Netroots Nation will be in Las Vegas in just a few weeks; with that in mind we are going to play "piano bar" and fulfill a couple of requests, one today and one tomorrow, from folks who would like to bring a couple of things to your attention.
Today's topic: climate change.
As you know, there is a lot of legislation floating around Capitol Hill that would begin to use some sort of market-based mechanism to reduce the amount of carbon we emit.
None of it will move unless it moves through the Senate, and today, that's what we'll be talking about.
Those who are regular visitors to this space know that I post stories across the country, and to do that I have to follow stories from a number of states.
Because I post at Kentucky's Hillbilly Report, I've been paying particular attention to the Rand Paul campaign, and the news from the Bluegrass State (via "The Rush Limbaugh Show") is that Paul's planning to write his own balanced budget proposal for the Federal Government.
But there's a catch.
He doesn't plan on doing it until after the election.
Well, now, why in the world would a guy who's running for office based on his really good ideas want to hold back the best one?
That's not a bad question, and if we make the effort we can probably figure out the most likely answers.
This is a pivotal week in the clean energy debate. The Senate will vote on Murkowski's short-sighted resolution to take away the EPA's authority to regulate pollution. As we head into this critical time, it's not the Inhofe-cloned climate deniers who trouble me - it's the knowing bystanders who are keeping me up at night.
Before I start this rant, let me just state for the record that I still think deniers are about as accurate as my three year old is when she is trying to describe quantum physics at her make-believe tea parties (although they are wholly less adorable). The vast majority of these deniers resist climate legislation because they really don't believe global warming is a problem - yes their heads are in the sand. But for the purposes of the Murkowski resolution, their vote is already lost.
Lately I am even more frustrated with Senators who recognize that climate change is an urgent challenge, but who sit idly by on the sidelines doing nothing. For me, they raise the fundamental question - Who is worse - those that deny the existence of climate change or those that believe in the upcoming catastrophe and continue to lack focus or alarm?
Take Senator Schumer for example. He has stated that he thinks the Senate should confront the impacts of climate change. Yet just this week, when leaders should be pushing hard for climate action, Schumer's support has been tepid at best. On Morning Joe, he showered Senator Bingaman's energy-only bill with praise, then said, "What do you do about climate change? Kerry has a proposal that has pretty broad support...He is going to get a chance to offer that opinion, and we will see if it has the votes."
We are looking for more from our Leaders than a passive wait and see attitude. Senator Schumer is the third ranking Democrat, and that means he needs to do more than wait around to cast a vote. It's time for real leadership, which means rolling up his sleeves and making sure a bill passes. We need him in the trenches. In fairness, the Senator walked himself back a bit after people threw a fit over his Morning Joe ambivalence. He has pledged to meet with Senator Kerry on a path forward but until he demands action and puts him ample political muscle behind that call, I am skeptical.
Exhibit #2 is Senator Rockefeller. As a Senator from West Virginia, he wants the federal government to do a better job of regulating mine safety, especially after the horrifying disaster at the Massey coalmine. I applaud him for that stance, but here is where I get confused. When it comes to global warming--something Rockefeller says, "America must address"--he suddenly gets allergic to federal regulation. He wants the Senate to block the EPA from reducing global warming pollution until Congress gets it's act together. The federal government can and should be involved - today. Just as federal regulation needs to be strengthened to deal with mine safety, we need to let the regulators use the tools on the books begin addressing greenhouse gases.
And finally, the fence sitters continue to be the best example of willful negligence. The Senate is going to consider a resolution this week from Senator Murkowski to put the breaks on EPA's efforts to address greenhouse gases. There is a small group of Senators - like Collins, Snowe, Pryor, Webb, and Scott Brown - who say they want to reduce global warming pollution but may vote for Murkowski's resolution to overturn the EPA's authority to do so. If you think carbon emissions are dangerous, wouldn't you want to use every weapon at your disposal to fight it?
When I see Senators backpedalling, downplaying and side stepping climate action, I want to ask them: what are you waiting for? When is there going to be a better time to transition to clean energy? America is watching the cost of failed energy policies literally washing up on our shores. Our nation is desperately in need of the jobs and economic growth that a clean energy economy can provide. Congress has the most pro-clean energy members we are likely to get for several years.
