Today, ACCE and the New Bottom Line released a report detailing a solution to the foreclosure crisis. "The Win-Win Solution: How Fixing The Housing Crisis Will Create 1 Million Jobs" details how we can fix the housing crisis and revitalize our communities and economy if the banks were to lower the principal balance on all underwater mortgages to current market value.
One in five Americans owe more on their mortgage than their home is actually worth. Collectively, underwater homeowners will have to pay down $709 billion in principal before they can start building equity in their homes. Every effort to reboot the housing market to date has failed because it has not done the most essential thing: reduce the massive debt load carried by underwater homeowners.
The report reveals that if the banks stepped up and provided principal reduction on all underwater mortgages to current market value, we could:
• Create 1 million jobs every year -- This includes over 300,000 jobs in California, the state hit hardest by the financial crisis. • Pump over $70 billion per year back into communities-- This includes $12 billion dollars per year in Florida, the second of the two states hit hardest by the foreclosure crisis. • Save the average family over $500 per month on mortgage payment • Solve the foreclosure crisis once and for all
“Homeowners across the nation are struggling to pay their boom-era mortgages with their recession-era salaries and the economy is suffering for it," notes the report. "Writing down the principals and interest rates on all underwater mortgages to market value would serve as the second stimulus that America so desperately needs, only without added costs to taxpayers.”
As the banks have been able to profit from millions of people losing their homes,"The Win/Win Solution" demonstrates that the banks can afford to execute this plan. Last year, the nation’s top six banks paid out more than twice the cost of the plan ($71 billion per year) in bonuses and compensation alone ($146 billion in 2010). Currently, the nation’s banks are sitting on a historically high level of cash reserves of $1.64 trillion.
This is an opportunity for California Attorney General Kamala Harris to step up and be a hero to Californians. Standing up to Wall Street Banks is good policy and good politics.To help us prioritize our communities and our families and start rebuilding a working economy, join our call to Attorney General Harris to make principal reduction on underwater mortgages a key part of any foreclosure settlement with banks.
Here I will cover the eight constitutional offices, three State Supreme Court justice confirmations, and nine ballot measures. In the second diary, I will cover the U.S. Senate race and the House races, and in the third the state legislature. I will also combine my regular registration updates within the diaries.
Speaking of registration updates, as you will see in the layout of the statewide registration numbers, Democrats are more pumped up here, adding almost half a million voters to their rolls since 2008. The Republicans in comparison added just 13,000 in the same amount of time. So if you are looking for a lethargic Democratic base, look elsewhere because you won't find it here!
Key: I will list the incumbent first, in boldface (in the case of open seats, the incumbent party first without boldface), and all minor parties after the two major parties.
D: Democratic
R: Republican
L: Libertarian
G: Green
AI: American Independent
PF: Peace and Freedom
NP: Nonpartisan
SW: Socialist Workers
Race Ratings Toss-up: Margin by less than 5%
Lean: Margin by 5-10%
Likely: Margin by 10-15%
Strong: Margin by 15-20%
Solid: Margin by more than 20%
Governor: Ex-eBay CEO Meg Whitman (R) vs. Attorney General Jerry Brown (D), Laura Wells (G), Dale Ogden (L), Chelene Nightingale (AI), Carlos Alvarez (PF), and Lea Sherman (SW-W/I)
Profile: I see no way Whitman can win. Running as an outsider when the current governor, who also ran as an outsider, is leaving office with 20% approval ratings, is a surefire losing strategy. And pissing voters off by running ads nonstop and spending nine-figure sums of money while they're forced to cut back is not going to help at all. Brown is leading by example, running on a shoestring budget and calling for everyone to sacrifice, meaning no sacred cows. Polls may not yet show it, but in my opinion I think Whitman is finished. In fact, I'll be very surprised if she even manages to make it a low-teen loss.
Outlook: Likely to Strong Brown (D pickup)
Lieutenant Governor: Interim Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado (R) vs. S.F. Mayor Gavin Newsom (D), Jimi Castillo (G), Pamela Brown (L), Jim King (AI), and C.T. Weber (PF)
Profile: Here we have quasi-incumbent Abel Maldonado, appointed after John Garamendi went to Congress, running to be elected in his own right against Newsom. While Maldonado is moderate for a Republican (though that is not saying much), being closely associated with Arnold is going to be a huge liability, which I do not think he will overcome.
