"We applaud those members of the California delegation who fought in 2009 to bring clean energy jobs to the state and reduce our national dependence on foreign oil, particularly Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and the 23 members of the House of Representatives who received a perfect score for their environmental votes," said Warner Chabot, CEO of the California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV).
League of Conservation Voters Greenwashes Feinstein's Environmental Record
by Dan Bacher
The California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) on Monday greenwashed the environmental record of Dianne Feinstein by praising her for earning a 100 percent score in the national League of Conservation Voters' 2009 National Environmental Scorecard, even though Feinstein has collaborated with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in campaigning for the construction of a peripheral canal and new dams that would seal the doom of California's imperiled Central Valley salmon and Delta fish populations.
Feinstein is now sponsoring an amendment in the Senate, at the behest of Westlands Water District, to strip protections under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for Sacramento River Chinook salmon, Delta smelt, Central Valley steelhead and the southern resident population of killer whales. She has persistently lobbied to increase water exports to subsidized agribusiness interests that irrigate toxic soil on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley.
After receiving a letter from agribusiness giant Stewart Resnick of Paramount Farms, Feinstein also pressured the Obama administration to convene an "independent" panel of the National Academy of Sciences to review the biological opinions for Delta smelt and Central Valley salmon in January.
Yet CLCV CEO Warner Chabot gushes over what a great "environmental leader" that Feinstein is. "We applaud those members of the California delegation who fought in 2009 to bring clean energy jobs to the state and reduce our national dependence on foreign oil, particularly Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and the 23 members of the House of Representatives who received a perfect score for their environmental votes," said Chabot. "The 2009 Scorecard clearly exposes numerous other legislators for their terrible voting record and willingness to put corporate polluters and other special interests ahead of a cleaner, more secure energy future for California."
The salmon collapse, spurred by increased water exports to Feinstein's corporate agribusiness buddies, has resulted in the loss of 23,000 jobs to coastal and inland communities in California and Oregon. The Sacramento River fall Chinook salmon run reached a new record low of 39,530 fish in 2009.
Rather than praising her, the CLCV could have used the release of this so-called "scorecard" as a chance to ask Feinstein to do the right thing and abandon her campaign to destroy the California Delta and West Coast salmon fisheries. But instead, they portray Feinstein and Boxer as "environmental heroes." If the CLCV and the LCV are so wrong on Feinstein's environmental record, doesn't that cast into doubt their ratings of other Senators and Representatives?
Even Steve Maviglio, the principal of Forza Communications, a Sacramento-based public affairs/campaign firm, admitted in his blog on the California Majority Report, "Despite her anti-solar and anti-water quality efforts, Sen. Dianne Feinstein scored 100 percent, along with long-time economic champion Sen. Barbara Boxer."
If Feinstein is so "anti-solar" and "anti-water quality," could there be an inherent flaw in the way that the scorecard is compiled? How can she possibly receive a 100 percent rating if she is so consistently against solar energy and clean water?
Greenwashing bad environmental policy is nothing new to the California League of Conservation Voters, an organization that styles itself as "the non-partisan political arm of the environmental movement in California." In November, CLCV joined the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Audubon, The Nature Conservancy and Defenders of Wildlife in support of the water policy package that creates a clear path to the construction of a peripheral canal and new dams. The majority of the state's environmental groups opposed both the water policy and water bond bills because they feared their passage will lead to the extinction of Central Valley salmon and Delta fish populations.
"This historic package includes strong protections for the Delta as well as landmark Delta ecosystem protections, conservation and groundwater monitoring measures," claimed Warner Chabot. "While not perfect, this package provides a strong basis for critical reforms to California's complex water issues."
The CLCV "leadership" also adamantly supports Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's fast-track Marine Life Protection (MLPA) Initiative, a cynical attempt by Schwarzenegger to greenwash his deplorable environmental record. A coalition of North Coast environmentalists, fishermen, Indian tribal members, seaweed harvesters, cities and counties has strongly criticized the privately-funded process for conflicts of interest, mission creep, the corruption of the democratic process and wholesale violation of traditional tribal seaweed harvesting and fishing rights.
If you are appalled as I am by CLCV and LCV praising Feinstein's environmental record at a time when a broad coalition of fishermen, environmentalists and Indian Tribes is protesting her war against salmon and salmon fishermen, I urge that you contact them now. Even more importantly, call Feinstein's office and demand that she withdraw her salmon killer amendment to the jobs bill.
Call Senator Feinstein's DC office before 2 pm Pacific time at (202) 224-3841! If you get a busy signal or would prefer to call one of her California offices you can reach her in San Francisco at (415) 393-0707 or Los Angeles at (310) 914-7300.