I think I just answered my own question - which is worse, a climate-denier or a knowledgeable staller.... I vote that someone who fails to act when they know the stakes is much worse.
One of my first real memories of tragedy was when the space shuttle Challenger exploded. My entire school was cheering on teacher Christa McAuliffe, and when the shuttle blew up in midair, I remember standing with my sobbing classmates, trying to make sense of what we had witnessed.
As an adult, I felt a similar connection the day after September 11. In the midst of a national crisis, Congressmen from both parties and both chambers stood on the Capitol stairs and sang "God Bless America." I will never forget that moment and the sense of common cause it inspired in all who heard it.
This country and the planet cannot afford to delay climate and clean energy legislation. It is that simple. Every day Washington politics puts our clean energy future on hold our economy gets weaker, our enemies get stronger, and the planet gets more polluted. It has been almost a year since the House approved comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation to create jobs, cut our oil imports in half and reduce the carbon pollution that threatens us all, and we are still waiting for the Senate to act. The time is now for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation that jump-starts our economy, strengthens national security, and leads to a healthier planet.
40 days from today - on May 18 - we will see two HUGE primaries for U.S. Senate. Even though these races aren't in California, they impact Democrats across the country and, well, the entire country as a whole.
In Pennsylvania, Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak will try to upset Republican-for-decades Arlen Specter.
In Arkansas, Democratic Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter will try to upset corporate lackey Blanche Lincoln.
These two races are tremendously important to defining who and what the Democratic Party is and what we will be fighting for.
If you can volunteer for these candidates (or encourage friends and family in Pennsylvania and Arkansas to do so), that would be amazing.
Of course, if you can help with a contribution to either or both via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page as soon as possible, it will make a big impact.
Polling shows that both Specter and Lincoln are at risk of - if not likely to - hand these Senate seats over to far-right-wing Republicans. (And, even if these two retain the seats, that's not much better on many key issues.)
Congressman Sestak and Lieutenant Governor Halter winning these primaries are critical to keeping these seats in truly Democratic hands. Your support can help make that happen! Please hop over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page right away to make a contribution - an investment in the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to pull out an old expression - and show your support.
Thanks SO much for any support you can provide. 40 Days.
Woo-hoo. The healthcare bill is done. People will see many of the provisions go into place immediately and then they can decide how they feel about these reforms based on reality instead of frenzied, uninformed rhetoric. Let's just take a moment to recognize this historic occasion.
*** Full Scorecard available at www.lcv.org/scorecard ***
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. 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.
"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."
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."
As we all drink our morning coffee and digest what this latest change-up means for the Senate, let me be the first to say - I continue to be hopeful that the Senate will take action on climate change.
The signs of momentum for a clean energy and climate bill outweigh any signs that come from the Massachusetts special election.
Sen. Steinberg's office released the new committee assignments for this year's regular legislative session. In general, senators have fewer assignments. In many cases, that was welcome. However, that's not likely to be the case for Sen. Lois Wolk. (As a side note, I did some work for Sen. Wolk's 2008 campaign.)
When Steinberg released a list of slimmed-down committee memberships last week, Wolk retained the chairmanship of the Revenue and Taxation Committee and a spot on the Natural Resources and Water committee and picked up one assignment -- a seat on the Food and Agriculture Committee.
But she was stripped of seats on Appropriations, Budget and Fiscal Review, Health, Transportation and Housing and Local Government. (SacBee)
As the Bee points out, it could be coincidence that Sen. Wolk spoke out against the water bill and her new, perhaps lesser committee assingments.
That being said, Sen. Wolk is, if anything, too much of a straight shooter. She opposed the water bill, for very legitimate reasons for a legislator of the Delta region, and said so. Of course, standing in front of a steamrolling tank doesn't always get you in a place in the history books, sometimes it gets you a far lesser prize.