Outlook: Lean Newsom (D pickup)
Attorney General: S.F. DA Kamala Harris (D) vs. L.A. DA Steve Cooley (R), Peter Allen (G), Timothy Hannan (L), Dianne Beall Templin (AI), and Robert J. Evans (PF)
Profile: This is the only statewide race in California I am worried about, and where my theory (that California has just become too Democratic for even a moderate Republican to win barring unusual circumstances) will be put to the test. Cooley is not that bad for a Republican, having had the audacity to stand against popular opinion of issues such as three strikes and Jessica's Law, though he is also against dispensaries for medical marijuana. Harris is a rising star in Democratic circles, and is a more formidable opponent than any of Cooley's challengers in the past. The wild card is the big enchilada of L.A. County, where Harris' name ID is low and she'd need to win by 18-20% to win statewide. I am of course pulling for Harris because I want our bench to stay nice and full for the inevitable retirements of DiFi probably in 2012, Boxer probably in 2016, and for the open governorship in 2014 or 2018; and also because she has courageously stood up to Prop 8, while Cooley pledges to defend it in court.
Outlook: Toss-Up
Secretary of State: SoS Debra Bowen (D) vs. businessman Damon Dunn (R), Ann Menasche (G), Christina Tobin (L), Merton D. Short (AI), and Marylou Cabral (PF)
Profile: Bowen is a lock for reelection.
Outlook: Solid Bowen
Treasurer: Treasurer Bill Lockyer (D) vs. State Senator Mimi Walters (R), Kit Crittenden (G), Edward Teyssier (L), Robert Lauten (AI), and Debra Reiger (PF)
Profile: Lockyer is a lock for reelection.
Outlook: Solid Lockyer
Controller: Controller John Chiang (D) vs. State Senator Tony Strickland (R), Ross Frankel (G), Andy Favor (L), Lawrence Beliz (AI), and Karen Martinez (PF)
Profile: A rematch from 2006, only with Democrats more pumped up, Chiang will win by a wider margin this time around.
Outlook: Strong to Solid Chiang
Insurance Commissioner: State Assemblyman Mike Villines (R) vs. State Assemblyman Dave Jones (D), William Balderston (G), Richard Bronstein (L), Clay Pedersen (AI), and Dina Padilla (PF)
Profile: In California, when a non-damaged Democrat is up against a generic Republican, the Democrat wins. Take it to the bank.
Outlook: Likely to Strong Jones (D pickup)
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Retired Superintendent Larry Aceves (NP) vs. State Assemblyman Tom Torlakson (NP)
Profile: Torlakson voted against Race to the Top and believes parents, teachers, students, and communities alike all need to come together to improve our schools, while Aceves believes that the problem with public schools is the teachers and hedge funds and billionaires should have more control over K-12 education. This will be a close one.
Outlook: Toss-Up
State Supreme Court confirmation - Tani Cantil-Sakauye: Voters are being asked whether to confirm Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Arnold's pick to replace Chief Justice Ron George. She is seen as uncontroversial, but likely to share Arnold's views on corporate power.
Outlook: Lean Confirm
State Supreme Court retention - Ming Chin: Chin was in the minority that voted to uphold the state's ban on marriage equality in 2008, and is one of the most right-wing justices on the state Supreme Court. I want to see him go, but it doesn't look likely.
Outlook: Likely Retention
State Supreme Court retention - Carlos Moreno: Moreno was the only justice who courageously voted to overturn Prop 8 at the State Supreme Court last year, and has been a reliable vote for equality and so should be voted to be retained.
Prop. 19 (Marijuana): If passed, this proposition would legalize the possession and growing of marijuana for personal use of adults 21 years and older, and allow state and local governments to regulate and tax related commercial activities. This proposition winning may make Washington reexamine its own policy towards marijuana, since what happens in California often makes it way to the other side of the country. Polls have shown Yes leading by single digits, so I'll call 19 a passing proposition.
My recommendation: YES! 10/21/2010 Outlook: Lean Pass
Prop. 20 (Redistricting Congressional Districts): This proposition would amend the state Constitution be amended to have the Citizens Redistricting Commission (prop 11 from 2008) redistrict for the U.S. House of Representatives seats. This initiative calls for each district being composed of people of the same income level and people with the same work opportunities, which to me feels like a backdoor to the old bygone Jim Crow ways. And passing this prop while giving free passes to Republican-controlled legislatures in Texas and Florida to gerrymander the hell out of those states is likely to put California at a disadvantage when competing for federal dollars. In addition, there is no way this commission can be held accountable.
