(This is a fantastic look at how dramatically Orange County has changed in the last 40 years, from Democratic candidate for AD-70 Melissa Fox. - promoted by Robert Cruickshank)
I recently came across a fascinating - and very revealing - article about the political history of Orange County.
Dated July 7, 1974, and titled Orange County: The Right Wing Cradle, the article shows how dramatically Orange County, and in particular my own 70th Assembly District (Irvine, Laguna Beach, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, Foothill Ranch, and most of the cities of Aliso Viejo, Newport Beach, and Tustin) has changed, both politically and demographically, in the past four decades.
The article describes Orange County as "a stronghold of the John Birch Society, a former stomping ground of the Klu Klux Klan, the fastest growing county in the United States, and the home of the first drive-in church."
2010 won't be as good of a year as 2008 for Democrats. It is really hard to repeat that kind of success. However, here in California, we have a chance to do better than we did in 2008. In 2008, we picked up a few of assembly seats (10, 15, 78, and 80) and lost one (30). In the senate: nothing. Hannah-Beth Jackson lost to Tony Strickland by a razor's edge, but that's as close as we got.
The dynamic will certainly be different in 2010. Barack Obama is not on the ballot, instead we will have a senate and a governor's race to lead the ticket. Perhaps some Carlyfornia Dreamin'? With all that taken into consideration, the Target Book has officially come out with their "races to watch." As Dave pointed out last week, the Target Book is pretty much the chronicler of the conventional wisdom for these races. Not necessarily the best wisdom, but the CW in Sacramento, for better or worse.
In a couple of seats, this will make a huge difference. To take one example, Alyson Huber is in a very, very difficult position. She will not have the same kind of grassroots enthusiasm behind her, both for Obama-less reasons, and for reasons of her own relationship with the grassroots. Considering that she won by just a few votes, she'll need everything that can go right to go right. She voted for the budget, which will piss off some right-leaning DTS voters, and she's also skated close enough to the center to also piss off some left-leaning Dems and DTS voters.
Now, obviously some of the seats are a lot more likely to be competitive than others. It's going to be quite tough to get a Dem in DeVore's 70th AD or to take out Garrick. Yet, there are some interesting races, some of which were not really on the radar in 2008. It will be interesting to see if the Assembly pays a little more attention to races like AD-36 a little sooner this time around.
And over in the Senate, yup, it's just the one. SD-12 will be the sole race that is really in play, unless something crazy happens with the LG appointment.
The Assembly is struggling to to achieve what the Senate has already done: pass a substantive prisons bill. Instead we get a bunch of legislators changing their minds about a sentencing commission, and in the end, setting us backward on reforming the prison mess.
Today, Speaker Bass revealed the details of the legislation that she plans to put up for a vote come Monday. You can see a summary of that bill over the flip (h/t SacBee). To say it is entirely underwhelming would be an understatement.
The bill makes some minor changes to the Senate Bill on the way things are handled, including the "wobblers", which are crimes that can be charged as either a felony and misdemeanor. They changed some of the alternative custody rules and the definition of "grand theft." Really, nothing all that substanital. They don't restore funding for rehabilitation programs that were stripped in the Senate Bill.
But what they do take out of the bill is the "Public Safety Commission" aka the Sentencing Commission. Without the sentencing commission this bill isn't worth the pixels on your screen. It won't fix the prisons. It won't create any substantive change. It will merely kick the can down the road. In order for this bill to be worthwhile, it MUST have a sentencing commission with teeth. A sentencing commission that allows policy makers who understand public safety to make the decisions, not political hacks trying to make their way to the next job. Again, if it can play in Kansas, it can happen here. The only thing missing here are a few legislators with courage.
In other words, this bill misses the opportunity presented by the budget challenges. Frankly, we only have so many cracks at this apple, and this is the perfect storm for a sentencing commission: A Republican Governor providing some cover, a budget mess requiring cost savings, and a federal court order hanging over our heads. The time is now. Like Arnold and his crew are using the mess to shock doctrine the state, we should use this mess to fix the state.
But the Assembly frankly does not have the courage to do what they believe is right. I know they believe it is right, because they passed it as AB 160 back in 2007. The Senate can get it done, the Assembly should be able to muster the votes too.