2010 won't be as good of a year as 2008 for Democrats. It is really hard to repeat that kind of success. However, here in California, we have a chance to do better than we did in 2008. In 2008, we picked up a few of assembly seats (10, 15, 78, and 80) and lost one (30). In the senate: nothing. Hannah-Beth Jackson lost to Tony Strickland by a razor's edge, but that's as close as we got.
The dynamic will certainly be different in 2010. Barack Obama is not on the ballot, instead we will have a senate and a governor's race to lead the ticket. Perhaps some Carlyfornia Dreamin'? With all that taken into consideration, the Target Book has officially come out with their "races to watch." As Dave pointed out last week, the Target Book is pretty much the chronicler of the conventional wisdom for these races. Not necessarily the best wisdom, but the CW in Sacramento, for better or worse.
In a couple of seats, this will make a huge difference. To take one example, Alyson Huber is in a very, very difficult position. She will not have the same kind of grassroots enthusiasm behind her, both for Obama-less reasons, and for reasons of her own relationship with the grassroots. Considering that she won by just a few votes, she'll need everything that can go right to go right. She voted for the budget, which will piss off some right-leaning DTS voters, and she's also skated close enough to the center to also piss off some left-leaning Dems and DTS voters.
Now, obviously some of the seats are a lot more likely to be competitive than others. It's going to be quite tough to get a Dem in DeVore's 70th AD or to take out Garrick. Yet, there are some interesting races, some of which were not really on the radar in 2008. It will be interesting to see if the Assembly pays a little more attention to races like AD-36 a little sooner this time around.
And over in the Senate, yup, it's just the one. SD-12 will be the sole race that is really in play, unless something crazy happens with the LG appointment.
Does it serve some purpose? Four year terms aren't so very much longer than two. They don't represent counties anymore. Just because the Feds have a Senate (in all its splendor) isn't much of a reason for us to have one.
I'd trade it in for term limits. You can be re-elected as many times as your district wants to vote for you but you have to run every two years.
Or, even more blue-sky: Increase the size of the Assembly and make the new 40 seats statewide party list seats. If you get 2.5% of the vote, you get a seat. Or some such arrangement, maybe not statewide. But the two major state parties are such failures, I think it'd be good to get some wild cards in there.
It's great to be here blogging with you at Calitics! I look forward to stopping by regularly and working with you in the weeks and months ahead.
As you probably know, I'm running for re-election in 2010, and our June 30th fundraising deadline is rapidly approaching. It's important that we post solid numbers at the end of each quarter to show our potential right-wing opponents that we're ready for anything they throw at us. But this deadline is even more important than most.
Truly, one of the strongest aspects of Healthy San Francisco (HSF) is its simplicity. The program allows participants to select their primary care provider from among dozens of local hospitals and clinics, both public and private. Our local system does not require lengthy HMO paperwork and there is no denial of treatment based on pre-existing medical conditions.
A recent study showed that Healthy San Francisco is dramatically less expensive than traditional insurance. And our experience in San Francisco is proving what most American's already know - it is much less expensive to keep people well than it is to treat their sickness, particularly when so much treatment for uninsured Americans is provided in costly emergency rooms.
There are currently more than 40,000 participants in HSF. We are enrolling approximately 600 new participants every week. We have already enrolled more than half of the previously uninsured San Franciscans and the vast majority will have access to health care by the end of next year.
I believe that administration and congressional leaders understand that we cannot wait for health care reform. Our health care crisis affects every aspect of our society - from making sure every child receives the health care they need to succeed in school, to decreasing the financial burden on business, both large and small, so our economy can get back on track.
I know there is pressure in Washington to wait until the economy improves before we act on health care reform. I faced many of the same pressures when I was working with allies in San Francisco to forge our universal health care delivery system.
But "waiting" in politics usually means never - and we simply cannot afford to wait any longer. The lessons we are learning in San Francisco shows that investing in health and wellness is its own kind of economic stimulus.
The time is now to tackle this problem and I applaud President Obama for promising to sign a national health care reform bill by October. We cannot wait for change - the President needs your help. Sign the petition to support President Obama's call for health care reform.