Below is the press release from CLCV and LCV:
CLCV and LCV Release Scores of Calif. Senators, Members of House
Today, the California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) joined the national League of Conservation Voters (LCV) in releasing the 2009 National Environmental Scorecard, revealing scores for the California delegation in the first session of the 111th Congress.
"We applaud those members of the California delegation who fought in 2009 to bring clean energy jobs to the state and reduce our national dependence on foreign oil, particularly Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and the 23 members of the House of Representatives who received a perfect score for their environmental votes," said CLCV CEO Warner Chabot. "The 2009 Scorecard clearly exposes numerous other legislators for their terrible voting record and willingness to put corporate polluters and other special interests ahead of a cleaner, more secure energy future for California."
In order to find out how your member of Congress performed on the environment, visit the League of Conservation Voters' Scorecard online.
The 2009 Scorecard includes 11 Senate and 13 House votes dominated by clean energy and climate change but also encompassing other environmental issues such as public lands, water and wildlife conservation. In California, 23 House members and both Senators earned a perfect 100 percent score in 2009, while nine House members received an abysmal 0 percent. The average score in 2009 for California members of the House was 63 percent.
"The 2009 National Environmental Scorecard illustrates the extent to which the Obama administration and the 111th Congress began to move our nation towards a clean energy future that will create new jobs, make America more energy independent and curb global warming pollution," said LCV President Gene Karpinski. "However, it also makes clear that there is still much work to be done, first and foremost to finish the work started in the House by swiftly passing a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill in the Senate."
For the California delegation's scores, read the CLCV press release.
For 30 years, the National Environmental Scorecard issued by LCV has been the nationally accepted yardstick used to rate members of Congress on environmental, public health and energy issues. CLCV releases an annual California Environmental Scorecard tallying the votes of the governor and the members of the California Senate and Assembly on priority environmental legislation.
Dianne Feinstein has always been quite cozy with the politically powerful agribusiness of the Westlands Water District. That's very popular with Sean Hannity's Gang, but amongst fisherman and others living in and around the Delta, not so much. Four members of the house, Reps. Garamendi, Lofgren, Miller and Woolsey, wrote a letter questioning her position.
The lawmakers' letter urges Feinstein to cancel her plan to introduce legislation to speed more water withdrawals out of the Sacramento River and San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem.
"Salmon may not have high paid lobbyists like the corporate agricultural interests in the Central Valley, but they are critical to our coastal economy," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, who was among the letter's signatories. "The Feinstein plan will put thousands of families out of work from the fishing industry and local economies of the Pacific Coast."
The farmers are trying to argue that the question of water in the Delta is all about jobs there. And to an extent, that is true. But, at the same time, the agribusinesses there have failed to do anything substantial to change the way they grow in the Westlands. They're growing crops that frankly do not belong there, and then getting righteously indignant about the whole affair.
And on the other side there are the fish. Hannity wants to paint the fish as just the Delta smelt, and that is a serious matter. We really shouldn't be quite so cavalier about wiping another species off the globe. However, there are jobs on the other side of this issue. THis is a question of jobs vs. jobs. Fisherman, while not quite as politically connected as the agribusinesses, are hurting. They are fighting to maintain their way of life, and frankly, as the salmon runs putter out, crabbing season tightens up, further cuts from the Delta would further ravage the coastal economy.
I spend a lot of time up in Bodega Bay these days. It's a fishing town, the largest fishing fleet between San Francisco and the Oregon border to be more specific. And neither Sean Hannity nor Dianne Feinstein could ever convince me of the fact that these fisherman aren't hurting. Salmon is their cash crop, and the water diversions threaten to eliminate these runs completely.
Pretending there are jobs, and people, on only one side of this issue is misleading and dishonest. Perhaps Feinstein, and the Governor, should take a trip to talk to some of these fisherman, and see if they're all hunky dory with the proposed water changes.
I don't normally post vague, unsourced rumors, but I think this is a general sense of those around the Capitol. Specifically, the rumors of Dianne Feinstein entering the governor's race are heating up once again.
It's hard to keep genuine interest, especially from somebody as noticeable as DiFi quiet very long. However, as Robert noticed, DiFi does seem to want people to keep noticing her. I'm not sure all that much has changed since Robert wrote that post back in November, but it seems her attention to the governor gig has increased over the past few months.
So, how's that for some blind rumors on a Friday morning?
On Sept. 4, Resnick wrote to Feinstein, complaining that the latest federal plan to rescue the delta's endangered salmon and shad fisheries was "exacerbating the state's severe drought" because it cut back on water available to irrigate crops. "Sloppy science" by federal wildlife agencies had led to "regulatory-induced water shortages," he claimed.
"I really appreciate your involvement in this issue," he wrote to Feinstein.
