As I mentioned earlier this week, Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) was mulling retirement. That announcement came today, just hours after the young Mayor of Redlands, Pete Aguilar, announced he was tossing his hat in the ring.
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands), dean of California's GOP congressional delegation and a fixture in Golden State politics since Ronald Reagan's governorship, on Thursday announced he would retire when his term expires, further shaking up the state's Washington representation.
"After months of consultation with loved ones and family, my wife Arlene and I have decided to retire from public life," he said in a statement. Lewis becomes the sixth member of the state's 53-member House delegation who will be retiring or running for another office. (LA Times)
The district has a 4 point Democratic registration advantage, and Latinos make up 35% of the district. But, this is still a swing district if the Republicans can come up with a strong candidate. Some of the neighboring incumbents, Gary Miller chief among them, have been considering this district as well. With Lewis out of the picture, there could be a number of possible scenarios arising in the next few days.
I read Bill Hedricks post on Calvert being cited by CREW as being one of the most corrupt congressmen in Washington... again. On that basis alone, I would wish Bill luck. But, we should not get too cocky about this. Remember, Maxine Waters made the same list for the 3rd time and Laura Richardson has quickly gotten into a position be be recognized.
No party has a lock on corruption and you don't excuse it for the good deeds done otherwise. Case in point, check the AntiCorruption Republican. Some are still trying to purge the part of the stench of Abramoff. I would be just like their Washington correspondent probably left the courtroom to go join CREW and watch Tom DeLay on Dancin' with the Stars.
I remember Pete McCloskey warning us that politicians are like diapers. They need to be changed frequently... and for the same reason.
I heard a bunch of California Republicans yesterday talking about the effort to get the US Treasury to backstop state borrowing as a "bailout," and the media has fallen for it, using phrases like "California is too big to fail" and other snickering.
This is ridiculous.
Let me explain this fairly clearly. California will need to borrow billions of dollars to cover their cash flow issues, the same way they do every year. Traditionally, the money comes in at different times then the money goes out, necessitating short-term borrowing. Because of the state's miserable credit rating, the interest rates that investors charge for this borrowing are ridiculously high. Usually, banks guarantee those loans, but this year they are balking because of the severity of the state's fiscal picture. So the state has asked the Treasury to step in and guarantee the loans instead.
This would cost the Treasury Department approximately $0.00 dollars to perform. Providing loan guarantees simply means that you are insuring against default, which has never happened in the history of California. Not through the Depression or at any other time. What this would do is stop Wall Street from gouging the state with abnormally high interest rates, pure and simple.
Here are the words of an idiot:
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) predicted little sympathy for the Golden State on Capitol Hill. "I have the feeling that it's going to be a long time before Washington decides that they're going to ask Kansas or Wisconsin to help with California's funding problem," he said.
Nobody would be helping anybody. The federal government would guarantee loans that California would pay back. This is about lowering interest rates to make the price of short-term borrowing lower.
I understand that President Ford rejected these types of loan guarantees for New York City in the 1970s. But later he approved them. By the way, after that so-called "bailout," every single dollar was repaid by the city of New York. How on earth could this be characterized as a bailout?
The Ford Administration, under the direction of Treasury Secretary William Simon, imposed certain conditions on the loan guarantees (which will actually delivered directly by Treasury, so this is somewhat different). That could also happen here, and the Shock Doctrine possibilities are not pleasing. Still and all, this savings (which would only represent about $1 billion dollars in all, 1/20 of the current deficit) would not cost the federal government one red cent and thus shouldn't be used to cram down California in a punitive way. The possibility exists, but it's worth the risk.
UPDATE: Presumably because reporters still don't understand this, Tim Geithner gave an answer today to a question no state was really asking which is being spun as the end of this option, when he plainly states its possibility.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the U.S.'s $700 billion financial rescue package can't be used to aid cities and states facing budget crises.