For my part, I was recently made Chair of the U.S. Conference of Mayors Task Force on Health Care Reform. Cities often have the most pressing health care needs and have had to adapt and innovate in lieu of national health care reform. I am looking forward to working with my fellow Mayor's to hear what they have learned in their cities and share what we've learned in my hometown through Healthy San Francisco.
In the end, the task force will identify urban health care priorities and advise the work of Congress and the Administration to help solve this crucial challenge we all share. As always, please feel free to give me your input and feedback in the comments section below.
Even in California, I'm sure you've heard plenty about what's going on with the still-unsettled Senate race in Minnesota.
While Republican Norm Coleman prolongs his endless and pointless appeals, cementing his admission into the Sore Losers Hall of Fame, progressive organizations Democracy for America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee have introduced a new effort: NormDollar.com, "A Dollar a Day to Make Norm Go Away." Very simply put, commit to contributing just one dollar per day for every day that sore loser Norm Coleman refuses to concede.
This is exactly the correct approach to take in order to provide Republican leadership in Washington with adequate disincentive from continuing to fund Coleman's endless appeals. The GOP bigwigs funding Coleman's appeals see value in putting their money toward keeping progressive Senator-elect Al Franken from being seated. This grassroots-powered effort will make them think twice by generating many thousands of dollars for progressive candidates for every single day that they fund the Coleman circus.
If you feel so inclined, you can certainly chip in a bit of change directly to the Franken Recount Fund, as well.
I've been writing about Election 2010 since November and I know it's still early but I've decided to start declaring my support for some candidates who I think have what it takes to solve to real problems that real Americans face.
My first endorsement is for one of the most prominent equal rights activist of our time, Gavin Newsom.
The man has guts. So far this young, energetic Mayor of San Francisco has defied State Law to Do the Right Thing (promote equal rights) and been at the forefront of more Progressive Issues than any other politician in America. He's implemented a successful Universal Health Care program in San Francisco, made the streets safer and, importantly, led San Francisco in integrating Biotechnology and 'Green Tech' jobs into the city.
It doesn't hurt that the man just looks the part.
Gavin Newsom challenged the city to be greener and followed through on the challenge, whether that is through planting trees or installing more efficient lighting. That commitment to setting high standards and exceeding them will make Mayor Newsom a great Governor Newsom.
I think that Newsom has what it takes to be Governor and I proudly support his effort. But if you don't believe me you can watch his commitment to new and innovative ideas to solving difficult and complex problems on his YouTube page.
If you'd like to see this entry with pictures please click here.
(Good as always to hear from our Lt. Governor. - promoted by Julia Rosen)
My job and your government's job are to protect your job today and tomorrow. California's legislators are left little choice but to swallow hard and accept a very bad budget deal put together in secret without any public hearings and public input, all contrary to the open meeting laws of the state. The tragedy of this budget is that it robs our ability to advance our values and expand our economy by insuring a well-educated workforce. The budget does not allow us to provide adequate resources for the least among us. The budget does not allow transportation, water, and sanitation systems to keep up with population growth. Sadly this budget will force us to abandon robust research programs that will create tomorrow's wealth.
The governor wants to be known as the green governor, the education governor, the reform governor, yet he has utterly failed to lead a budget process that in the remotest way advances any of these goals. There is no real reform of education, prisons, or the state funded healthcare programs in this budget. Yet it is in real reform that efficiencies and increased effectiveness is found and fair cuts can be made. A significant change is in labor contracts that are unilaterally altered, setting aside a long and honorable negotiation process between labor and management. Where is the effort in this budget to advance the green economy?
Unfortunately the budget that is to be voted on in the days ahead does nothing to position California for a quick return to a healthy and growing economy. In fact the budget hastens the starvation of our educational programs at every level, thereby directly and in many case irreversibly damaging millions of our children. The budget accelerates the financial decline of the University of California and the largest university in America, the California State University. California needs teachers, engineers, nurses, doctors, and every other job skill. This budget gets a D in meeting the educational needs of tomorrow's workforce.
The stimulus plan isn't the only thing Republicans are obstructing. Hilda Solis, still the representative from CA-32, was nominated as Secretary of Labor by President Obama on December 19. It's been nearly two months and her nomination still hasn't moved out of the Senate HELP committee.