One week later, Feinstein forwarded Resnick's letter to two U.S. Cabinet secretaries. In her own letter, she urged the administration to spend $750,000 for a sweeping re-examination of the science behind the entire delta environmental protection plan.
The Obama administration quickly agreed, authorizing another review of whether restrictions on pumping irrigation water were necessary to save the delta's fish. The results could delay or change the course of the protection effort.
To environmentalists concerned with protecting the delta, it was a dispiriting display of the political clout wielded by Resnick, who is among California's biggest growers and among its biggest political donors.
With Gavin Newsom dropping out of the governor's race and leaving Jerry Brown as the only Democratic candidate, speculation was sure to rise about Senator Dianne Feinstein and whether she would seek to avenge her narrow 1990 defeat and run for governor in 2010. Sure, most observers don't think she'd do it, but until she flatly denies it, the chatter will continue.
And it's going to continue after the AP caught up with her and asked her about the governor's race. She didn't rule it out, but made it obvious that she's primarily in it for the attention:
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Thursday she will base a decision on whether to run for California governor next year largely on the solutions the announced candidates put forward to deal with the state's fiscal problems....
"What does affect it is watching to see what precise programs are put forward by various candidates to handle what is a very serious structural budget deficit in this state," Feinstein said. "It's of major consequence and California is in considerable distress, and there have to be reforms."
Feinstein said she would take a close look at candidates' dedication to enacting their proposals as well as their ability to develop enough support to enact the changes.
There's really only one way to read this: she's going to endorse Jerry Brown, say he meets her standards, and wait to do so until a moment when it will be of maximum benefit to Brown.
Feinstein and Brown are good friends. She officiated his wedding in 2005, and speaking as someone who's officiated a wedding himself, one of the last things I'd do is challenge the groom in a race for the state's top office.
Feinstein also will likely be loath to give up her Senate seniority, which is likely to become even more important in the coming years. Ironically, a loss of Democratic seats in the Senate would make DiFi even more powerful and important than she is now, as she's seen as a bipartisan dealmaker.
For those and other reasons, it seems unlikely that DiFi wants to run for governor. Instead she's teasing the media, enjoying the attention she gets. As the interview made clear:
When asked if she had the patience to deal with a state Legislature that has often been described as dysfunctional, she replied: "That's a very good question. It shall be unanswered for the moment."
The reason "it shall be unanswered for the moment" is because she doesn't want to give up the attention she gets out of being seen as a possible candidate. And the "for the moment" statement seems to reinforce the argument I laid out above, that she isn't going to run, and is going to endorse Brown at some moment in the spring of 2010.
California Democrats who think a contested primary is good for the party and good for the ultimate nominee are going to have to keep looking for another candidate - it ain't gonna be DiFi. And thank god for it. As uncertain I am about whether Jerry Brown would be the right person to lead California out of our present crisis, I am completely certain Dianne Feinstein would be the wrong person. Let's hope she decides to retire in 2012 and trouble us no more.
Reaction to the water deal that was approved over the last few days, first by the Senate and then by the Assembly, has been trickling in. If you care to listen to an hour-long program, I recommend the KQED Forum program embedded here.
There was some question as to what the federal response to the measure would be. And, well, apparently Sec. of the Interior Ken Salazar is on board:
Thanks to the California legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger, Californians now have the opportunity to choose a more secure and sustainable water future. This landmark package is a critical step toward bringing California's water infrastructure into the 21st century while restoring California's Bay Delta, on which millions of Californians depend for clean drinking water and their livelihoods. I applaud the leadership, courage, and vision of everyone who helped bring this desperately-needed legislation across the finish line. We will continue to need all hands on deck - at the federal, state, and local levels - in the coming months as we face the possibility of a fourth year of drought and sobering water realities.
And as for DiFi, who has long been close to the Westlands Water District, well, her reaction wasn't such a mystery.
It should be clear to all of us that the current water infrastructure is inadequate to support California's growing population and businesses that depend on clean water. This includes people in our cities, the high-tech sector, fisheries, tourism, and of course, our State's multibillion-dollar agricultural sector. So, this package is really critical to all Californians.
I urge all Californians to support the bond issue. It must be said once more that California has a water infrastructure built for a population of 16 million people. Today, our population is rapidly approaching the 40 million mark. So, the modernization and improvement of our State's water infrastructure is long overdue.
Meanwhile, on the other side of this, you have a growing crowd of organized labor, including the United Farmworkers Union, the California Teachers Association, and the SEIU State Council. They all have slightly different concerns, but at the heart of it is the financing. They are concerned that the debt service will start devouring the budget, and at an estimated 10% of the budget, that is a reasonable concern.