The law "does not appear to us to provide a viable way of responding to that challenge," Geithner told a House Appropriations subcommittee in Washington today. Among the hurdles: Money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program is reserved for financial companies, he said.
The Treasury chief said he will work with Congress to help states such as California that have been battered by the credit crunch and are struggling to arrange backing for municipal bonds and short-term debt.
He added that cities and states need to "get deficits down" to aid their credit worthiness, but absolutely did not take the option off the table.
The Los Angeles Times is reporting (I know, that phrase sounds inherently contradictory these days) that California stands to receive $26 billion from the jobs bill being shepherded through the Congress.
In other news, Rep. Jerry Lewis is insane. And by that, I mean certifiably guano-crazy. Delusional. Unstable, even.
But first, the money. Yes, our state should be getting $26 billion very soon:
Reporting from Sacramento and Washington -- The $789-billion economic stimulus bill headed toward congressional approval is expected to pour $26 billion into California -- building roads, upgrading schools and launching other projects intended to create or save jobs.
The expectation is that the federal government will funnel at least $9.2 billion directly to the state treasury, mostly for education and healthcare, in the next 18 months. Millions of Californians will get a tax cut aimed at promoting consumer spending.
That all sounds really good. But keep in mind that the budget "compromise" that's being worked out in Sacramento already takes these funds into account. And if, for some reason, California doesn't see the federal help that the budget is taking for granted, god help us all:
The austere budget package in the works in Sacramento already assumes that the federal assistance will wipe out nearly a quarter of California's deficit. If it falls short of that, Californians are in for even more financial carnage; about $1 billion in extra program cuts and tax hikes would be triggered under the budget plan.
The extra cuts would apply to welfare grants, aid to the elderly and disabled, and Medi-Cal. State colleges and universities would also lose money, as would the court system.
It'll come out of you one way or another, don't worry. For all the Republicans like to chirp on about not raising taxes, it just means that if you try to send your kids to a good state school or community college, it'll be even more expensive for you. But don't worry, you got to keep your marginal rate low. Or something.
I would have you keep in mind, though, just how far $26 billion really goes in the State of California. I was just on a conference call with Los Angeles City Council President Eric Garcetti a couple of days ago wherein he mentioned that the City of Los Angeles alone has $13 billion worth of shovel-ready public works projects--especially school construction and renovation, as well as transportation projects--and that the city only expects to see $500 million in federal stimulus--or, less than 4% of what they could use. Bottom line: this is a mere down payment. Maybe not even that.
But back to the deranged affliction of Jerry Lewis. See, this is what Jerry Lewis had to say about the possibility of California being dropped a federal lifeline:
The measure has its critics. Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands), who is expected to be joined by most if not all of his fellow California Republicans in Congress in opposing the measure, said it would "spur permanent growth in government programs and spending that will hamstring future budgets and plunge our nation further into debt every year."
Apparently, the hamstringing of future budgets and the sewer-pipe-deep plunge our nation has already taken into debt aren't enough to want Representative Lewis to want to just possibly try out something different. No, his main concern, ladies and gentlemen? Limiting the growth of government programs! It doesn't matter that people are jobless. It doesn't matter that private employers don't have the wherewithal to pick up the slack, nor does it matter that we're in desperate need of infrastructure improvement. No, what matters, simply put, is that government not grow any bigger.
And this is the key element here: Jerry Lewis and his fellow Republicans in both Washington and Sacramento are like little children walking on the sidewalk trying to make sure that they don't step on any cracks. They're paying such good attention to making sure they don't step on any of the "government growth" cracks that they've forgotten where they're going or why. All they know is that they don't want to step on a crack, because if they do, they'll lose the imaginary game they came up with in their own heads within the last 5 minutes.
Welcome to today's Republican Party: where actual results come a distant second to commitment to principle.
