind of goods and services demanded by the people, is one where the kinds of commitments we want to make to both higher and primary education can be made, and where reforms to our prisons systems can be more transparently and directly debated and carried out.

Conclusion:

There are 159,000 students at the University of California. They are among the top 12.5% of our youth, the most talented, the best educated, with the greatest likelihood to succeed. There are 170,000 prisoners in the California prison system – they are disproportionately young, non-white, and less-educated. Even when they are released, they will find it more difficult to find employment, housing, and credit. To place the burden of the best prepared on the least prepared is to compound injustice with unfairness.

Introduction:

The current state of California politics can be summed up in a simple comparison: in the Republican gubernatorial primaries, we see one candidate promising that their first action upon becoming governor is to put 40,000 people out of work and the other complaining that this isn’t enough; in the Democratic convention, we see a party divided over whether to fight for majority rule for budgets or for budgets and taxes.

As a state, California seems caught between the scissors of an increasing need for public services to provide a basic level of social protection for the sick, the elderly and the poor and to restore our high-road, high-wage economy based on superior public education and green technology, and a paralyzed, undemocratic, and irrational political structure that is unwilling and unable to take the necessary actions to meet those needs.

We know that the strategies proposed by the GOP’s gubernatorial candidates won’t work because they are essentially a retreat of the last seven years of failed policies – Schwarzeneggerism without a human face.

Yet Democrats lack a forceful message about what we want to do beyond the immediate issue of the budget.

What Won’t Work:

Contrary to conservative spin, government spending is not out of control in California. Especially when you take into account the fact that the California Price Index (i.e, the rate of inflation) has gone up 72% in the last 20 years, and that the population has increased 28% in that time, government spending is flat or declining. As the California Budget Project notes, thanks to rounds of drastic budget cuts, current spending is $16.9 billion below the previous year, and next year’s budget is projected to $20 billion below 2007-8 levels. As a share of the economy, California state government is down to levels we haven’t seen since the 1970s.

In this situation, regressive tax cuts to wealthy corporations is only going to make things worse. Meg Whitman’s proposed $10 billion dollar capital gains tax cut would increase our current deficit by 53%, and the savings that she proposes to make from unspecified but supposedly gargantuan amounts of “waste, fraud and abuse” wouldn’t come close to filling in this hole. Poizner’s proposals are equally ludicrous.

Moreover, the proposals by either candidates to eliminate tens of thousands of workers make the same elementary mistake that all anti-government activists make: public sector workers are real workers. 40,000 workers laid off means that California’s unemployment rate will rise from 12.6% to 12.84% at the very least, because it will also mean the loss of $1.59 billion in consumer spending, mortgage payments, and local tax base.

Simply put, the theoretical basis behind right-wing economic policy only makes sense in rare occasions in which government taxation is so soaringly high that businesses can’t make a profit, government borrowing is “crowding out” demand for credit in the private sector, and we’re in full employment so that a higher public sector workforce is causing a “substitution effect” which lures people away from the private sector. Now, even in those rare occasions, it’s not a slam dunk case (you have to take into consideration the increased provision of public goods and services, how much of private sector demand is for useful investment as opposed to speculation, and whether employers compete by offering higher wages) – but that’s not what the situation is right now.

Taxation in California is relatively modest (19th out of 50 states), and isn’t that progressive (the poorest fifth of Californians pay 11.1% of their income in taxes, the richest 1% pay 7.8% and 2,000 people who made more than $200k a year paid no taxes). Far from crowding out private investment, interest rates are basically at zero percent thanks to the Federal Reserve, and the private sector isn’t lending out of fear of losses. As far as unemployment goes, California’s 12.6% unemployment rate is one of the highest in the country, and our underemployment rate (including discouraged workers, part-time workers who want to be full-time, and so on) is even worse at 24%.

Where We Need to Go:

The Democratic Party is clearly correct in beginning with majority rule, because it will be impossible for California to do anything about our current fiscal or economic situation without the ability to pass budgets and raise revenues on a democratic basis. To that end, I heartily support the California Democracy Act (majority rule ballot initiative) being sponsored by George Lakoff and the progressive movement – and so should you.

However, I do want to make the point that Democrats need to look beyond the 2/3rds issue, no matter how hard this might be – because we cannot address the budget crisis (or any other of California’s pressing needs) without addressing unemployment. Even if we had majority rule, if we don’t act to bring down the unemployment rate, trying to balance the budget in our current economic climate is chasing a moving target over a cliff. Only when we get more people employed, so that they have paychecks to spend (which brings in sales, income, and payroll taxes), so that they can pay their mortgages (which will at least staunch the bleeding from declining property values and assessed taxes), and so that employers respond to increased consumer spending by expanding their inventories and expanding their payrolls (which in turn brings in more sales taxes, corporate income, property, payroll, and capital gains taxes), will we be able to solve our budget crisis once and for all.