Sometimes Sen. Feinstein gets a hard time around these parts, but on the public option, it seems she and Senator Boxer are paddling in the same direction. Both Senators pushed Sen. Reid to include the public option in the bill that will be brought to the Senate floor.
As the Senate prepares to debate a massive health care overhaul, California Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein are pushing hard for a public option, which would allow the federal government to compete with private insurers.
The two senators are included in a group of 30 who wrote a letter earlier this month to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, asking that a public option be included in the Senate bill. (CapAlert)
The public option, with a state opt-out, was in the bill. It is disappointing that the opt-out provision was included, especially considering how easy it is for health insurance companies to leverage campaign contributions in many state legislatures, it seems that this is the way momentum is running for the time being.
Others who pay more attention to this stuff can probably explain this better, but the logic seems to be that even a less than national public option will have some cost benefits as well as pressure for states to eventually sign on to the public option.
Sen. Feinstein appeared on FoxNews Sunday. And why not? They're fair AND balanced! (h/t Andrew Malcolm)
Anyway, the topic of Guantanamo came up, and DiFi reacts in, well a sane and rational way. When asked by Chris Wallace whether she would be willing to have Gitmo detainees in federal prisons in California, she says yes. Noting that the prisons are virtually un-escapable at their super-max level of security. They cannot escape to wreak havoc on the general population. And frankly, would a Gitmo detainee really have much interest in launching a solo attack on some random rural general store?
Sen. Bond's reaction is one of simple fear. "We don't want them in Missouri," he says. "They will recruit from the general prison population."
Two responses: go to a super-max prison and check it out and then ask how terrorists are viewed in prisons. Not particularly popular.
But, there's fear to be sold here, no point checking the facts when he can simply play to the basest emotions. Kudos to Sen. Feinstein for answering succinctly and honestly while presenting a snapshot of the situation as it exists in the real world.
For a few weeks, we've been highlighting some of the efforts of various lawmakers to highlight some of the out and out stupid with Arnold's furloughs. See, the thing is not the actual furlough policy: he's already pretty much wrapped up mostly winning that fight in the courts. The problem is that Arnold's blanket furlough process doesn't take the actual circumstances on the ground. Sen Ducheny pointed out that when you furlough the tax collectors, we take in less money and there is no net cost savings to the furloughs. Asm. Skinner points out that when you furlough workers that are entirely paid by the federal government, you get no cost savings and end up costing the state federal dollars.
And both of these are all kinds of stupid. Sen. Feinstein, seeing the problem that Asm. Skinner pointed out, passed along a letter from Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue raising concerns that the furlough policy was delaying payments.
Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue says disability claims are rapidly increasing and furloughs could postpone another $15 million in federal payments - worsening California's economic problems. ...
The governor will review the concerns in the letter, but furloughs need to be applied universally to generate savings, regardless of departments' funding sources, {Schwarzenegger spokesman} Cameron said. (AP 8/25/09)
Well, today we get the Governor's response (PDF) to Sen. Feinstein. It spouts some data showing that the delays are minimal and that California is right around average processing time. But what it doesn't address is how exactly furloughing workers.
I get that the workers can schedule their furloughs, and I suppose that is a step in the right direction, but that doesn't really address the issue that this a) saves us NO money and b) hurts California.
Arnold's only real defense for the general policy is that we need some kind of consistency across departments. That somehow if some departments avoid the axe we will be worse off, despite all evidence to the contrary. In other words, he is spending money to shove the heel of his boot into the face of state workers. There will be discipline, and he will make sure of that. To prevent an unproven and probably unrealistic problem that one department would revolt if other departments get their furloughs reduced or eliminated.
See, but that is what governing is all about. Making policy decisions. As an elected official you must make decisions on what areas of government will get priority, and what won't. His blanket furlough system is just lazy governance. Instead of doing the work that would provide the best possible governance for California during the crisis, Arnold thinks it isn't really worth his time, so, on to the other issues.
It's great that Sen. Feinstein has chosen to address this issue, but it would also be great if she would keep up the pressure on stupid as we move forward. And California has a few other figures who could speak a little more loudly on the issue as well.
Joe at Senator Feinstein's local office answered my call this afternoon and let me know that he would pass along my conditional offer of continued support and activism on behalf of many Democratic Party candidates and issues here in San Francisco.
That condition being the Senator's support for a public option in the health insurance reform legislation, Joe then responded to my followup question - "what is the Senator's position?" - with pleasant news.
Feinstein it was said is supportive of the public option and has plans issue a statement to that effect tomorrow.
Looking forward to that--if this is true, at least we know that Senator Feinstein won't object, even if we can't get her to actually help push a public option through.
Of course, if you want to keep up the pressure on DiFi, the Courage Campaign is leading the way.