Republicans, led by Mike Enzi of Wyoming, are trying to stop Hilda Solis because of her support of workers' rights, including - but not limited to - the Employee Free Choice Act. They even want her to promise to not lobby on behalf of Employee Free Choice as a condition of confirmation - which she has so far refused to do.
A hearing was finally to have been held in committee on her nomination last week but news of a tax problem her husband had - which has since been resolved - caused yet another delay, and conservatives are hoping to use the delays to kill one of Obama's most progressive nominees entirely.
It's time for Californians to stand up for Hilda Solis.
She's been there for us in the past. Last summer when Arnold Schwarzenegger planned to slash the wages of over 200,000 state workers to the minimum wage, Solis joined our successful grassroots effort to block that move. Now that she is poised to bring significant progressive change to an important part of the federal government, it's vital that California progressives show that we have her back.
The Courage Campaign is asking its members to show their support for Hilda Solis by asking them to sign a letter to Senator Ted Kennedy, chair of the Senate HELP committee, encouraging him to lead the fight against conservative resistance and for Hilda Solis's confirmation.
In doing so we join our allies at SEIU and MoveOn.org who have also pushed out their own kinds of support Solis actions in recent days. There's also a Facebook group to join as well.
Why a letter to Senator Kennedy? We're not at all worried that he isn't supportive of the nomination or that he's unwilling to move quickly to get it done. What we want to do instead is demonstrate to key Senators just how wide and deep public support for Hilda Solis truly is. To reinforce the case for her confirmation, and to help Kennedy and other Democrats beat back the conservative attack on a true progressive hero.
Both the Washington Post and the LA Times have stories today about the budget crises facing the states, where governors and legislatures have exhausted every gimmick and now must enact painful cuts that will work against the federal program to bring us out of the economic downturn. The personal stories are significant:
Nevada resident Margaret Frye-Jackman, 71, was diagnosed in August with ovarian cancer. She had two rounds of chemotherapy at University Medical Center, the only public hospital in the Las Vegas area.
Soon after, she and her daughter heard the news on TV: The hospital's outpatient oncology services were closing because of state Medicaid cuts. Treatment for Frye-Jackman and hundreds of other cancer patients was eliminated [...]
"If this is what it's like in Nevada, with cancer stuff closing, is it like that everywhere?" said Frye-Jackman's daughter, Margaret Bakes, accompanying her mother to the doctor's recently. "Are all the other states closing stuff too?"
The answer, in at least 39 states, is "yes" -- or "soon." With personal, sales and corporate income tax revenue plummeting, state governments -- which recently trimmed their budgets to cover a cumulative $40.3-billion shortfall for the current fiscal year -- are now watching in horror as a $47.4-billion gap opens for 2009.
And for fiscal year 2010, they will face a $84.3-billion hole, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The total shortfall through fiscal 2011 is estimated at $350 billion, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington.
This article frames it as there being "no choice" but tough budget cuts or tax increases for states facing shortfalls, states that cannot print money or run budget deficits. But that's not entirely true. There was a good deal of help being offered by the federal government in the House stimulus bill, which included $79 billion in state fiscal stabilization aid. But among their other cuts, the Axis of Centrism cut that aid in half, by $40 billion dollars, and in so doing guaranteed additional layoffs to teachers and firefighters and cops and nurses and all sorts of other professions which rely on a state paycheck.
California law mandates that layoff notices to teachers be given out by March 15 for the next school year. Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing $10 billion in education cuts. Republicans, which use our state's rule requiring a 2/3 vote of the legislature to pass a budget, are demanding these cuts as the price of a tax increase to close the remaining $40 billion and ensure that the cuts aren't bigger.
But all of us were hoping and expecting that the US Congress would come through with aid to stabilize state budgets, to help ameliorate the problem and save teacher jobs by providing stimulus money. It must be in the stimulus because, as I just noted, the layoff notices will go out within 5 weeks - there is no time to include it in another bill.
Now we are told that Ben Nelson and Susan Collins, two Republican Senators, have reached a deal to cut that education assistance and that the Senate is likely to accept it.