Hence, job creation needs to be made a central part of the Democratic Party message, in the same way that single-payer health care for California (AB810) or historic climate change legislation (AB32) should be the core of the Democratic Party message about what we want to do to fix California.

Step 1 – A Jobs Program as a Tourniquet:

As I’ve discussed in previous posts, it is well within the fiscal capacity of California (or indeed, of most states) to create a jobs program on its own. In order to bring California’s economy and job market into normality, we need to create about 1 million jobs – which would bring our unemployment rate down to 6% (that’s not full employment, but it’s a start). It costs approximately $35 billion to put 1 million people to work for a year.

By structuring our jobs program as a form of social insurance – funding it by the equivalent of a 1% payroll tax, which would raise about $5.7 billion a year, and then using that as collateral for either a Federal or state reserve bank loan – a jobs program could be passed on a majority vote basis. Social insurance premiums are fees by any rational definition of fees, and therefore aren’t subject to the 2/3rds rule.

The reason why we need to pass an immediate jobs program is that it acts like a defibrillator applied to someone in cardiac arrest – especially if we target the jobs to areas where unemployment is concentrated (due to the downturns in the construction and agricultural industries, areas of the Inland Empire have underemployment rates of 40% or more), a jobs program that suddenly cuts unemployment in half not only has a direct impact in terms of fewer people unemployed, more paychecks flooding into depressed local and regional economies, fewer foreclosures and improved property values, but it also has a powerful effect on the “animal spirits” of employers and investors. No matter how low the taxes, employers and investors are not going to increase their payrolls or their inventories if they lack confidence that there’s going to be enough consumer demand to support expansion – by making a sudden and dramatic shift in employment levels, the public sector can radically reboot the expectations of private sector employers and investors. Then and only then will we see private sector employment recover – and with it, California’s tax base and budget.

Long Term Thinking – Full Employment for CA:

Getting back to 6% unemployment isn’t full employment, although it really helps. With a normal unemployment rate and sustained recovery in consumer spending, private-sector employment, and so forth, we can get the fundamentals of California in order. With a stable economic outlook, we can make budgetary decisions that will have a long-term impact – instead of cobbling together fixes that become undone a few months later as revenues continue to fall. With more resources flowing into state coffers, we can begin again to make the investments in public education, mass transit, and alternative energy.

However, there is a big difference between a California that averages 5-6% unemployment and a California which guarantees full employment (i.e, unemployment is kept below a “frictional” level of 3%). For one thing, that 2-3% of the workforce means $43.2 billion a year in production of goods and services that never happen, as well as about $13 billion in wages that won’t be earned, spent, and taxed, and it means increased costs for Unemployment Insurance, CalWorks, Medical, and other social services for the unemployed. In the same way that a single-payer health care system will make California a better place, both by ensuring that everyone has access to health care, but also that employers, start-ups, and other ventures won’t be burdened by heavy health care costs, full employment will mean that California will be a state where no one goes without work (frictional unemployment refers to the temporary periods of unemployment caused by people moving between jobs), with much lower poverty, and many more resources to make the kinds of investments we make.

In its own right, full employment is an investment in a better California. Like any blue-chip investment, it’s not free. In addition to using labor market policies to create incentives for employers to keep their workers on the job instead of laying them off, we’d also need a reserve of about 330,000-500,000 jobs in order to keep unemployment below 3% if the private sector falls down on the job. That costs about $11.7 to $17 billion a year, which the equivalent of a 2-3% payroll tax would cover without the need for regular loans from the Fed or a state reserve bank – which would be reserved for emergency situations in which a sudden recession causes a sharp spike in unemployment.

Conclusion:

A state jobs program isn’t sufficient by itself to create a “New Deal for California” – but it is a necessary prerequisite for the rest of the progressive agenda. Full employment will put us on the path to a high-road, high-wage economy, and from there, it will be much easier to get to single-payer or a green economy than it would be with a 12% unemployment rate.

Picture a nation where all children have enough nutritious food to eat and never worry where they’ll find their next meal. They eat three solid, healthy meals a day, have a couple of snacks, and go to bed without fearing hunger. According to President Obama, who made a campaign pledge to end childhood hunger in the United States by 2015, this is the world he wants to see by six years from now.  

The Obama Administration is beginning to put some effort behind this pledge. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is holding a series of listening sessions around the country on ways to achieve the 2015 goal. One of those sessions was recently held here in Oakland, Calif.  

Groups and individuals from various sectors, including state agencies, industry and advocacy groups, and service providers showed up and shared ideas on how to end childhood hunger over the next six years. We at the Alameda County Community Food Bank were there to represent the hundreds of thousands of county residents who live with hunger – numbers that are escalating on a monthly basis.