Ye ole curmudgeon decided to level his sights on Sen. Barbara Boxer today and discuss her re-election chances. He starts out with this lede:
California's U.S. senators tend to fall into two categories - headline-grabbers and dependable workhorses for the state's interests.
Headline grabbers...hmm that would have to be Sen. Feinstein, who relishes her self-designated role of wise moderate woman, that determines what is or is not a deal.
Somehow, I think that Walters meant it the other way around. He references "quixotic political frays" that have "nothing to do with California". Then of course he never gives any examples, leaving the reader to either scratch their head, or trust the wise man of the column.
Walters then brings up the Rasmussen poll from a few weeks ago, which was unsurprising. Like most years Boxer looks vulnerable, tempting the Republicans to throw the kitchen sink to unseat her.
This year the national Republican hierarchy are excited about Carly Fiorina, who gets 41 to Boxer's 45 in the matchup. Of course she has to get past movement conservative Chuck DeVore in the primary. Fiorina's primary is not a shoe-in. It would not be all that surprising to see DeVore win the wingnut vote that dominates Republican primaries. Fiorina will have to dump a ton of cash into the primary to hold DeVore off.
Walters then does his best to weaken Boxer by providing only half of her favorability numbers.
The latest poll, true to form, found Boxer's overall job approval rating among California voters to be fairly low, with just 21 percent holding a "very favorable" view, down six points from March.
When one normally writes about favorability numbers you add up the very favorable and somewhat favorable results to come up with an overall favorability number. In this case, according to this Rasmussen poll, she has a 21% very favorable and a 36% somewhat favorable, for an overall 57% favorabilty rating, which while not great isn't nearly as bad as Walters tries to make it seem.
If Fiorina wins the primary then Boxer will likely have a tougher race in 2010, certainly compared to 2004. We need to be prepared to defend her with all guns blazing. Fiorina certainly comes with a lot of baggage that would be great fodder for blog posts and attack ads.
There are no huge alarm bells ringing right now, no matter what Walters has written, but we need to be on alert and watch closely as we move into election season. Early cash is better than late cash. Give via ActBlue.
California's senior Senator has heard the talk, has heard the voices of her constituents, and basically doesn't care.
"We are getting to the point if people aren't going to respond to the patience and openness of Senator Baucus, we should begin to make a different plan," said Andrew Stern, president of the 2 million-member SEIU.
Stern said his organization issued a release chastising Feinstein last week, because she should "put her foot on the gas, not the brake" on health reform.
"The gas pedal to go where?" Feinstein replied, explaining she has questions about how a broad expansion of health coverage will be paid for.
"I do not think this is helpful. It doesn't move me one whit," she said. "They are spending a lot of money on something that is not productive."
What we have here is a difference of opinion over the nature of representative democracy. Are politicians elected to reflect the will of their constituents, or are they elected to provide their own enlightened opinion on public affairs and public policy? Sen. Feinstein has already given her perspective before. She acknowledged that public opinion in California was sharply against authorizing the war in Iraq, but she voted for it anyway, arguing that she knew things her constituents didn't know (namely, hundreds of lies told by the Bush Administration). On health care, she has the same perspective; we, the citizens of California, had an "accountability moment" in 2006, Feinstein was elected, and now we can all STFU as she applies her own reasoning and belief on health care and other topics.
Needless to say, I don't agree with her perspective. It sounds to me like something that a member of the House of Lords would say rather than a politician in this country. Not to mention the fact that it cuts completely against the trend of participatory democracy that has energized the Democratic side of the aisle since Howard Dean's campaign in 2003-04. Dianne Feinstein thinks your role as a citizen is to vote for her and then keep quiet for six years and she bequeaths her wisdom.
If you don't agree with her, contact her office. I'm sure her staff will file that away somewhere.
The Department of Health and Human Services released a report on the current state of health care in California, and the numbers are striking. It also can help us understand a bit about our budget woes.
19% of all Californians are uninsured, and of those, 71% are in families with at least one full-time worker. Employer-based coverage has dipped to just 54%, meaning the rest have to either go to the individual insurance market, qualify for a public coverage plan like Medicare or Medicaid, or go without. The top two insurance providers in California account for 44% of the health insurance market, and such a duopoly make it easy to just jack up rates year over year. The average family premium has increased 114 percent since 2000. And this causes families to drop coverage due to a lack of affordability. This nugget appears in the report:
"California businesses and families shoulder a hidden health tax of roughly $1,400 per year on premiums as a direct result of subsidizing the costs of the uninsured."