My recommendation: NO! 10/21/2010 Outlook: Toss-up/Lean Fail
Prop. 21 (Vehicle License Surcharge): Establishes an $18 annual vehicle license surcharge to provide funds for maintaining the state parks and wildlife programs, and grants surcharged vehicles free admission to the state parks. Our cash-starved state parks could use the extra funds. In addition, the governor can't take funds from this coffer when other coffers are low. The tough economy may dampen the chances of this prop passing, though.
My recommendation: YES! 10/21/2010 Outlook: Toss-Up
Prop. 22 (Local Government Funds): Prohibits the state from taking funds used for local government services. It is well-intentioned but flawed. The cities and counties would get an immediate payment of over $1 billion, forcing further cuts to vital public services.
My recommendation: NO! 10/21/2010 Outlook: Toss-Up/Lean Fail
Prop. 23 (Suspension of AB 32): Backed by Texas oil interests, this prop would suspend AB 32 until unemployment dropped to an unrealistic 5.5% for a whole year and hurt the state's fledgling green jobs industry, doing the exact opposite of what its backers claim: it would actually kill more jobs than create more jobs. (Here in "business-friendly" Texas, the economic situation is also pretty bad, with unemployment here at its highest level since the late '80s [and me being unable to find a job to save my life] and an $18 billion deficit for the 2011 budget session, which will make 2003 look like the good old days.) Polls have shown a low double-digit lead for the No side.
My recommendation: NO! NO! NO! 10/21/2010 Outlook: Likely Fail
Prop. 24 (Corporate Loopholes): A long-overdue measure that would close corporate tax loopholes, reducing the budget deficit by $2 billion.
My recommendation: YES! 10/21/2010 Outlook: Toss-Up
Prop. 25 (Majority Vote on Budget): Another very long-overdue measure that eliminates the ridiculous 2/3rds rule to pass a budget in the state legislature. This prop is passing by double-digits in the polls.
My recommendation: YES! YES! YES! 10/21/2010 Outlook: Likely Pass
Prop. 26 (Two-Thirds Vote on Fees): Would require two-thirds vote approval for the imposition of certain state and local fees, including those on businesses that adversely impact the local community and environment. The last thing we need is higher vote thresholds.
My recommendation: NO! NO! NO! 10/21/2010 Outlook: Toss-Up
Prop. 27 (Redistricting Commission): This proposition eliminates the Citizens Redistricting Commission from Prop 11, which barely passed, suggesting some voters have some doubts about its effectiveness. This commission also gives Republicans much more power than their current share of the population.
My recommendation: YES! 10/21/2010 Outlook: Toss-Up
Until recently there were a lot of things I didn’t know about the role of the state Attorney General (AG). In particular I had no idea how much control that office has over my uterus.
For example, the AG plays a key part in framing and enforcing laws concerning reproductive rights, including responsibility for enforcing the F.A.C.E (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) Act, for privacy protection and for bringing or not bringing lawsuits against those involved with reproductive rights.
Or the Oklahoma law, defended by Attorney General Drew Edmonson, forcing women to have ultrasounds (an exam not normally done that early in a pregnancy) explained to them in great detail before they are allowed to have an abortion.
In short, the Attorney General has the power to harass (or protect) abortion providers, enact laws forcing us to have procedures we may not want and to invade (or protect) our privacy.
More than six weeks after the Department of Justice released disturbing statistics about the increase in San Francisco's crime rates during SF DA Kamala Harris' tenure as District Attorney, Harris continues to run scared from her record. With Friday's release of a video comprised of TV news footage showing local outrage at Harris' revolving door system of justice, her failure to pursue the death penalty against a hardened cop-killer, and her dropping of prosecutions related to the San Francisco crime lab scandal, Harris still has provided no answers to the people of San Francisco or to California voters.
In the video, one police officer expresses his anger and disappointment about Kamala Harris' refusal to seek the death penalty against a convicted cop killer:
"The people of San Francisco should be outraged by this. These...criminals know in San Francisco if you want to commit a crime, you come here, you do it, you plead it down. The next thing you know you do three months when you should be doing 12 years in state prison for it."
Those aren't the Kelly campaign's words. They are the words of a San Francisco police officer on the evening news.
Instead of responding to these damaging news reports, Harris' campaign has again resorted to personally attacking Attorney General candidate Chris Kelly and manipulating statistics to hide her abysmal record on crime.