That's a motley crew now isn't it? It's the same crew that we've seen on that list for quite a few years. And, after Doolittle is replaced (hopefully by the always friendly Charlie Brown), we'll see one of the most corrupt, Doolittle, drop off the list. It's probably for the best, as he's getting a little too close to the indictments for comfort.
Unfortunately, a California Democrat joins the list, which I'm pretty sure is a first. (UPDATE: Apparently Maxine Waters has been on the list in the past) Rep. Laura Richardson has joined the list as a "dishonorable mention." CREW points to Ms. Richardson's very bizarre, and embarassing, real estate transactions:
Because it is unusual for someone with such a deplorable credit history to be repeatedly approved for mortgages, the House ethics committee should investigate whether: (1) Rep. Richardson received a preferential loan in violation of House rules; (2) whether she had received other favorable treatment from lenders in the past; and (3) what, if any, official actions she may have traded to acquire these preferential terms. The House ethics committee should also consider whether Rep. Richardson’s failure to include her mortgages on her financial disclosure forms violates House rules.
In addition, the committee should examine the timing of Rep. Richardson’s most recent default and the $77,500 she loaned her congressional campaign committee. By funneling money that should have gone to pay her mortgage and property taxes to her congressional campaign, Rep. Richardson engaged in conduct that does not reflect creditably on the House.
Well, here's hoping that this can be resolved in a way that lifts the cloud over the California Democratic delegation.
I think these open threads are working out. Hope you enjoy them. Here are a few thoughts.
• This is a week old, but Nick Kristof's column about Prop. 2 (the farm animal safety measure) is well worth your time.
• It's still up in the air whether or not we're going to have Alan Keyes on the California Presidential ballot in November. There's a lawsuit between two members of the American Independent Party over who should be their nominee. It seems to me the very definition of "frivolous," but as someone who deeply enjoys mocking Alan Keyes I have a dog in this fight, so do the right thing, Sacramento Superior Court!
• The Log Cabin Republicans, who I also like to call "gluttons for punishment," rolled out their No on 8 campaign last week. The website is Republicans Against 8. It's the libertarian thing to do to get government out of the bedroom, so hopefully they'll sway some folks.
For hundreds of homeless people, posing as phony hospital patients provided them a clean bed and cash. For the hospitals that processed them, it meant a full patient-load and a paycheck from the government.
Now some of those allegedly involved in what authorities say was a massive scheme have been charged with billing government programs for millions of dollars in unnecessary health services.
A hospital CEO was arrested Wednesday after federal agents raided three medical centers. City attorney Rocky Delgadillo's office has also sued the hospitals, saying they used homeless people as "human pawns."
It's kind of the flip side of homeless dumping, or who knows, it was run in concert. Either way, sickening.
• Jerry Lewis is trying to get a bunch of lobbyists to fund his Congressional portrait. The worst part about this deal is that Jerry Lewis will have a Congressional portrait hanging in our nation's capital.
Greetings and welcome to the latest installment of the California House races roundup. We're just around 100 days to go until the election, and things are starting to take focus. There are about a half-dozen seats where Democratic challengers have an outside shot at dumping the incumbent, and another six on the watch list in case something spectacular occurs. One thing to note is that the Cook numbers are tied to the 2004 election, and given the demographic changes and cratering of the Republican brand I think they mean significantly less now - it'll be interesting to see how all these districts change in November.
We have plenty of new information to judge these races, including 2nd quarter fundraising reports, national ratings from Charlie Cook and Swing State Project, additional DCCC targets, and the appearance of many challengers at Netroots Nation. So this list is really about who I think has the best chance to retain or take over a seat, not necessarily who should (though that may come through in the writing). Here are some helpful bits of information that I used to help judge.
(cross posted at dailykos.com and downwithtyranny.blogspot.com)
Man, what a time to be a Democrat! After years of rebuilding our party through the netroots, we're poised to make MAJOR gains this November in what will probably be an even more historic election than 2006. We have an amazingly strong (presumptive) nominee here in CA-41 and nationally, more Senate seats up for grabs than you can count on two hands, three special election victories in deep red territory, and probably tens of new House seats that will flip our way.