But one other entity suffers from that hidden tax: the state budget. Health care spending by the state has increased well above the CPI, and Medicare and Medi-Cal spending have ballooned because the cost of health care has ballooned. Growing ranks of the uninsured and unemployed increase the numbers eligible for coverage under state programs, and one political party, at least, would rather offer those services instead of watching people die in the street. We hear at the federal level that health reform is entitlement reform; that's just as true at the state level, as bending the cost curve will put state budgets in a better position for the future.
All of this adds up to create a sense of urgency in doing something about overhauling the broken health care system this year. This could have been the narrative that Dianne Feinstein brought forward in public statements, not hand-wringing about the difficulty of getting something done in Washington.
The past couple days on Calitics, we've had Jason Rosenbaum detail grassroots efforts over Dianne Feinstein's confusing comments about and reticence to sign on to comprehensive health care reform. First he highlighted Health Care for America Now's petition urging Feinstein to get on board with health care reform. Then he deconstructed Feinstein's official statement on health care, which was unsatisfactory.
Feinstein is an important part of this debate. She doesn't sit on any of the relevant committees, but she has cachet in Washington, and with real health care reform coming down to just a handful of votes, her views will be crucial to the debate going forward. At a time when 85 percent of respondents to a Field Poll support a public health insurance option to compete with private industry, Feinstein must not be allowed to ignore the will of her constituents, as she did in her vote to authorize the war in Iraq.
Fortunately, practically every progressive organization in the state and even the country is hammering Feinstein for her naysaying, and demanding that she stay true to the principles she laid out, including controlling costs, expanding coverage and stopping the bad practices of the insurance industry, by endorsing a public health insurance option as part of any reform package. In addition to Health Care For America Now, MoveOn created an ad and drove phone calls to Feinstein's office. Today CREDO Mobile joined the fray with a petition asking her to support the public plan, and the return receipt after you sign offers a one-click retweet of a Twitter message to spread the word, which is innovative. The Courage Campaign also has a letter calling on DiFi to stand with the President and support a public option. Courage Campaign also offers one-click forwarding of the message to Twitter, Facebook and MySpace (MySpace still exists?).
Health care reform is the make-or-break issue of this year, and Dianne Feinstein needs to hear from every one of her constituents about it.
(In addition, Firedoglake is whipping the public option in the House, with the goal of finding 40 Democrats who will commit to opposing any bill that DOESN'T have a strong public option contained in it. Presuming that all Republicans will vote against any health care reform, this would have the effect of changing the incentives in Congress, currently tilted toward what the most conservative elements of the Democratic coalition would accept, and move them instead toward what the liberal base of the coalition will demand in exchange for their vote. There are lots of California Democratic House members on their list, so head over and get to the phones!)
2) Prohibiting the denial of insurance because of pre-existing conditions
3) Moving toward either a non-profit model of medical insurance or to one where premium costs can be controlled, either through competition in a public or cooperative model or through a regulated authority.
4) Assuring the financial survival of Medicare, because it is slated to run out of money in 2017.
5) Preventing the transfer of Medicaid costs to states, which could result in billions of dollars of additional loss to the State of California.
6) Establishing means testing for programs like Medicare Part D, which pays for prescription drugs
Clearly, the individual mandate - and how it is funded - is the critical, and as yet unanswered, question.
Huh? Let's look at this more closely over the flip.
You may know that health care reform is in a fair bit of trouble. The defenders of the status quo in Washington, often a bipartisan lot, want to deny consumers choice, force them into a market monopolized by private insurance companies who have shown through their actions over the past several decades that they are concerned about profit and not people, and scream that we cannot afford giving all our citizens high-quality and affordable health care, while spending trillions on banks and military weapons. It's the tragedy of the bipartisan elite consensus that currently rules the roost, and not even the greatest economic crisis since the Depression has so far been able to dislodge it.
The bipartisan elite consensus that governs this country is quite simple. First, deficits and high taxes are always the basic cause of economic stress or the biggest threat facing a recovery, no matter the circumstances. (The corollary is that cutting taxes and spending are the ultimate answer to every economic challenge.) Taxes on the wealthy (excuse me "the most productive") must be kept as low as possible, the military cannot be subject to any budgetary constraint and the national security state cannot be held accountable, business and industry must always be given top priority and all other government expenditures are legislative bargaining chips regardless of their impact on the lives of average Americans. Nobody questions that consensus or even suggests that some other set of priorities might be useful from time to time.
This consensus flies in the face of known public preferences, both in this state and around the country, for a full overhaul of the broken health care system that turns lives into data points on a balance sheet.
The health policy survey of 1,207 registered voters showed that 88 percent of Democrats, 73 percent of nonpartisans and 55 percent of Republicans agree that the health care system either needs significant restructuring or should be completely rebuilt.
"There is bipartisan agreement that the health system needs some fundamental changes, and there is greater impatience that this should be done now," said Mark DiCamillo, director of the California Field Poll.
