• Do read Robert in Monterey's report about Abel Maldonado, Don Perata's best buddy, running as a write-in candidate in the Democratic primary to stall an attempt to get an opponent on the November ballot. First of all, this is an example of why crossfiling should be banned once and for all. Second, Abel Maldonado is a snake and I can now see why Don Perata would knock on doors for him. Apparently, neither of them have much interest in the democratic process.
• Arnold thinks the legalization of gender-neutral marriage will be a boost to the sluggish economy, but I hope he's not basing his entire budget on a sharp uptick in gay weddings. I mean, there are only so many Mr. Sulus rich enough to have that surge register more than a blip. By the way, good for Mr. Sulu. And good for Ellen DeGeneres for telling Straight Talk Express where to shove it.
• Lucas mentioned this, but Darrell Issa got in the middle of a heated exchange between Henry Waxman and EPA Adminstrator Stephen Johnson over the EPA's breaking the Clean Air Act. Emptywheel has video:
• Why Fabian Nuñez is claiming racial bias at this late date over questions about his travel practices is completely beyond me. And he's taken to Spanish-language television for these accusations to stoke divisiveness in the Latino community, too. It's so counterproductive, as well as misleading.
• Speaking of Spanish-speaking media, this is an older story, but it's fascinating to me that the Spanish-language channels in LA are so much more substantive than the English-language ones, featuring longer, "more deeply reported" pieces.
• We could see a settlement very shortly on prison overcrowding in the state which would not require early release. There are some decent components to this deal, but it basically gives everyone three more years to clean up their act, and I wouldn't be surprised if it just puts us in the same siutation come 2011. The policies needed are well-known; the political will remains elusive.
• The Bay Area AQMD passed a carbon tax for businesses that emit greenhouse gases. It's "not enough to change behavior," one expert said, but it does presage what may be coming down the pike for polluters. Whether you get there through selling carbon permits at auction or with a tax, the bottom line is that pollution is going to cost enough money to alter business' approach to engaging in it. This is a good step.
• Interesting that we denied the endorsement to Rep. Laura Richardson (CA-37) on the same day that she is forced to defend herself against allegations that she walked away from her foreclosed home in Sacramento. It sounds like the Congresswoman renegotiated the loan, but the conservative fever swamps are all over this one (check the comments in that LAT blog post). She did buy the half-million-dollar home with no money down, and then left Sacramento almost immediately after winning election to fill the open seat in Congress.
UPDATE: (Bob) I just got off the phone with David Dayen for the report from the ground. It was kinda tough to hear because all of the horns honking in the background. He said there was a great crowd, KTLA is interviewing a number of them, and they are having a lot of fun passing out the lapel pins. Also, he loved the fact that a Burbank Police Officer came by and told them he was their officer for the night and if they had any problems (with ABC or Disney) to give him a call. I wish I was there, if you can make it they'll be out there until 7PM.
OK, so everyone's frustrated with the content-free, brainless ABC News debate the other night. Chuck Todd actually gets it wrong - it's not about rabid Obama partisans rising up to hammer ABC, it's about thinking people rising up and deciding not to accept the thin gruel the media tries to feed us anymore.
The moderators are unrepentant and congenitally wired to not get it. So we're going to have to take to the streets - the mean streets of Burbank, California. We want to know if ABC/Disney executives can pass the Gibson/Stephanopoulos flag pin litmus test - it's obviously the most important issue facing the nation, so are they sufficiently patriotic? If not, we're willing to help them out.
Over the last three days, organized labor has been working in solidarity with one another in a project called Hollywood to the Docks, a three-day march and protest involving both Change to Win unions and AFL-CIO members, from the Teamsters to SAG, from the ILWU to the Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports. They've literally walked from the heart of Hollywood to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach for the last three days, concluding with a concert on the docks tonight and appearances by Speaker-Elect Karen Bass and LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
Next Monday, April 21, will be a day of action across the state put together by a coalition called Students for California's Future, representing 3.2 million students, with major rallies planned in Los Angeles and at the state capital. They are rallying against cuts to education and the university system, and this will be just the beginning of a year-long effort to call attention to education funding.
And tomorrow, at 4:00 at the ABC/Disney headquarters in Burbank, in protest of the historically awful, content-free Democratic debate aired on ABC last night, the Courage Campaign and local LA activists are going to offer lapel pins to Disney employees. Otherwise, their network news anchors George Stephanopolous and Charles Gibson will think they hate America, which they obviously wouldn't want. (We'll have a lot more on this later)
Angered by eight years of conservative failure and inspired by a fiercely contested Democratic primary, a rejeuvenated grassroots is building all over the country and in California. Find an organization that speaks to you. Participate. Organize. And inch by inch, we're going to take this state and this country back.
I know that the traditional press is experiencing budget cuts and staff shortages, but there's never a good reason to use Debbie Schlussel, the low-rent Ann Coulter, as a source. However, Peter Wallsten of the LA Times did just that yesterday in a smear of Barack Obama. Schlussel is someone who blamed Pakistanis for the Virginia Tech massacre. She's a fearmonger of the rankest kind who is so unhappy about her position in the sewers of the pro-hate insaneosphere that she routinely emails cable news outlets daily reminding them of her availability. She should not be within 100 yards of anything that makes its way into respectable newsprint. And yet she was a source for this terrible Wallsten article.
The evidence Wallsten presents is scant and hardly alarming: Obama said nice things about Rashid Khalidi at a going away party for the respected Palestinian scholar, who moved from the University of Chicago to the Columbia University; he attended a speech by the late Palestinian expert Edward Said in 1998; he occasionally made statements supportive of Palestinians to Palestinian activists he knew in Chicago.