But I'm not here to gloat about our election successes so far or prematurely celebrate our prospects in November. I'm writing to you today to introduce you to a woman who has the best chance of unseating the Tom Delay of 2008: Jerry Lewis (R), CA-41. This amazing woman is Dr. Rita Ramirez-Dean. (Follow me after the jump...)
Getting this one in under the wire. On the last day of April, with just over a month to go until the June primaries, and six months to go until Election Day, there's a lot going on all over the state in the Congressional races. Of the 19 seats in California currently held by Republicans, 17 will be contested in the fall, and some strongly so. And we now have a full 34 Democrats with the election of Jackie Speier early in the month, and only one of them is a serious challenge. We also have the first quarter of 2008 fundraising numbers, which will raise some eyebrows. You can track these races yourself with the 2008 Race Tracker wiki.
A note: I'm mainly getting my numbers on cash-on-hand competitiveness from the Swing State Project. Fundraising information comes from the FEC.
As we all remember, the Culture of Corruption meme was devastating during the 2006 elections. Congressman Jerry Lewis somehow managed to avoid being indicted before the election, which surprised a lot of people. What has happened since is the new GOP playbook for how the Bush Justice Department protects a Republican member. And today, the LA Times adds another piece to the puzzle -- it isn't pretty.
Welcome back to the California House races roundup for March. The races are coming into focus, with new challengers entering the fray before the March 7 deadline, and some actual campaigning between candidates (shocking!). And with the DCCC looking at four races in the state, California will certainly be a battleground in Congress in November.
We also know with a fair degree of certainty that Jackie Speier will be the next Representative in CA-12, after Lawrence Lessig declined to run. The initial primary is April 8 and Speier is heavily favored.
So that leaves just one Democratic seat in any degree of question, and I've decided to expand to write about 13 Republican-held seats that have varying degrees of challenges. Overall, Democrats are running in 18 of the 19 seats currently held by Republicans, and 52 of 53 seats overall. Only Kevin McCarthy in CA-22 (Bakersfield) is uncontested AFAIK. You can track these races yourself with the 2008 Race Tracker wiki.
A couple notes: I've changed the percentage of Democratic turnout in the February 5 primary statistics to reflect the final numbers from the Secretary of State's office. As you'll see, six of the thirteen Republican-held seats mentioned had majority Democratic turnout. Very encouraging. Also, I've noted where applicable which challengers have endorsed the Responsible Plan to End The War In Iraq. My hope is that eventually every candidate will do so; it will absolutely help them in their campaigns to show some leadership and offer a comprehensive strategy to end the war and change our conversation around national security.
(bump cause I like congressional and numbers - promoted by Lucas O'Connor)
Turnout from Tuesday's primary by party. Every district with a Republican leaning PVI plus Barbara Lee just for fun and comparison's sake. Of the Republican leaning districts, Dem turnout was higher in 8 and close in several others. Might be an interesting November. Just sayin.
Numbers on the flip.
Update: I should have mentioned in the first place, there are still no Democratic candidates in CA-02, CA-19, CA-22, or CA-25. Turnout was dead even in the 19th and higher for Dems in the 25th, just for starters.
The long-dormant Jerry Lewis investigation showed signs of being restarted in recent months after one of his top aides was handed a federal subpoena. Now we've learned that the FBI has been taking a look at Lewis' personal financial records - and fellow Triangle of Corruption member Ken Calvert's, too.
The apparently stalled probe of Lewis has focused on his relationship to buddy and lobbyist Bill Lowery. Roll Call notes that the feds pulled records for two of Lowery's lobbyists, Jeffrey Shockey and Letitia White. Both once worked to Lewis, but moved over to work for Lowery. Shockey has since moved back to Lewis again. The feds also pulled records for Lewis' wife, his chief of staff Arlene Willis.