The poll, funded through a grant by the California Wellness Council, comes as President Barack Obama is calling for overhauling the health care system.
His insistence on a government program to compete with private insurers is infuriating some conservatives, who fear such a plan would drive insurance companies out of business. It is also drawing scorn from some liberals who want a single-payer, government-run program.
But 85 percent of respondents to the Field Poll said they support the general concept of allowing people a choice between privately run and government-run health plans.
"They're not necessarily endorsing the public plan or saying that they would choose it," DiCamillo said. "They just like having alternatives. The introduction of a public plan is supported because it would provide greater choices."
You cannot get Americans to agree with 85% consensus on whether the sky is blue. But this they understand: the system is broken, the pharmaceuticals and the insurers and the HMOs cannot be trusted, and choice to force them - through could old market economics - to compete on price and quality is deeply desirable. Later in the poll, Field finds differences on how to pay for reform, an outgrowth of the Two Santa Claus Theory. But giving people a policy they can support will certainly allow them to swallow the mechanisms for paying for it.
So at this point we need to ask our legislators if they support what 85% of Californians support - a robust public option to compete with private insurance in the health care system. Frankly this is the very least we should have, but without it, we cannot call anything coming from Washington real reform. Open Left and DFA have created a whip tool. Simply put, we need to email our Senators - and the Senate is where health care will be won or lost - to answer four specific questions about whether or not they support the public option:
Write a short note in your own words on why you support a public healthcare option:
A public healthcare option is crucial to controlling costs, the heart of the healthcare crisis.
A public healthcare option will keep private insurance honest.
Then ask your Senators these four questions:
Do you support a public healthcare option as part of reform?
Do you support a public healthcare option that is ready on day one?
Do you support a public healthcare option that is national, available everywhere, and accountable to our government?
Do you support a public healthcare option that has the clout to establish rates with providers and big drug companies?
Conclude by reminding your Senators that you are a constituent, and you expect answers to these questions in writing, via email.
Right now health care reform is reeling. We need this whip count to know where everyone stands and put pressure on our lawmakers to adopt the position of 85% of the public. Please take action today. You can see where Sens. Boxer and Feinstein stand here. This is the most important domestic policy of this generation, and we cannot wait another year to get it right.
If Dianne Feinstein really was backing away from supporting the Employee Free Choice Act, I'd be the first to blast her. But she never supported it in the 111th Congress to begin with. She remains the only Democratic member of the California delegation, in the House or Senate, not to co-sponsor the bill. And she signaled her support for a compromise bill, which has a kind of "early voting" card check where workers mail in their cards to the NLRB, and if 50% return they get a union, three weeks ago. So some reporter got fooled today by a Chamber of Commerce press release suggesting that DiFi "pulled her support" of the Employee Free Choice Act in a meeting with CoC folks from the Santa Clarita Valley.
Yeah, we get it. You want to break news. But at bare minimum, one Jon Dell should have:
Looked up the meaning of the word "cloture," which apparently he does not know, since Feinstein's vote for the bill isn't needed for its passage
Asked Feinstein for comment instead of taking the word of an organization spending millions of dollars to defeat the bill, and
[Diane Feinstein's] proposal would replace the card-check provision, which would allow workers to unionize if a majority signed authorization cards and strip a company's ability to demand a secret ballot election. "It's a secret ballot that would be mailed in ... just like an absentee ballot. The individual could take it home and mail it in," Feinstein said. If a majority mailed the ballots to the National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB would recognize the union.
What about that? Did she say anything about her own "compromise" bill? Well, we don't know, because a bunch of "breathless" delegates from the Santa Clarita Chamber of Commerce who know nothing about the history of the bill or Feinstein's position apparently didn't ask her about it, they just told their story to an equally incurious reporter who quickly decided that they "broke national news" in a "major turn of events."
This doesn't take Feinstein off the hook or anything - she ought to support the perfectly reasonable provisions of the bill as they stand right now. The California Labor Federation is engaging in a two-day hunger strike in front of her San Francisco office (1 Post Street) to bring attention to DiFi's position on Employee Free Choice. But this "breaking news" is, um, broken.
DiFi was at Livermore for the opening of the Livermore Ignition Facility, which itself is an interesting story that could revolutionize our energy future. In short, it would create a fusion reaction from the firing of a bunch of lasers on a spherical hydrogen clump. In theory, it could also solve our nuclear waste problem. It's all quite fascinating.
But that's not the only thing that grabbed my attention. Carla Marinucci, the Chronicle's politics writer, caught this audio clip on the Governor's site. Check the audio, but Carla helfpully transcribed it:
"I have been around in 15 elections. I have never seen a time when the voters did what they did, in view of what they were told about cuts, in the enormous defeat of these propositions,'' she said. "I can't give you the reason for it, but I can tell you, to me it was astonishing.''