We can move forward in one of two directions: We can pass a decent piece of legislation, or we can pass this half-hearted nothingness. We can have real reform, or we can just keep going on the same path that we've been pursuing. In all likelihoods, the Assembly will pick the latter, and nothing will really be accomplished. We might even end up with the federal courts deciding how to release prisoners. But, as activists, we must all remember who stood up to make the tough vote, and who did not. In politics, there is always an accountability moment.
While the Senate was successful in passing meaningful, albeit not the prettiest, prison reform , the Assembly has been stumbling over the task for a few days now. They were going to try it on Monday again. Needless to say, it hasn't succeeded. They've pushed back the vote again, indefinitely this time.
"Work is moving forward on a revised plan to increase public safety, improve the effectiveness of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and reduce state budget costs" Speaker Bass said Monday. "There were a number of calls and meetings throughout the weekend with various stakeholders, including law enforcement. Those conversations are continuing. When we arrive at a responsible plan that can earn the support of the majority of the Assembly and makes sense to the people of California, we will take that bill up on the Assembly floor. We will provide advance notice when a vote on the public safety package is to be scheduled."
If you want to take your time, and get this right, that's a great thing. Unfortunately, I think this delay is less about getting this right than getting it wrong. Weak-kneed Democrats are failing California when we most need them to stand up for sound policy. Like the lawmakers in Kansas were able to do a few years back:
"But you know the old 'trail em', nail 'em and jail 'em stuff doesn't work. We want people to come out and stay out and become responsible tax-paying citizens."
She says many ex-cons have learned their lesson and don't want to go back to prison but others have so little to lose that they lack motivation.
Now her job is to give people like Lorelei, who has spent most of her life struggling with crack addiction and drifting in and out of penal institutions, fresh incentives.
*** *** ***
The new strategy seems to be working: five years ago around 203 parolees returned to Kansas prisons each month but by 2007, the number reduced by 100 per month and the number of new crimes - felony convictions that people pick up while they are on parole supervision- also nearly halved. (BBC)
Our prison crisis cannot simply be resolved with more beds, or harsher sentences. These tactics have been tried for generations, and we are clearly losing the "War on Crime." The more we see ourselves as fighting a war on our own people, the more we fail. It's a quicksand that you don't get out of by just hitting the gas.
See, the thing about prison policy is that we have our whole system targeted at the wrong people. Instead of simply looking to sate ourselves, we need to look to how we preserve the goals and institutions of our soceity. What works best for us moving forward? That is what is sorely lacking in California that has been rediscovered in Kansas, even by the people who run the prisons:
Roger Werholtz, the secretary of corrections, was forced to examine how to spend criminal justice dollars more effectively. For decades, he says, policy in the US has been driven by the public's emotional response to criminals.
"We are mad at them, frightened by them, frustrated by them, and so our typical response has been very punitive," he says.
But Mr Werholtz argues locking people up is only a temporary solution since more than 95% of prisoners will eventually be released into the community.
"We have to think long-term and stop arguing about what criminals deserve. Instead we need to focus on what we deserve as citizens and that leads us to a very different set of interventions."
But as we sit in limbo, waiting for the California legislators to look beyond 6 or 8 years, or whenever their next election is, we must remember that legislators are also accountable to us. Take the current issue. In the assembly we have three legislators who fancy themselves as excellent attorneys general of the State of California. That's a gig that requires planning for a period beyond their own tenure. Yet, it is widely speculated that these three Assembly members have been very reluctant to vote for a sentencing reform commission for fear of looking "soft on crime."
The sentencing commission isn't soft on crime, it is a policy board that will allow policy makers, not politicians, to make decisions on what is best for the state. Instead of grandstanding on penalties for each infraction, we can allow policy research and good solid ideas to take hold of California's messed up sentencing laws.
Yet, the Democratic candidates for Attorney General must also pass through the Democratic primary, and there are alternatives for the job who have been quite up front about their position on ToughOnCrimeTM. This is about good policy, and good policy should be remembered by grassroots activists when the time comes around for donors and volunteers come primary time.
UPDATE: Whoops, I meant to include the target list for your comments. Over the flip I have now provided the list that Dave ID'd last week. If they represent you, call them early and often. If they don't well, it can't hurt can it? Tell them that you support a sentencing commission and the prison reform package as passed by the Senate. And if you really get going, tell them to restore rehabilitation funds.
I am so sorry to post a personal pet-issues diary so soon after registering to the site. But I just learned about this website in the last two weeks at the Netroots Nation Convention in Pittsburgh. What a gem!