We’ve laid out a number of recommendations that will lead our country down the right path toward ending hunger. The administration and Congress can take a number of steps:

First, we need to get the economy fully back on solid ground. Our food pantries, soup kitchens and other community agencies distribute 300,000 meals in Alameda County each week – 35 percent of them to children – and we’ve seen the numbers rise drastically over the past year. Food stamp participation is growing rapidly also. Sustained economic growth will quickly reduce the number of hungry people in our community walking in our doors each day. We’re one of the few businesses that would be thrilled to see our number of clients decline.

Next, the federal safety net programs that people depend on during times need to be further strengthened – beyond the temporary allotments included in the recent stimulus funding.

Finally, Congress currently is considering the child nutrition bill. It’s due to be renewed and contains a number of programs that low and moderate income children rely on – including the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program for pregnant women and young children, school breakfast and lunch programs and the summer and afterschool nutrition programs.

The Alameda County Community Food Bank focuses a great deal of attention on increasing access to the summer feeding program when school is out. Currently, in order for a summer enrichment program to get funds to provide lunches to children in its care, it must be in an area where more than half the children receive free or reduced-price meals. If this threshold was lowered to 33 percent where it used to be, or even just to 40 percent, a significant number of additional hungry children would have access to meals during the summer months. Simple changes like this are needed to chip away at child hunger.

It’s daunting – and thrilling – to visualize moving from 12 million American children who are hungry or on the edge of hunger to none in six years. The Obama Administration is on the right track; now it’s time for all of us to unite, quickly move forward and take every step needed to reach a nation of well-fed children.

Susan Bateson is the Executive Director of the Alameda County Community Food Bank.

Originally posted at Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity.

An impressive gathering of political leaders, advocates and policy wonks were in attendance on Monday in San Francisco for a major forum examining the social and economic factors that influence health and the role those issues should play in the upcoming health care reform debate.  The event was jointly sponsored by the California Endowment, the Stanford Center for the Study of Poverty and Inequality, and Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity.

A series of speakers spoke eloquently about the vicious cycle of poverty and poor health, making clear that as Congress begins debate in the coming months on health care policy reform the discussion will need to be about far more than health insurance.

The ball is already rolling in that direction at the state level.  Speaking at the Monday forum, California State Assembly member Dave Jones, who is chair of the Assembly’s Committee on Health, said that his committee will hold hearings in the next month on what can be done in California to address racial and ethnic disparities in health.

Several speakers also pointed to provisions in the Obama Administration’s economic recovery package that directly or indirectly affect health, including increased funding for food stamps, education and even transportation.

Paula Braveman, director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, noted the direct link between poverty, low education attainment, low-paying jobs and poor health.  Poor education, she said, leads to low-income which leads to an inability to purchase healthy food and have access to regular exercise. All of this also leads to greater stress, which in itself results in poorer health compared with those who are better educated and have secure, well-paying jobs.

For a complete look at the days events and to view clips of forum speakers, please click here.

Considering all of the rural areas and dirt-poor urban centers in the country, you have to be a little surprised that Jim Costa’s Central Valley district is the worst in the country for quality of life.

Poverty, poor health and low graduation rates have put the San Joaquin Valley’s 20th Congressional District dead last in a new national scorecard that ranks the well-being of residents.

Even notoriously grim Appalachia fares better than the congressional district that sweeps in Fresno, Kings and Kern counties, the study made public Wednesday shows. The assessment of health, education and income ranks the district 436th out of 436 districts nationwide.

CA-20 has the lowest rate of college graduates in the country, just 6.5%. The median annual salary is just $16,767, and life expectancy is 4.5 years lower than in rich, high well-being areas like the Upper East Side of Manhattan.  It’s an appalling set of numbers.

We know the challenges in this district.  Factory-style farming has lowered the air quality and increased the public health risks.  As income inequality stratifies, places like the Central Valley get left behind, even more so in a California with a 6.9% unemployment rate.  A lack of development into 21st-century jobs causes a brain drain, and higher energy prices cripple rural America.

And there’s a residual benefit.  A dirt-poor district is a district that doesn’t vote heavily or pay much attention to politics, paradoxically so since they need to the most.  And so we get Representatives like Jim Costa, whose district has the lowest participation rates in the entire state.  Which means he can vote the wrong way on issues like FISA or war funding and not get much feedback about it from a constituency that’s struggling to survive.  In this context, his desire to return federal funds to the district or improve quality of life would seem to be low, at best.  It’s a vicious circle: poverty breeds inattention, inattention breeds bad lawmakers, bad lawmakers have trouble improving poverty.

We need less legislators like Jim Costa who seem more interested in pleasing their corporate contributors than the suffering citizens in their own districts.  The problem is how to reach a low-information constituency, and how to make that connection, that sustained political power and engagement is vital if we want to end poverty and build the post-carbon, post-agrarian economy that would lift up whole regions like the Central Valley.