In short, what they have done is guarantee to my sister and to thousands like her that they will receive a pink slip within five weeks.
To call this fearmongering, as John Ensign did on Meet the Press today, just denies reality, par for the course for both Republicans and bipartisan fetishists like Claire McCaskill, who was at first giddy about cutting 600,000-700,000 jobs in the stimulus, and then passive-aggressively "defended" it by saying the alternative was no bill.
Claire McCaskill is now defending herself against Krugman on Twitter:
Just saw Krugman's comments on reduction in recov act. Question for him. Would no stimulus act be better than one thats 800 B instead of 900.
She follows that up with
Compromise had to happen or we would NOT have 60 votes. Period.
And for further evidence of how much the bill is the same, she claims:
Original Senate bill was 60% appropriationss, 40%tax cuts. Compromise was 58, 42.Senate bill is 90% the same as House bill.
I'm glad that's she expressing herself here, and that we're able to somewhat have a dialogue. But I'm not sure how much in good faith it is. McCaskill began by stating how glad she was that they got a $100 billion cut out of the bill, that the "silly stuff" that Republicans didn't like is now out. She then switches to a passive aggressive mode in defending the cuts - it's basically the same bill and it wouldn't have made it through the Senate - but glosses her own role in making the cuts. From the way she talks about the bill, wouldn't she have been among those voting against the bill if the cuts hadn't been made and new non-stimulative tax cuts hadn't been added in?
McCaskill doesn't want to admit her role in putting 600,000 Americans out of work on Friday, which will harm public safety and increase class sizes and shut down bus and rail lines and send the sick and uninsured looking in vain for treatment and a host of other inadvisable outcomes. And there's no rational economic reason for it, just that the Axis of Centrism choked on the price tag and had to compensate for the non-stimulative tax cuts the Senate tossed into the bill. Massive job loss or increased property tax rates (as states compensate for the loss to education funds) is on McCaskill and Nelson and Collins and Spector's hands.
The big question is what will come out of the House-Senate conference next week, whether the cuts, especially the state government relief, will be restored at the expense of things like the $70 billion dollar patch to the alternative minimum tax. Larry Summers left that an open question on ABC this morning.
One of President Barack Obama's top economic advisers forecast Sunday a difficult struggle with Congress over Senate cuts of $40 billion for state and local governments from the administration's massive spending and tax cut package to stimulate the failing economy.
The $827 billion Senate version of the plan -- designed to bring the economy out of the worst downward spiral since the Great Depression -- was expected to pass the Senate on Tuesday. The House had already passed its $819 billion version of the measure.
And in the opening moments of This Week, an exchange between George Stephanopoulos and Larry Summers went like this:
STEPHANOPOULOS: ...does that mean the President prefers the Senate version to the House version?
SUMMERS: No, the President feels that above all, we need a major program enacted very quickly that would create 3 to 4 million jobs. He believes we need to perfect it in every way we can.
If the cuts are restored, suddenly the sense of urgency works back in the direction of passing a bill more like the House version. The Republican business lobby is urging passage. I don't think the moderates signed on to the bill could break ranks on the final vote if the changes in conference are limited to, say, swapping the state cuts for the AMT patch, combined with an assurance from the President that they will make that fix down the road.
The action needs to be entirely directed at the Speaker, who has spoken out against these cuts and ought to appoint conferees that will get the House version at least partially restored. Being from California, she knows exactly how hard-hit the states are and what the consequences will be.
With Senate Democrats continuing to allow the 60 vote rule to control debate, the fate of every state in the nation rests on the whims of a few moderate Senators from states like Maine and Nebraska, who insisted that 40 billion dollars worth of state stabilization funds for struggling states be excised from the stimulus package, along with education funding that would have benefited small states.
For California, this wouldn't come anywhere close to solving the budget crisis, but would help prevent the massive lay-offs and suspended capital projects.
Instead they have substituted more tax cuts that are absurdly expensive, won't address the problems they are designed to ameliorate, and have far less immediate impact and less bang for the buck.
The total population of Maine's five largest cities would create a municipality equivalent to California's 26th largest city, right between Santa Clarita and Rancho Cucomonga.