Harris fails to acknowledge that the video itself is a compilation of actual news reports from Bay Area television stations, including responses from law enforcement and regular citizens about the rising crime rates in San Francisco. And their effect is devastating.
Watch this short web video of recent news media reports about Kamala Harris' job performance as District Attorney.
This week we celebrate President Obama's signing of landmark health care reform legislation into law. Thanks to this historic bill, 32 million Americans will gain access to health insurance, health care will become more affordable, and no American will ever again be denied coverage when they get sick or because of pre-existing conditions.
But before the ink was even dry on President Obama's signature, the attorneys general of 13 states -- led by Florida Republican AG Bill McCollum, trying to score political points in his campaign for governor -- immediately filed a lawsuit to try to block the new law in the courts. One of my Republican opponents, Tom Harman, is even encouraging current California Attorney General Jerry Brown to join them.
On Thursday, I had an opportunity to visit with young students solving problems, sharing ideas and diligently working on a science project together with their teachers. The students were doing this during an after-school program, at Politi Elementary School, in the Pico Union neighborhood of Los Angeles. Politi Elementary is one of many elementary schools participating in LA's BEST, an after school education, enrichment and recreation program serving more than 28,000 children in economically challenged neighborhoods of Los Angeles. I was fortunate to see first hand the positive impact this type of program has on young students during a program tour, led by LA's BEST Executive Director Carla Sanger.
This tour highlighted the significance of engaging kids at an early age in academic, physical, and cultural activities that keep them off the streets and out of California's criminal justice system. The LA's BEST After School program at Politi Elementary School is a shining and innovative example of how young people can thrive in a constructive learning environment instead of turning to drugs, gang activity or other delinquent behaviors. To date, more than 212,000 children have gone through LA's BEST and many are now lawyers, police officers, educators, artists and small business owners.
Though they also haven't been spared from the state's budget cuts, after-school programs keep children occupied during the hours when violent juvenile crime is most likely to occur. Recent statewide and local evaluations of California's after-school programs found consistently positive results for students enrolled in these programs, including improved student achievement, increased school attendance and improved personal behavior. In fact, studies show that kids in LA's BEST are 30 % less likely to commit juvenile crime and 20% less likely to drop out of school. With public school funding being decimated statewide and many after-school programs being cut, I believe it is essential to preserve and expand programs like LA's BEST, in order to keep kids safe, engaged and off the streets.
As Attorney General, expanding educational and after-school programs for young people is a major component of my crime prevention plan. I will work to increase educational and economic opportunities for all Californians, reduce gang activity, strengthen effective rehabilitation programs, and improve community-police relations. By implementing these crime prevention initiatives, we can make California a safer and stronger place for our families and kids. When our children are actively engaged in school-through effective teachers, supportive administrations and afterschool programs-they do not turn to gangs and crime as a means to find a supportive community.
I will also work alongside educators and organizations like LA's BEST to help young people create a path to success. I will work to improve educational opportunities and expand after-school programs that result in greater productivity and reduced crime in our communities. I will also work to prevent crime through smart, effective policies that address the roots of criminal activity and help keep our communities safe. As the next Attorney General, I will bring an innovative and results-oriented approach to fighting crime and protecting the citizens of California.
For more information about my campaign, please visit www.kelly2010.com.
Protecting kids from online predators has always been one of my highest priorities.
While serving as chief counsel for Facebook, I worked with Attorneys General across the nation to help build a safer internet -- and I've seen some of the ideas I've championed enacted into law.
One of those ideas I championed was requiring convicted sex offenders to provide their online identifiers as part of their registrations, and as a result, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo was able to announce that more than 3,500 registered New York sex offenders were removed from MySpace and Facebook under the state's "e-STOP" law that we crafted together.
On Tuesday, San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris held a public media event to introduce a bill she is sponsoring in the legislature that purports to keep online predators off social networking sites, including Facebook and MySpace.
So the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that the revolution will NOT be telvised. Attorney General candidate Ted Lieu (a miliatary prosecutor himself) has a few choice words for them:
"The goal of the American civil justice system is to seek justice. The Supreme Court's decision to censor the public broadcast of the historic trial to reverse California's Proposition 8 amounts to a fear of too much justice. Our courts are not star chambers, where testimony and rulings are made in secret and hidden from the public.