Who am I? I am a 32-year-old mother and activist who lives in Berkeley, California. I run a progressive mothering blog called MotherTalkers and I am currently a contractor for the family organization MomsRising.org.
I wouldn't already be bugging you if the issue I was working on did not pertain to California families and was not important. I wanted to let you know that a bill sponsored by Sen. Mark Leno that would help rid certain baby products of toxic flame retardants is about to die a silent death unless we pick up the phone and call our Assemblymembers.
That's why the Assembly has stalled, we're hearing. The education part of the budget bill would statutorily put into language a payback of $11 billion in education funds denied to schools under the Proposition 98 mandate. The Yacht Party doesn't want to pay it back. And that's because they don't want to pay for it in the future.
The result of not writing into language a payback of these funds will be that education interests will sue, and win, and it will likely cost the state more in the long run. But you can say "it will cost the state more in the long run" about virtually every aspect of the budget, so why should that trouble anyone?
...so the Assembly came back in session briefly to vote for permanent freezing of COLA in social services programs, and CalWorks and IHSS anti-fraud measures. It got 43 votes, and only needed a majority, so it passes. Still nothing on the Prop. 98 payback changes.
Asm. Reeps holding up $24 B in budget solutions due to spat with Senate Reeps. Asm. Reeps kidding themselves if they think Senate returning
7 minutes ago from mobile web
Asm. Reeps mad because Senate Republicans because Sen. Reeps sent over one bill not two on educ. cuts & Prop 98 repayment. Dont they talk?
10 minutes ago from mobile web
I'm guessing they're pissed because they wanted to be able to vote against the repayment - which could pass by majority vote - and for the cuts to education. Complete political posturing. Too late, the Senate jammed them, and now they'll either walk the plank or blow up the whole thing. Because they want to be successful thieves that don't pay back what they steal.
Assembly Member Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) has a sense of humor. It's quite an asset in the Legislature these days. Today she dropped an invitation to join the Democratic Party on the desks of all of her Republican colleagues. (h/t to Josh Richman Some saw the humor, others don't know how to take a joke.
If you tune in to the CalChannel right now, you'll see an Assembly hearing regarding HR 5, Asm. Ammiano's Resolution opposing Prop 8. After twenty minutes of some heartbreaking stories from LGBT families, it was hard to see it move on to the opponents. There were stories of children questioning whether their families were real because their wasn't a marriage involved. There were stories of LGBT children being brutalized.
Apparently the only opponents to marriage equality are from Antioch and Petaluma, as it seems the first half of marriage equality opponents came from those two Bay Area cities. The arguments were the typical, don't disenfranchise us, there are more of us than there are of you, typical ridiculousness. One of the richest arguments, just littered with irony:
We cannot allow the minority to rule against the people. I'm sorry if it doesn't go in your favor...I ask that you support the people.
I actually think this speaker, one Florence Cusick, meant to give this speech to the Republican Senate caucus regarding the budget. It's amazing the hypocrisy, it just burns. She spoke of the persecution of her Irish ancestors, and the persecution of her minority.
It really is amazing how one minority seeks to push down another once they have moved up the ladder. The repeated invoking of allowing a majority to oppress a minority. They gloat of prevailing, cry of disenfranchisement. And of course, the slippery slope argument leads to pedohilia, thanks to a pastor named Chauncy Gillings of Salinas. Why the Yes on 8 folks can't fathom the distinction, one of consent.
But in the end, democracy can only go so far. Democracy can only go so far as the tyranny of the majority does not
Asm. Ted Lieu (D-LA County) made quite a powerful speech.
Ten years ago I did not support marriage equality. I am a proud co-author of HR5, and proud to support Sen. Leno's marriage equality bills. To me the issue is very simple, it's about love. You never see the words love in the constituion. And that's precisely the point. Government ought not to be regulating the most sacred private parts of loving indivisuals. I love my wife, but there is no reason that love takes any precedence over Asm. Ammiano's love, or Sen. Perez's love of his life. There is nothing unique about my love that qualifies my wife and I to get a piece of paper that says marriage, that Tom Ammiano can't get for the love of his life.
No matter where you believe love flows form Jesus CHrist, as I do, or from Allah or from the human condition, you believe that love is the most sacred part of life. ... For government to choose winners and losers as to which love qualifies for what, is the ultimate offensive notion of what we are ll about. The issue isn't about your beliefs, it is about whether you think the government should be regulating in this most sacred area.
My view is that government should not pick winners and losers. We need to treat everybody equally. Government should stay the hell out of regulating this most sacred institution.