As for Calvert, it's unclear just what the feds are scrutinizing (one of his "honest graft" schemes?) or even if he's the focus of a full-blown investigation.
His trouble started last May, when the Los Angeles Times reported that he and a partner pocketed a profit of nearly a half-million dollars in less than a year on a land deal. The report found that while he owned the land, Calvert earmarked $1.5 million for commercial development nearby and $8 million for a freeway exchange 16 miles away.
About a week later, the California FBI agent pulled Calvert's financial disclosure forms for 2000 through 2005. Calvert never retained legal counsel, but buzz over the issue compelled GOP leaders to skip over him last year when a slot opened on the Appropriations panel....
Candidates and campaigns in these districts take note: these corruption investigations are not going away.
There's some real data in the form of third-quarter fundraising numbers to pore over, and events in Washington and at home have served to focus on some of our Congressional candidates here in California. Plus, believe it or not, we're only about a year out from Election Day. Let's take a look at the top ten races.
As usual, I'm going to rank them in order of most possible pickup, including their number from the last roundup. I'm also, as usual, including the "Boxer number." Basically, seeing how Boxer fared in her 2004 re-election against Bill Jones in a particular district is a decent indicator of how partisan it is. If I put "57," that means Boxer received 57% of the vote. Anything over 50, obviously, is good. (over)
As the smoke begins to clear in San Diego, the stories and reactions to the fire will start competing with the recovery effort atop the fold. First on the minds of many in government seems, not surprisingly, to be response time and firefighting capacity. Unforunately, Republicans are again demonstrating that they make up in bluster what they lack in remote semblance of coherence. Southern California Republican Congressmen such as Duncan Hunter, Brian Bilbray, Darrell Issa, Jerry Lewis, Elton Gallegly and Dana Rohrabacher have been lining up for every available reporter to knock Governor Schwarzenegger and the state's CalFire bureaucracy for supposedly impeding firefighting efforts throughout the region last week. They've flown so dramatically off the handle in fact that even Chris Reed has it right on their craziness- or at least part of it:
The congressmen who are doing such a good job exposing the state's bureaucratic tomfoolery in its wildfire response have some explaining to do themselves. Couldn't they have spared an earmark to cover the cost of outfitting the California Air National Guard's C-130 with a fire-retardant tank, something that was promised to happen after the 2003 wildfires but never did?
Instead, Duncan Hunter funneled $63 million into the DP-2 Vectored Thrust Aircraft boondoggle. And Dana Rohrabacher worried more about buying expensive planes the military didn't want than about helping California's wildfire-fighting capacity. This is from a May story in the Washington Post:
... Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) has made one of the biggest earmark requests in the new Congress, seeking $2.4 billion to build 10 more C-17 planes -- which the Pentagon has said it does not need.
These gentlemen have ended up discussing almost every issue in the country, all in the context of the fire. And they've managed to be completely wrong every time. So without further ado, an "oh the humanity" sampling from the past week.
Josh Marshall is puzzled by the defense strategy employed by celebrilawyer Mark Geragos for corrupt defense contractor Brent Wilkes. So far he's called to the stand exactly one witness, who pretty much just called Wilkes a nice guy. That hardly refutes the voluminous amounts of evidence showing Wilkes' multiple bribery schemes.
So what's the strategy? Perhaps Geragos is hanging Wilkes out as a possible flipper for a bigger fish:
The only logic I can see to this is based on something a lawyer friend told me. If Wilkes tries to push an 'everybody does it' too hard at trial then he's locked himself to a set of facts that will make it a lot harder for him to turn around and cut a deal in exchange for serving up Bill Lowery and Rep. Lewis (R-CA).
That makes sense, I guess. Though I think I need to guard against a professional investment in having it having it be true since Wilkes serving up these two jokers would be a veritable festival of muck, something akin to taking a pin to a muck balloon. But in that case, why'd he go to trial in the first place? Something about the whole thing just doesn't fit to me.