"The Court majority's rationale that broadcasting this trial will result in "irreparable harm" has no basis in fact. The Court states that witnesses may suffer harm because they are concerned about possible "harassment" if the public actually found out what they will say under oath. Under that rationale, the Court should seal the transcript of this entire proceeding, not allow any non-witness to attend the proceeding, and block newspapers from reporting on this trial.
...
I served on active duty in the armed forces because I believe America is the best country in the world. Members of our armed forces have given their blood to defend our democracy and our constitutional liberties, including freedom of the press, which is perhaps the greatest check on governmental overreach. The Court's overreach in censoring the broadcast of this trial is something you would expect from the Supreme Court of Iran, not the Supreme Court of the United States."
(Calitics will promote to the front page a reasonable number of candidate diaries that the Editorial Board believes communicate substantive policy positions of which the Calitics community should be aware - promoted by jsw)
Last week, Governor Schwarzenegger introduced his latest bad idea for solving our state's budget crisis: privatizing California's prison system.
Prisons must be managed with public safety, inmate welfare, and rehabilitation as top priorities -- not maximizing corporate profits. What's more, we can't facilitate the creation of new powerful corporations with the financial incentive to lobby for the imprisonment of more and more residents of our state.
Turning over control of some or all of California's prisons to private corporations would be a disaster for California -- and we can't let it happen.
So I've launched a new petition -- on Facebook and also on my campaign website -- to spread the word and build opposition to Governor Schwarzenegger's privatization proposal. I hope you'll take a minute to join me, urging the governor and your legislators not to privatize California's prisons.
It's great to be here blogging with you at Calitics! I look forward to stopping by frequently as my campaign for Attorney General continues over the coming weeks and months.
Today I want to share some news with you -- and get your feedback.
In today's fast-paced environment, California deserves better than ineffective policies that are out of touch with ever-changing technology and fail to keep our communities safe. As the next Attorney General of California, I will apply an innovative, fresh, and tech-savvy approach to fighting crime and protecting the citizens of California.
So this week I'm rolling out my new plan, Innovation First: Using Technology to Fight Crime, which will combat the fiscal, legal, and public safety problems that Californians deal with on a daily basis. This is a call to action. The next Attorney General must be willing to utilize new and innovative tools that reduce crime, keep violent offenders off our streets, protect our children, and provide local law enforcement with the resources they need to fight crime.
In between budget posts, I've lately been in a bit of a tiff with Chris Kelly, an Attorney General candidate and former Chief Privacy Officer at Facebook, over his stale, predictable fearmongering about potential early prison releases. There are a bunch of other estimable candidates in the Attorney General's race, one who did himself a ton of good yesterday by leading the fight against the offshore drilling proposal. So maybe I shouldn't take too much time on Kelly. But there's a short-term policy fight coming up next month to determine how to implement $1.2 billion in cuts to the corrections budget, and with some good activism and common sense we can stare down the Tough on Crime crowd and post a needed victory for sensible criminal justice policies. Therefore it's worth looking at Kelly's latest post:
The prison release plan is supposed to save $1.2 billion, but that's just accounting trickery. In fact, a Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics study finds that nearly 70% of early-released inmates are rearrested within three years, 20% of them for violent crime. That will mean more than $3 billion in increased costs from crime while causing serious harm to hundreds of thousands of innocent victims.
I've spoken to police chiefs, law enforcement groups and civic associations throughout California about the issue, and they're deeply worried about the crime wave this scheme will unleash. It will be hard enough to make San Jose a safer community in tough economic times without the problems caused by early release.
Obviously, Kelly hasn't talked to the California Police Chiefs Association, which endorsed the plan as a smart step to begin to move away from the failed prison policies of the last thirty years. Foremost among these new ideas is the concept of targeting resources - instead of warehousing the terminally ill or blanket strict supervision on everyone released regardless of determining possibility of recidivism, we can put resources into programs that provide opportunity for prisoners to pay their debt to society and move on. This deal doesn't do all of that, but it does, for example, put ill and infirm prisoners under home detention or in a care facility, which doesn't impact public safety and saves money. It offers incentives for prisoners to complete rehabilitation plans. It reviews the cases of illegal immigrants in jails instead of just tossing them in the lap of the ICE to deal with, which would actually be the kind of misguided policy Kelly warns against. And most important, it includes an independent sentencing commission, outside of politics, which can look at our sentencing laws and make recommendations for the legislature to adopt on an up-or-down vote.