"And what they said is, in so many words, take the cuts, because that's the alternative. And nobody wants them, but people have to understand.''
Frankly, this is simply wrong. What they told the Legislature to do was to do their job. The voters weren't simply saying cut, they were saying we don't want this ridiculous spending cap. But, DiFi just goes ahead and takes the Jarvis bait, hook, line and sinker.
The people did not say anything about cuts. In fact, they spoke out strongly against cuts by rejecting Props 1D and 1E that cut social services for children and the mentally ill, respectively. The people are saying they want a functional government that is responsive, not demanding, of the people.
But apparently, Sen. Feinstein is ok with the cuts to teach the people of California a lesson or something like that. Look, she wouldn't be the only person to say this, I've heard it said by many progressives. The trouble is that it's really tough to teach a lesson to the people who are most impacted by the cuts, children, the disabled, and other disadvantaged Californians. We need revenue. Now. Whether that's a majority vote measure or some other form, these cuts-only budgets simply cannot be all that is left on the table. It simply isn't right to let people die for the sake of a lesson.
UPDATE: Arnold has more cuts planned. This batch includes suspending the number of days that animal shelters have to keep strays, school bus service, and more in-home supportive service cuts. Hope you don't let your dog walk away or have a relative who needs some care...
UPDATE: From the comments, americarocks suggest you Contact DiFi to tell her why you voted NO. Not a bad idea.
The talk of the nation yesterday was, of course, Arlen Specter's switch from Republican to Democrat in the U.S. Senate, effectively delivering a filibuster-proof majority to the Demcorats upon the seating of Al Franken. Specter's move was precipitated by a poll showing Specter trailing Club for Feudalism Growth candidate Pat Toomey by over 20 points.
Most of the commentary since has correctly focused since on the rightward shift of the Republican Party as a whole, and the regressive Neanderthal nature of its base, which drags the party backward and away from the mainstream even as the progressive base pulls the Democratic Party forward, mostly into positions supported by a majority of the electorate.
But there's a danger in interpreting the Specter decision as simply a function of extremists vs. moderates, playing into a Broderite concern for a loss of "bipartisanship". Let us ignore for a moment the argument that "moderate" should be defined on a national rather than individual Party scale, as those supporting the majority of American opinion: national healthcare, an immediate end to the occupation of Iraq, etc. That would be too easy.
No, the problem is that I can already hear the mewling of Democratic consultants in California, tying any moves toward accountability by progressives, including but not limited to primaries against the likes of Jane Harman or Dianne Feinstein, to the shortsighted actions of Pat Toomey and his merry band of fools.
There's a big difference--so, in the spirit of Jane Harman, allow me to make a pre-emptive strike in an effort to nip any such whining in the bud. The difference isn't whether to take action against squishes and "moderates" in one's party, but where to do so.
At The Plum Line, Greg Sargent takes a look at Dianne Feinstein's lack of support for the Employee Free Choice Act. She remains the only Congressional Democrat from California not to co-sponsor the bill, and according to her spokesman, she's looking for the mythical bipartisanship pony.
"I have thought for some time that the way to approach this issue is by trying to see if there can't be a compromise between the business community, the agriculture community and labor. This is an extraordinarily difficult economy and feelings are very strong on both sides of the issue. I would hope there is some way to find common ground that would be agreeable to both business and labor."
This is complete nonsense. Employers are firing workers who try to organize. They intimidate workers into voting against their better interests. One out of every four unions elections were marred by illegal firings in 2007. I don't know how you can possibly reconcile the two sides given that scenario.
Furthermore, the invocation of the "difficult economy" is another red herring. Sen. Tom Harkin has already done away with this nonsense by pulling out his history book.
The bill's supporters are pointing to the downturn as the ultimate proof of their arguments that labor's decline has helped put the economy out of balance and that only by restoring workers' purchasing power can the nation return to broadly shared prosperity.
"In 1935, we passed the Wagner Act that promoted unionization and allowed unions to flourish, and at the time we were at around 20 percent unemployment. So tell me again why we can't do this in a recession?" said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), invoking the pro-labor changes of the New Deal. "This is the time to do it. This is exactly the time we should be insisting on a fairer playing field for people to organize themselves."
Because of Sen. Specter's announced opposition, the Employee Free Choice Act faces an uphill battle. But at the very least, Californians should expect that all of their representatives in Washington would understand the need to strengthen unions as a means to strengthening the overall middle class, increasing wages and BOOSTING, not hurting the economy. Feinstein has a choice to make, and you can sign this letter from the Courage Campaign to let her know you're watching her.