(Good as always to hear from our Lt. Governor. - promoted by Julia Rosen)
My job and your government's job are to protect your job today and tomorrow. California's legislators are left little choice but to swallow hard and accept a very bad budget deal put together in secret without any public hearings and public input, all contrary to the open meeting laws of the state. The tragedy of this budget is that it robs our ability to advance our values and expand our economy by insuring a well-educated workforce. The budget does not allow us to provide adequate resources for the least among us. The budget does not allow transportation, water, and sanitation systems to keep up with population growth. Sadly this budget will force us to abandon robust research programs that will create tomorrow's wealth.
The governor wants to be known as the green governor, the education governor, the reform governor, yet he has utterly failed to lead a budget process that in the remotest way advances any of these goals. There is no real reform of education, prisons, or the state funded healthcare programs in this budget. Yet it is in real reform that efficiencies and increased effectiveness is found and fair cuts can be made. A significant change is in labor contracts that are unilaterally altered, setting aside a long and honorable negotiation process between labor and management. Where is the effort in this budget to advance the green economy?
Unfortunately the budget that is to be voted on in the days ahead does nothing to position California for a quick return to a healthy and growing economy. In fact the budget hastens the starvation of our educational programs at every level, thereby directly and in many case irreversibly damaging millions of our children. The budget accelerates the financial decline of the University of California and the largest university in America, the California State University. California needs teachers, engineers, nurses, doctors, and every other job skill. This budget gets a D in meeting the educational needs of tomorrow's workforce.
If you read the reader diaries column in April and May in this space, you would have noticed a somewhat antagonistic relationship between Greg Pettis supporters and Manuel Perez supporters during the Democratic primary for AD-80 in the Palm Springs area. It was probably more pronounced on the Interwebs, but I'm told from those in the district that there wasn't a whole lot of love there on the ground, either. Now, with the primary over, it appears that Democrats are coming together to take back the seat in the fall.
If Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can make peace, we anticipate Greg Pettis and Manuel Perez can, too.
An olive branch was extended between the former Democrat rivals last week when Richard Oberhaus - campaign manager of Pettis' failed bid in the 80th Assembly race - announced he was joining Perez's camp.
"He endorses the ideals that we all hope and dream will be implemented in Sacramento," Oberhaus said in an e-mail announcing his plans.
"I shall implement all the strategies that are necessary to make this seat turn from red to blue."
While Pettis hasn't publicly endorsed, this move by his campaign manager and, as the article notes, several of his volunteers suggest that Democrats district-wide are committed to working for victory.
By the way, with less than 100 days until the election I am going to start a "drive for 2/3" legislative roundup. I was talking with some leading Dems in LA County over the weekend and they told me about some off-the-radar Assembly possibilities, particularly in the Inland Empire region. Did you know that Democrats are now within 1,500 votes of making San Bernardino a Democratic county? Last year that was a 35,000-vote majority. We need to turn them out, of course, but with a favorable top of the ticket we're going to see some surprises in the Assembly (the Senate is a tougher nut to crack).
Disclosure: I've been a volunteer with the Perez campaign since April 2007.
We won. Manuel Perez won the Democratic nomination for the 80th Assembly District in California. He won thanks to grassroots organizing, an insightful and professional grasp of core issues, and the powerful support of his brothers and sisters across the broad spectrum of the labor movement. But essentially because he's a mensch, and he's in this for us. His rally speech at 2pm:
It's been such a joy to be a part of this campaign. Manuel is the real thing, and it's an honor to help. This is a seat California Democrats are determined to win.
Updated on Sun., June 8th to trim a bit, title was From Rally to Victory Speech - Election Day.
An interesting trend in the primary results is that the more progressive candidates tended to win the state legislative races - Yamada over Cabaldon in AD-08, Leno over Nation in SD-03, to give just a few examples - but the more moderate candidates had success in the Congressional races.
It's hard to make a direct comparison, because many of the contested legislative races were usually not in the same places as the contested Congressional races. The legislative fights tended to be in safe Democratic districts (with AD-80 being a notable exception) whereas the Congressional fights were of necessity in those districts where Republicans currently hold the seat.
It may be that in those purplish districts moderates outnumber progressives among Democratic voters, and though candidates like Cheryl Ede and Vickie Butcher got a respectable 40% each, it suggests that progressives still have a lot of work to do in those red-to-blue districts. There may also be a presumption that a moderate Dem has a better shot at beating a Republican incumbent and even if that's a true assessment, it suggests the continuing uphill climb progressives face on the frontiers of California congressional battles.