Using the buzzword of "early release" of "dangerous prisoners" is an old Tough on Crime ploy from way back, evoking memories of the Willie Horton ad in the 1988 Presidential race. It's irresponsible and not relevant to what is being discussed. We have the perfect Tough on Crime prison policy right now - and it's not working in every respect, to the extent that federal courts have stepped in to take control of it. Overcrowded prisons cannot fulfill their core mission of rehabilitating those jailed, and that's especially true where nonviolent offenders who need medical treatment for addiction and not incarceration are concerned. Brute force has not worked in making the state safer and has certainly caused our budget to skyrocket. And the truth is that more sensible policies can save money and create better prisons at the same time.
We need real reform in prison and parole policy, through concentrated resources, community corrections, and maintaining manageable prison capacity for those who really need to be there, and what will get decided in the legislature next month represents an important step. It can be easily derailed by fearmongering from the likes of Chris Kelly, trying to win an election on the backs of the poor and disenfranchised, on whom such brute-force policies typically rain down.
Over the next month I'll be looking far more closely at this issue, as it's the first big battle in regaining control of our state. And it's a winnable fight.
Far be it from me to agree so aggressively with my friend Steve Maviglio, but he's absolutely right that Chris Kelly is making a fool out of himself by holding to outdated and dangerous Tough on Crime rhetoric in his campaign for Attorney General. Kelly, the former Facebook chief privacy officer, has created a Cause called "Protect Our Communities." As Maviglio says, George Runner couldn't have done it better himself:
Do you think the early release of 20,000 convicted felons will solve California's budget crisis? I don't.
Please stand with me: Click here to join my new "Protect California Communities" cause on Facebook and help me build grassroots opposition to this phony budget plan!
Our state is already more than $26 billion in debt and issuing hundreds of millions more in IOUs every week.
We need innovative solutions to get out of this mess. But a plan by Governor Schwarzenegger and some in the Legislature to early release nearly 20,000 felons from state prison is not one of them.
I'm all for prison reform -- but this is surrender, not reform. Even if it would save us money -- which it won't -- putting thousands of dangerous criminals back on the streets is a risk that California should never take.
Please stand with me: Click here to join my new "Protect California Communities" cause on Facebook and help me build grassroots opposition to this phony budget plan!
"Dangerous criminals" back on the streets include the terminally ill, nonviolent drug offenders and people returned to prison for the crime of technical parole violations, which eats up about 2/3 of total incarcerations in California in any given year. This is the kind of absurd rhetoric that has our prisons full to bursting, that has created 1,000 sentencing laws passed by the Legislature in the past 30 years, ALL OF THEM increasing sentences, that has turned our parole policy and prison health care systems into a national joke and a federal crime, that has cost the state billions in overtime for prison guards and overall system costs, that has scared the public into passing really dangerous, pernicious laws like three strikes, that has nearly busted our Treasury, destroyed our corrections system and eliminated any possibility for rehabilitation.
The Attorney General position can be one of leadership in producing alternatives to our prison crisis. Kelly has forfeited any ability to call himself a leader by playing to the least common denominator. He can go back now to devising schemes to strip privacy on social networking sites.
Say what you will about her, but Harris has done more to create innovative programs and solution to both our crime problems and our prison crisis than all but a handful of DAs nationwide. In a state with a repeat offender rate of about 70%, substantially above the national recidivism rate, we should be looking for new ways to treat crime. Rather than simply packing more people in jail until they get out, and almost inevitably end up back in the criminal justice system, we should attempt to find ways to reintegrate people into the
Back on Track has lowered recidivism rates among the participating drug offenders to less than 10 percent as compared to statewide recidivism rates of more than 50 percent among the same population. All of the nearly 100 current participants are employed and/or in school, and 90 percent of participants with child support obligations are in good standing and making their required payments. Defendants are not eligible if they have histories of gang involvement, gun possession or violence.
Those are really good statistics, and we should be applauding this data. But, as with any program in this population, there are going to be people who go astray from the program. The LA Times found such a story yesterday (which was then dutifully rewritten by the Chronicle) about an unfortunate victim of a mugging in San Francisco.
A stranger, later identified as Alexander Izaguirre, snatched her purse and hopped into an SUV, police say. The driver sped forward to run Kiefer down. Terrified, she leaped onto the hood and saw Izaguirre and the driver laughing. The driver slammed on the brakes, propelling Kiefer to the pavement. Her skull fractured. Blood oozed from her ear.