According to RollCall, a former staffer for the House Appropriations Committee that worked for then Chairman Jerry Lewis said he intends to defy a federal subpoena he was served today from the US District Court for the Central District in California...
The staffer, Greg Lasker, is trying to hide behind the "speech and debate" clause of the Constitution and claim that the subpoena is not consistent with the "rights and privileges of the House." I guess it's a lead-by-example thing, the President and his staff doesn't see any need to comply with subpoenas, so why should Lasker?
After months of dormancy, the new US Attorney in Los Angeles, Thomas O'Brien, appears to have ramped up the Lewis investigation. Stay tuned...
That was quick. The new US Attorney for the Los Angeles region, Thomas O'Brien, was just sworn in a week or so ago. He's apparently making the Jerry Lewis investigation a priority:
A federal grand jury in Los Angeles has issued a subpoena for a House Appropriations Committee staffer as part of the ongoing probe of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the powerful panel.
Greg Lankler, a staffer on the House Appropriations Committee's Defense subcommittee, was recently subpoenaed by a federal grand jury looking into Lewis, according to House insiders.
The subpoena is for both documents and testimony, although it is unclear at this point whether Lankler will cooperate. The matter has been forwarded to the House general counsel's office, which is still studying the subpoena.
There hasn't been a subpoena in this case, which involves Lewis' moving millions of dollars' worth of earmarks to his friend, the ex-Congressman and lobbyist Bill Lowery, in over a year. Investigators on the case have been running out of money. So it is a bit of a surprise that this subpoena would emerge. The big difference in recent weeks is the confirmation of Thomas O'Brien.
Now for the reason I turned to Novakula in the first place (yes, he's a partisan hack, but his sources are typically impeccable). This weekend he reported on maneuvers within the House GOP caucus to keep Jerry Lewis in his post as the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, despite being under federal investigation. You'll recall that Minority Leader John Boehner stressed ethics and honesty when elected by the caucus, and even demoted John Doolittle from Appropriations when the FBI raided his house. There would appear to be a double standard, and reformers within the Republican Party are pissed.
The GOP leadership was so frazzled by this column that they sought to spin it on Friday, before it was even published. They denied that the meeting ever occurred. However, Lewis is still the ranking member of the Committee, so those denials only go so far. So it appears he'll remain in that position throughout his re-election effort. And that effort has Howie Klein pissed:
It also looks like he's gotten the same shill candidate, Louie Contreras, who didn't run against him in 2006 to be his "opponent" in 2008-- and the state of Art Torres' California Democratic Party is so pathetic that they won't even lift a finger to look into it.
So Lewis, probably the single most corrupt man in Congress, has the Republican nomination locked up and the Democratic nomination rigged. All he has to do is not get indicted. He's spent over a million dollars in legal fees to keep that from happening.
Contreras actually jumped into the comments of that post and claimed that State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell was supporting him. He isn't. The San Bernardino Sun claims Tim Prince is running, though he earlier said that he would only run if Lewis didn't. I can add that there will be an additional "mystery candidate" in this race, and for now, that's all I can say. (Tee-hee!!)
OK, I'm getting this in just under the wire. Time for the House roundup for September. There are a little over 13 months until Election Day, and with the end of the 3rd quarter on Sunday (donate), this election is really not that far away. In fact, CQ Politics has put out their initial assessment of the House landscape. It's favorable for Democrats, but predictably, there are only two California seats on that radar: CA-04 and CA-11. But there have been a lot of developments in the other races throughout the state as well.
I'm going to rank them in order of most possible pickup, including their number from the last roundup. I'm also, as usual, including the "Boxer number." Basically, seeing how Boxer fared in her 2004 re-election against Bill Jones in a particular district is a decent indicator of how partisan it is. If I put "57," that means Boxer received 57% of the vote. Anything over 50, obviously, is good. (over)