The progressive trend in state legislative races was clearer and more widespread. Industry-funded candidates like Gina Papan and Chris Cabaldon went down to a narrow defeat at the hands of more progressive challengers, while in other primary races, such as AD-14, AD-27, and SD-23, a field of progressive candidates fought to show voters who had the stronger left-of-center credentials. A similar dynamic even showed up in AD-80, where two different kinds of progressives - Greg Pettis and Manuel Perez - battled for the right to shift the seat from red to blue.
There does seem to be a very clear progressive trend happening within the California Democratic Party and its state legislative seats. It's a welcome sign, especially as term limits provides new leadership in Sacramento. Democrats want a state government that addresses their needs - health care, education, transportation, the environment, and they now believe progressive Democrats are the most likely to deliver it.
It's now on to the November elections, where we will aim for a 2/3 majority in both houses to consolidate progressive gains and finally start governing California effectively and sensibly.
For what they are worth, here are my personal recommendations for the June 3rd California ballot. I do spend quite a bit of time reviewing competitive races before making my recommendations.
Feel free to comment, agree, disagree, forward, or ignore. But please Vote on Tuesday (polls open 7a.m.-8p.m.) or vote-by-mail if you already have an absentee ballot.
Greg Pettis, in his 14th year as Cathedral City Councilman, former-Mayor Pro-Tem of Cathedral City, and Candidate for the CA 80th Assembly District, has now received the endorsements from every member of the California Legislative Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Caucus in Sacramento. Pettis has widespread support in the LGBT community Nationally, State-wide, and locally because of his progressive stands on issues important to the LGBT communities: Pettis fully supports the HIV/AIDS communities, universal healthcare, a strong local economy, good local schools and responsible academic oversight, a healthy environment, equality and justice for all Californians, and mentoring other members of the LGBT community.
This evening, Assembly Majority Leader Karen Bass was elected Speaker of the Assembly. Bass, who I believe is the first African American woman elected to this position, will succeed termed-out Fabian Núñez.
Assemblywoman Bass represents the 47th Assembly District - the cities and communities of Culver City, West Los Angeles, Westwood, Cheviot Hills, Leimert Park, Baldwin Hills, Windsor Hills, Ladera Heights, the Crenshaw District, Little Ethiopia and portions of Korea Town and South Los Angeles.
cross-posted at TheLiberalOC.com
(AB 493 is an interesting idea. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
The Clean Car Discount bill -- AB 493 (Ruskin) -- is alive, and will be up for a vote in the State Assembly at the end of this month.
This global warming solutions bill would create an incentive program of clean vehicle rebates and emissions surcharges on the purchase of new vehicles sold in the state. Cleaner vehicles that have fewer emissions of global warming pollution would earn a rebate--the cleaner the car, the higher the rebate. These rebates would be funded by one-time surcharges on new dirtier, gas-guzzler vehicles. The worse the vehicle, the higher the surcharge. A bunch of vehicles--including several mini-vans--would fall roughly in the middle and receive neither a rebate nor a surcharge.
With the Bush Administration continuing to block California's efforts to implement global warming vehicle regulations, this bill becomes that much more important.
Several Legislators who are on the fence need to hear from activists and constituents THIS month!
Looks like that Dec. 5 deadline for voting on a health care proposal has been extended, after the power play of scheduling it on the day of the Republican Assembly retreat was justified by the Speaker's office by saying "Deadlines are deadlines." Until they aren't.
And now, there's talk of a third special session, this one on the subprime mortgage crisis. I guess the inaction on the first two was not sufficient; we need a third. And I appreciate efforts to stop predatory lending, though I'm not sure how this would make a dent in what is a national credit lending problem.
I'm still not sure we have a housing "crisis" or just a housing market downturn, but I am pretty sure that nothing the Assembly is going to do in a special session this year is going to affect it one way or the other. Well, they are probably capable of making it worse. But I don't think they can or will do anything to increase the value of my home, and while I'd love the help, I don't particularly think they should try.
I'm not as dismissive as Dan Weintraub; this is most definitely a crisis. But I'm not really sure what the Assembly can do. The bills they have proposed would only apply to new loans. That's important, but they would not do a whole lot for those facing foreclosure. And anyway, those entering into new loans would have to be deaf, dumb and blind to agree to some no-money-down ARM at this point. And this bit from the press conference is flat-out embarrassing:
In an illustration of the complexity of the crisis, though, one of the homeowners presented at the press conference as a victim said the house he lost was actually one of two that he owned.