Only after the July 2008 attack did Kiefer learn of the crime's political ramifications. Izaguirre, police told her, was an illegal immigrant who had pleaded guilty four months earlier to a drug felony for selling cocaine in the seedy Tenderloin area.
He had avoided prison when he was picked for a jobs program run by San Francisco Dist. Atty. Kamala Harris, now a candidate for California's top law enforcement post. In effect, Harris' office had been allowing Izaguirre and other illegal immigrants to stay out of prison by training them for jobs they cannot legally hold.(LAT 6/22/09)
Is this unfortunate? Yes, certainly. Is it a reason to shut down the Back on Track Program? Definitely not.
Izaguirre is an interesting case because he is an undocumented immigrant. So, there is a touch of nativism, and "ship them out of here" to this case. Now, it is an outstanding question as to whether he should have been deported. There is a real case for that. However, it should not be the duty of local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws. In theory, that is what ICE should be doing.
You could make an argument that there be some reporting system of felonies to ICE,but that is a question of federal, not local law. And bringing up this seperate question in the context of Back On Track preys on the fears of the public without actually helping the problem.
Let's try this thought experiment: In Oakland, a parolee murdered two sisters in their hotel room. Is that a tragedy? Absolutely, but we cannot simply use that tragedy as an excuse to end all parole.
In our society, and pretty much every modern society, we have chosen to live with a low level of crime. I know, I know, we aren't supposed to say that, but it's the price of living in a society with civil rights. If we didn't mind police cameras in our living rooms, we could probably reduce crime substantially, but then we are living under the watchful eye of Big Brother. We've opted to keep Big Brother shackled in most areas of our lives, and so we must deal with the occasional crime.
Kamala Harris may not be perfect, after all she is a politician. However, this program is a valuable attempt to cut the ToughOnCrimeTM crap that Republicans like George Runner are peddling. In fact, Tom Harman, a Republican state Senator from the OC who is also running for AG, even got a link to his press release on the front page of the Chronicle's SFGate.com site. (A quick note to the Chronicle's web people and really everybody else: PR "Newswire" is just a stream of press releases. Linking to it as a "newswire" is rather deceptive.)
We need to address the really serious questions in our criminal justice system, and providing successful rehabilitation programs is a win-win-win. It's good for the offender, it's good for the state as it is cheaper, and it is good for the public safety. There will be failures in all of these programs, but they will always get outsized coverage. I guess the successful rehabilitation of a drug dealer doesn't make for as interesting of a story. But the success stories are extremely important for the future of our state.
(I want to welcome SF's District Attorney Kamala Harris. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
States across our country are facing budget deficits. California is projected to begin next fiscal year with a deficit of nearly 25 billion dollars, equaling one fourth of the state's entire general fund. Over 10 billion of that general fund supports corrections and law enforcement. In this fiscal crisis, there is no denying the facts: tough budget times are here for public safety agencies. As the District Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, I am personally familiar with the difficult circumstances we face. Without a significant shift in local and state practices, we can predict that shrinking law enforcement and corrections funding will result in higher crime rates, less support for victims, and fewer offenders being held accountable. If ever there was a time to think outside the box and break with the failed approaches of the past, the time is now. We need to do something different.
In San Francisco, I have developed a smart on crime approach: we must be tough on serious and violent offenders while we get just as tough on the root causes of crime. In my office, we have raised felony conviction rates and sent more violent offenders to state prison, at the same time we have launched innovative, cost effective approaches to reduce recidivism, truancy, and childhood trauma. With a genuine investment in breaking cycles of crime, we can improve public safety at the same time that we save precious public resources.
Today, Chief Privacy Officer at Facebook Chris Kelly announced an exploratory committee for the race for California Attorney General. He joins a field that includes Assemblymembers Ted Lieu, Pedro Nava and Alberto Torrico; San Francisco DA Kamala Harris, and Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo. In his statement, which you can find at his website, Kelly talked about efficienct and effective government, Internet safety, proper training and equipment for law enforcement, and stopping trafficking. The words "prisons," "jails," "corrections" or "parole" was not mentioned.
