I'm heading up to Sacramento today to see the inauguration of Attorney General Kamala Harris. Working on the campaign for well over a year, it is the culmination of a lot of hard work. Truthfully, at some level, it hasn't really sunk in, so this will be a somewhat dramatic experience. However, I know she will do an absolutely amazing job for the State of California.
But, you know, there are other things going on today as well. The changing of the guard from the worst governor ever back to the more competent Jerry Brown will be a huge positive for the state, and perhaps we can start to recover from the shock doctrining of our Schwarzenegger years.
The rest of the Democratic slate, save Gavin Newsom, will also be inaugurated today. So, that means Tom Torlakson, Bill Lockyer, John Chiang, Dave Jones, Debra Bowen and the above mentioned Kamala Harris will also be inaugurated. And with Dave Jones joining John Chiang, we get our second Carl Sandburg High School (Orland Park, IL) alum in statewide office. What are the odds?
It's not the most high profile race, but it does have some interesting candidates. Gloria Romero is a state Senator, representing portions of East LA and the San Gabriel Valley. Tom Torlakson, is a long-time Bay Area politician. And then we have a political neophyte with an interesting background in education, Larry Aceves. I've not heard about any Republicans jumping into this race, but it's technically non-partisan. All candidates are in one heat in the June 2010 primary, with the top two going on to the November general if nobody exceeds 50%.
As of right now, Asm. Torlakson has a cash lead, but Sen. Romero is right behind and Mr. Aceves has done a respectable job raising money to be considered a strong candidate.
Californians thinking that we will have to wait until November 2010 and get a single shot to put a dent in the 2/3 rule may be in for a pleasant surprise if AD-11 Assemblymember Tom Torlakson gets his way.
AB 267 would authorize school districts to form education finance districts for the purpose of raising revenue for local schools. Under the measure, each education finance district must be comprised of three or more neighboring school districts. The districts would be authorized to place a parcel tax on the ballot for voter approval provided that they agree on the division and expenditure of the revenues raised by the tax. ACA 10 is a companion constitutional amendment measure to AB 267 which would allow Education Finance Districts to levy a local parcel tax with a majority vote instead of the current two-thirds vote required for single local school districts. Both measures have passed out of the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee.
Allowing majority vote by the people for tax increases is a no-brainer: if people want to increase revenues for the common good and vote to do so, they should be allowed to do so. Ater all, as I've said before, we should be allowed as informed citizens to buy the government we want. It's one thing for Republicans to argue about majority rule on revenue enhancements enacted by elected officials; it's quite another to disallow the voters themselves to choose to raise their own taxes to benefit their own schools. Indeed, as Mr. Keenan said on the radio today, the voters of Ojai had chosen to levy just such an increase to benefit local schools with 65% approval, but failed to clear the insane 66.67% threshold needed for a 2/3 majority. Who needs schools, anyway?
Torlakson's office states that the reason for creating the education finance districts comprised of multiple school districts in AB 267 is to help ensure that poorer school districts are not left out of parcel tax levies instituted by wealthier surrounding districts; additional measures to ensure this outcome would be added if it were discovered that wealthy communities were circumventing the intent of the law (thanks to Sean Mykael for relaying this info).
AB 267 is likely to pass through the legislature; it's anyone's guess as to whether the Hoovernator would veto the measure.
ACA 10, on the other hand, faces an almost impossible uphill battle: as a proposed constitutional amendment, it would require 2/3 of both the Assembly and the State Senate just to allow the measure to come before the voters, either in June 2010 or later in November. Can there be any doubt as to how the anti-democratic (in every sense of the word) Yacht Party will vote on this one? In an irony that will surprise no one, a 2/3 rule at the state level will no doubt prevent a remedy to the 2/3 at the local level.
In an environment where convincing voters of the need to do away with 2/3 at a state legislative level may be a challenge even given the budget crisis, convincing voters that they themselves should be allowed to vote on certain revenue increases without the onerous burden of 2/3 could be a significantly easier task.
Still, it will almost certainly require bypassing the legislature and moving to a signature-gathering effort and petition drive in order to put this commonsense change on the ballot. It will be interesting to see what kind of action this idea receives from the CTA and other motivated parties.