While many owners have lost homes they occupied, others were investors who saw the real estate run-up of the past decade as an investment opportunity.
Sacramento resident Carlos Villegas said he was forced into foreclosure when monthly payments on the house he bought in 2005 shot up from $2,200 to $3,550.
"They gave me three days to move," he said. "I feel frustrated with the system.
In response to questions from reporters, Villegas said after the foreclosure, he moved back to a smaller house he had purchased 10 years earlier, which he had been renting out.
Of all the people with foreclosure problems, you found a guy with another house?!?
The credit mess is a national problem, and state solutions are nice, but they're not going to work. Perhaps driving down the costs of healthcare through a new reform would be the BEST way to help those struggling with home payments.
UPDATE: CPR has a summary of Democratic legislative proposals, and I have to say that the steps to address the current crisis are fairly weak tea. Some of these, like foreclosure consultant reform, are already illegal; others, like facilitating reporting on workout agreements and increasing talk between homeowners and creditors, should have been initiated months ago. The only substantive policy I see here is shoveling $10 million dollars to credit counselors. The federal plan being worked out by the Treasury Department, to freeze teaser rates for some mortgages, would do a hell of a lot more good.
Over 40,000 Californians die every year from tobacco smoking, nearly one-fifth of all of the deaths that occur in the state. That's 17 times the 2,500 California homicides. That's ten times the 4,100 Californians who will die of breast cancer this year. Despite decreases in smoking rates, tobacco use remains the state's leading public health emergency.
What, therefore, can you say about an elected official who takes campaign contributions from the industry that needs, for its survival, that that public health emergency continue unabated and thus needs a favorable regulatory climate in Sacramento?
A new report from the American Lung Association of California details the bribes donations that Big Tobacco gave to legislators and candidates during 2005-6.
Big Tobacco gave $130,700 to 2005-6 Senators, $24,900 (19.1%) to Democrats and 105,800 (81.9%) to Republicans.
Big Tobacco gave $366,823 to 2005-6 Assemblymembers, $75,200 (20.5%) to Democrats, and $291,623 (79.5%) to Republicans.
Big Tobacco gave $98,500 to incoming 07-08 freshmen legislators, $50,100 (50.9%) to Democrats and $48,400 (49.1%) to Republicans.
Big Tobacco spent $2,160,864 on lobbying during the 2005-6 Term. Philip Morris spent $884,694, RJ Reynolds spent $598,507, US Smokeless Tobacco spent $391,137, Lorillard spent $187,202, and the California Distributors Association spent $99,324.
It's hard to keep up with all that's happening on the floors of the Senate and Assembly in this crucial week, but let's bullet point a sampling what we know has been done so far:
* The State Senate passed SB 494, which mandates that 50 of all vehicles sold in the state run on alternative fuels by 2020. This is similar to the bill that the CA Air Resources Board overturned several years ago, leading to the dumping of the EV1 project (ever see "Who Killed The Electric Car?"). It was a party-line vote, with the exception of Mod Squadders Correa and Machado.
* SB 936 is a very important bill which would bring Workers' compensation back in line with reality in cases of permanent disability. The bill "increases the number of weeks of indemnity payments for the range of percentages of permanent disability ratings." It passed 22-13. Too many people are falling through the cracks of worker's comp "deform." This is a good step.
* SB 1036 and SB 210 were also environmental bills that strengthen the good start made in AB 36 to tackle the problem of global warming. SB 1036 provides additional funding for renewable energy, and SB 210 gives legislative heft to the Governor's executive order reducing the carbon content in all transportation fuels sold. SB 1036 was unanimous; Correa joined all Republicans in voting against SB 210.
OK, I just saw this on The Liberal OC, and I think I should share this with all the rest of you. Remember when I told you that Jim Brandt is running for the State Assembly in the 54th District, where Betty Karnette is termed out?
Well, Jim is looking for some help. He actually is looking forward to winning this race and serving the people of Long Beach, San Pedro, and Palos Verdes in Sacramento, but he can't win this thing alone. If you're in this area, then perhaps it's time for YOU to step up and help Jim out!
Follow me after the flip to find out how YOU can help...
I recently came across a fascinating - and very revealing - article about the political history of Orange County.