Our prison system is a mess. We have the highest recidivism rate in the country, mostly because 2/3 of our prisoners returning to jail go there because of technical violations of their parole. This turns jails into giant holding pens instead of areas for rehabilitation and treatment, as well as colleges for nonviolent offenders on how to get involved in violent crime. The overstuffed prisons cost more money to staff and service as they become more dangerous, leading to the state spending more on incarceration than higher education. Despite all this spending, conditions in the prisons are medieval, with the ACLU proposing the closure of the LA County Men's Central Jail. Prison officials are discussing release of 8,000 nonviolent and terminally ill offenders, but that's a drop in the bucket. We also have denied prisoners their Constitutional right to health care, and have a federal receiver now remedying that situation, taking it out of the hands of the legislature. The "tough on crime" mantra that has ruled the thinking of both parties on this issue has utterly and completely failed.
And yet, our Attorney General candidates and our gubernatorial candidates view this absolute crisis as just another check on their list, instead of the serious problem it is. Gavin Newsom didn't bring it up in his speech, though I did ask him about it in the blogger meeting afterwards. He talked about how we need a re-entry strategy better than the failed parole system, and cited some re-entry reforms in San Francisco that have helped matters. And he stated that having the courts step in to fix the problem presents an opportunity for real reform. With respect to the drug war, which lies at the heart of this, he expressed his support for drug courts and mental health courts and the kind of options that wouldn't consign nonviolent offenders to the rigors of overcrowded prison life when they need medical treatment. And he vowed to have more detailed programs available soon. But when it counted, on stage, he said nothing. Jerry Brown did tackle the issue, but his non-stop fight against the prison health care receiver and sensible steps like Prop. 5 destroy any credibility he may have had on the issue.
I have appreciated Greg Lucas' interviews with some of the candidates in the Attorney General's race, and I have paid particular attention to their views on the prison crisis. (over)
Friend of Calitics Ted Lieu has shown a lot of leadership during the housing crisis, attempting time and again to hold the mortgage brokers responsible and get sensible legislation passed that protects homeowners. It's been his signature issue the past two years. Now he's going to run for Attorney General.
Democratic Assemblyman Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, filed paperwork this week to run for attorney general in 2010.
Lieu is the third Democrat to make the move, following San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who announced she was exploring a run in mid-November, and former Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla, who filed in July.
Harris and Lieu and Canciamilla can answer one question for me that would help me in my decision for 2010. Do they feel they can keep stonewalling the Federal Prison Receiver, as Jerry Brown has, and refusing to comply with providing prisoners an environment that doesn't violate their Constitutional rights, or do they feel that the failure in leadership over 30 years of wrong-way sentencing and "tough on crime" nonsense needs to be stopped. Solving the prison crisis ought to be the foremost issue for the state's top cop.
Water-boarding is term that describes strapping an individual to a board, with a towel pulled tightly across his face, and pouring water on him or her to cut off air and simulate drowning.
When asked directly last week whether he thought waterboarding is constitutional, Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey was evasive. As noted by NPR, Mukasey "danced around the issue of whether waterboarding actually is torture and stopped short of saying that it is." "If it amounts to torture," Mukasey said carefully, "then it is not constitutional."
Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would vote against Mukasey unless he denounces such specific forms of torture.
What about the Democrats in the U.S. Senate and other Democratic Presidential candidates? Will they oppose Mukasey unless he denounces the use of torture by our government?
"The right to vote is fully protected under the XV Amendment of the US constitution. Anybody that uses any intimidation tactics should be prosecuted with the full power of the law. When Mr. Nguyen or anybody else uses the printing materials such as letterhead of an anti-immigrant organization it shows intent to intimidate. How more clear can it be? I feel disappointed that it was LULAC that had to call the State Attorney General's office to find out the results of the investigations rather than the AG call us. When I spoke with Mr. Schons he said that the case was closed back in February, they really dropped the ball. We are going to ask the US Attorney General to fully investigate this issue."
The California Attorney General's office announced today that Tan Nguyen will not face charges in the fraudulent letter he sent out to disenfranchise Latino voters. Former Attorney General Bill Lockyer quickly moved into action to ensure Nguyen was held accountable. Unfortunately he did not have enough time in his term left. Democrat(although I am hesitant to call him that at this point) Jerry Brown took over as Attorney General. His spokesman Gary Schons is quoted as saying
"We had to prove that they intended to intimidate lawfully registered voters. We found no evidence that they intended to intimidate lawfully registered voters. In fact, the first line of the letter said, 'If you're a lawfully registered voter, we encourage you to vote.' A lot of people missed that."
No kidding a lot of people missed it Mr. Schons, it was meant to be missed. Even Republicans were calling for his head.
So is there something that Jerry Brown missed here? Follow me after the flip for more...