Conveniently answering two questions in one press release, Assemblymember Tom Torlakson is announcing that he will continue to run for State Superintendent of Public Education, and will endorse State Senator Mark DeSaulnier for Tauscher's seat - which is the first clear indication that DeSaulnier will actually be running for that seat:
Assemblymember Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch, said today he will continue his campaign for state schools chief and not run for a congressional seat currently held by Rep. Ellen Tauscher....
In making the announcement, Torlakson, who has held elective office in Contra Costa County for 30 years, said he would endorse Senator Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, to succeed Tauscher....
"The East Bay has been fortunate to have been served by Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher the past 12 years, and I wish her well as she prepares for this important new position with the Obama Administration," said Torlakson. "Mark DeSaulnier is the best person to continue her tradition of strong and effective leadership in Congress. He has the experience, intelligence, and character necessary to represent the residents of the district. I am pleased to endorse him and offer my full support for his upcoming campaign."
There's been some speculation that Asm. Joan Buchanan will run for the seat as well, which is possible, but it looks like the establishment is moving to unite behind DeSaulnier. Will that create an opening for a progressive candidate in the race? We shall see.
"For the past 13 years, I have had the honor and privilege of serving you in Congress. Representing California's 10th Congressional District always has been and remains - especially in these trying times - my first priority."
"Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton asked me to serve as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security."
"While her offer is both generous and flattering, I did not take the decision lightly. I accepted it after much soul searching and long discussions with my family and friends."
Her mission will be an important one - to fulfill the Obama Administration's goal of eventually ridding the world of nuclear weapons, and in the near term reducing stockpiles through trade agreements with Russia and ensuring the security of loose nuclear materials around the world. Given that she has supported the Reliable Replacement Warhead system in the past, which would usher in a new generation of nuclear weapons and work directly counter to proposals like the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, I am dubious that this is her best role:
Those of us who are interested in working toward a world free of nuclear weapons realize that progress will involve many steps, some large, some small. One important step will be ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Some CTBT supporters suspect that the outlines of a deal are coalescing: those who want the RRW will try to make the CTBT and the RRW a package deal, arguing that we will be able to maintain a reliable, safe nuclear deterrent without testing, as the CTBT would require, only if the weapon labs are allowed to proceed with weapon modernization. The Congressional Strategic Posture Commission interim report appears to be at least sympathetic to this view. This artificial link is based on both faulty logic and a long list of unstated and unsupportable assumptions.
The assertion that our nuclear weapons need any modernizing implies, usually implicitly, that current weapons are antiques that are not quite up to snuff. Chilton, in the article cited above, specifically links U.S. modernization to Russian and Chinese nuclear weapons. This superficially makes sense: after all, we don't send our military out to fight with World War II vintage tanks, ships, and airplanes. Certainly the United States should be armed with the latest and best nuclear weapons; at the very least, our weapons have to be at least as modern as any possible competitors, right? The simple analogy to conventional weapons doesn't hold because of the types of tasks assigned to nuclear weapons and some confusion about just what a "nuclear weapon" is [...]
Simple uranium bombs with high reliability and yields of twenty kilotons (or the power of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima) or more would be easy to manufacture. We could design such a weapon, perhaps build one or two, and put the plans on the shelf in case we ever needed it. I can't help but imagine those language-free schematic assembly instructions that come along with unassembled Ikea furniture, describing how to put a bookshelf together without special skills or complex tools. We should design the Ikea Bomb. The DOE's arguments for a new nuclear bomb design would be a lot more convincing if DOE were eagerly trying to design themselves out of a job rather than looking at a future that has them building nuclear weapons forever.
Nuclear weapons modernization is a complete myth, and Tauscher has perpetuated it. Regardless of the positives of her leaving Congress, she is a terrible choice for the safety of the world. I'll leave it to you to determine the relative benefits of the trade-off.
The Governor will not need to announce any special election for this seat until Tauscher is confirmed, which could take "weeks, if not months," as she notes. District sources tell me that labor's voice matters here, and all the serious candidates come from the legislature, in particular Asm. Tom Torlakson and Sen. Mark DeSaulnier (who lives outside the district in Concord, but that's not required under state law). Of the two, only one will run, and Torlakson has been gearing up for a statewide run for a while, though Congress may offer a more attractive platform. While Buchanan has seemingly been groomed for this position, it's probably too soon for her to make the jump, and AD-15 does not have a deep Democratic bench and would be likely to flip back to the Republicans if she vacates. Either way, we're looking at a special election for Congress, followed by another special election for the legislature. At this rate, the legislature will be missing bodies until early 2010. And that's horrible news, given the conservative veto and the need for every single vote on budget and tax issues.
A California congresswoman with experience in military matters is the Obama administration's choice to be under secretary of state for arms control and international security.
Congressional and administration sources told The Associated Press on Tuesday that Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher is the administration's pick. The sources requested anonymity because the announcement is not official.
Could this joyous news be true? Could one of the bankers' best friends and leader of the DLC-like New Democrats in the House be taken off our hands by the Obama Administration? We will see - and we will hope.
This would open up yet another special election here in California to fill the seat. Who would be some of the most likely Democratic candidates to run for the seat?
Tom Torlakson. Former State Senator, now serving his third and final term in the Assembly (AD-11; his first two terms were from 1996-2000). He's currently planning a run for State Superintendent of Education in 2010, but might be interested in moving to the Congressional seat should it open up. He's probably got the highest political profile of the field owing to his 12+ years in the Legislature.
Mark DeSaulnier. Replaced Tom Torlakson in SD-7 when he was termed out last year. DeSaulnier and Torlakson are close and would probably not challenge each other for the seat, so if Torlakson decides to stay in California, DeSaulnier could make the move to DC. He has spoken out on the need to fix California's broken government and for action on global warming.
Joan Buchanan. Elected last November to the Assembly from AD-15. As a newly elected state official she may have a lower profile than Torlakson or DeSaulnier, but can't be ruled out as a possible candidate.
I'm sure there are other possible candidates out there who could fill this seat but those are the folks who have been generating the most discussion in the last 24 hours. We'll see what happens next. I for one will be glad to be rid of Ellen Tauscher and hopefully we can get someone more progressive to represent the 10th District.
Tom Torlakson isn't the flashiest of Senators, just a workaday kind of Senator who happens to covet the State Superintendent gig. He just moved up a big notch with his recent post on the California Progress Report:
The two-thirds vote requirement to pass a budget has created an ongoing battle. The current system allows a minority of the Legislature to make it impossible to pass a rational state budget. The failure to resolve the ongoing state budget stalemate has grown into nothing less than a serious constitutional crisis.
This deadlock is threatening our state's ability to remain competitive in the 21st Century global economy. It threatens to leave California incapable of providing a public education system offering students a rigorous and relevant curriculum, the infrastructure needed to support continued economic vitality, or a health care system able to care for and protect our residents.
As some people have noted, the definition of "insanity" is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. After years of gimmicks and delayed budget reckoning created by the two-thirds vote requirement, it is time to fundamentally change our dysfunctional and undemocratic state budget process.
This is why I have authored Senate Constitutional Amendment 22 to allow the Legislature to pass a state budget by a majority vote-and restoring democracy to the process!
While this has tried and failed in the recent past, we have an opportunity with the growing consensus of our revenue problem. Who knows how big the window is, but a vote now seems to be as good as any other time. Unfortunately, the Constitutional amendment itself requires a 2/3 vote, and don't expect the Republicans to be hopping on board anytime soon. Nonetheless, props to Torlakson for bringing it up. It's a conversation that needs to occur.
I've been attending the convention (my first state convention, actually), and the one thing that really struck me is how much more excitement is being paid to the Carole Migden-Mark Leno race than to the presidential election, likely a reflection of the audience. The convention naturally attracts activists, who know about the intricacies of that senate race and Migden's $9 million fine, especially because the convention is in San Jose, very close to Senate District 3. Others have focused on the dynamics of the race and the hijacks at the convention, but the sheer resources that are being expended at the convention, both by Migden and Leno, and by other potential candidates for office, and I have to wonder--why bother?