Yet the implicit tone of Wallsten's article suggests that Obama is not to be trusted on matters relating to Israel. Left aside is the fact that one can be pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel (at least in Chicago). Or the fact that the majority of Israelis support a two-state solution to the conflict, the same position held by Obama. MJ Rosenberg brilliantly parodied the gist of the Times' article in a blog post at Talking Points Memo today: "LA Times Today: Obama Not To Be Trusted, Doesn't Hate Arabs!!"
I used to work for Sen. Carl Levin, a Jew and a strong supporter of Israel, who is a close friend of the Arab community (in part, because he represents more Arab Americans than any other senator). I've seen Carl at Palestinian dinners (last year I saw him at one with Condi Rice). In fact, Joe Lieberman, not exactly an enemy of the State of Israel, has always gone out of his way to keep an open door to Arab-Americans, Palestinians and others.
In other words, this article is utterly bogus. Yes, Obama has empathy for Palestinians, just as he has empathy for Israelis. The man is naturally empathetic which will help repair some of the damage inflicted to our country's image by the current xenophobic administration.
If Arab-Americans and Palestinians trust Obama and think he plays fair, he will have considerably more leverage with them than either of the other two candidates who are not perceived that way. As Congressmen Bob Wexler and Steve Rothman, both Obama supporters, like to say, an American President who can speak to and be heard by Arabs can do a much better job in helping Israel and the Palestinians achieve peace and security than a President who is considered utterly unsympathetic to their concerns.
This is something to pay attention to and not dismiss, because the "Obama is an anti-Semite" rhetoric has been amped up as we approach the general election. It's foul nonsense, and Peter Wallsten, along with the LA Times' editorial staff, ought to know better. Of course, they believe people off the street who tell them that P. Diddy killed Tupac, so I guess this isn't all that surprising or unbefitting of their editorial standards.
Over the weekend the CDP resolutions committee endorsed the recall of Jeff Denham in SD-12. The Republicans have thrown a massive hissy fit over this, similar to the hissy fit Yacht Party regulars like Sam Blakeslee have thrown, denouncing those who dare to identify his record in public. All of a sudden we're seeing op-eds throughout the region and across the state decrying what is routinely identified as a "Don Perata-engineered power grab." The latest comes from the fount of conventional wisdom in the California political media, George Skelton:
This is the time of year when the northern San Joaquin Valley is actually bucolic. Temperatures are bearable. The hills are green and the orchards are in full bloom -- almonds gussied in white, peaches in pink.
Too bad that this spring there's also a foul odor of Sacramento political pollution.
In a nutshell, the local state senator -- Republican Jeff Denham of Merced -- didn't vote for the state budget last summer. That contributed to a 52-day stalemate and angered the Senate leader, Democrat Don Perata of Oakland. So Perata now is trying to recall Denham.
Not just a payback, but the political death penalty.
Funny, I don't remember such high dudgeon back in 2003, when the recall of Gray Davis was viewed as a victory for democracy and an opportunity for the people to have their say.
Here's what's actually going on. Professional hack Kevin Spillane is good at getting his propaganda into the papers. And the media obliges without any historical perspective whatsoever. If Republicans want to put forth a measure ending recall petitions and allowing any state officer to finish out their term, go ahead; I'd probably support it. But they don't. They want to use the recall when it suits them and whine about "fairness" and "power grabs" when it doesn't. There could not have possibly been a bigger power grab than the Darrell Issa and Ted Costa-funded recall of Gray Davis. Anyone in the so-called liberal media dumb enough not to understand this notion of asymmetrical warfare isn't worth reading.
I fear that the Spillane hack-o-thon is bearing fruit in scaring off Democrats from pressing forward on this recall; there certainly wasn't a lot of talk about it or enthusiasm at the convention, nor was there any potential challenger in sight pressing the flesh. The Denham recall, in fact, is what the process was invented for: when legislators protect their own or their party's interest at the expense of the people they should be held accountable. Jeff Denham is part of an effort to stop California lawmakers from doing their jobs and eliminate, for practical purposes, the role of government in the state. The Iron Law of Institutions dictate that "people within institutions act to increase their own power rather than the power of the institution itself." The only way to deal with that from the outside is use the legal tools available to exact leverage on the institution. If it was OK for a Republican to use, so too for a Democrat.
So these media types and their hacktastic Republican spinmeisters can shut their whiny little mouths and defend their role in the shutdown of democracy in California to the voters. Jeff Denham ought to be able to defend himself instead of crying about the "process."
So, let's see. You're the New York Times. You're a national paper, but you have a significant readership in California, so you want to cover the Left Coast every now and again. You're not on the ground in California, but you have a few reporters hither and yon, and press releases a go-go from the Governor's office. There's a space in the paper for a California story, something that can show to the world the innovation and forward-thinking at work in the nation's largest state. So you look over what they've done for the last few days.
On the one hand, the Governor, just months from failing in a quest to massively expand health care to millions of uninsured Californians, has decided to go in the complete opposite direction and force Medi-Cal enrollees to fill out all kinds of paperwork in the hopes of knocking thousands off the rolls to save money.
Administration officials expect the rule will result in 122,000 people being dropped from the rolls next year, saving the state $92 million - money that the governor's staff has already counted against the state's deficit.
The plan calls for about 4.5 million of the 6.5 million enrollees of the Medi-Cal program to file eligibility forms with the state four times a year. Under existing law, children, some disabled people and pregnant women must reapply once a year, while parents are required to report twice annually.
The chore of filling out a form and sending it to regulators might sound simple enough, but for Medi-Cal recipients such as Ernie Campbell of Novato, who has hemophilia, the danger of losing coverage because of an unanticipated problem, such as a form being lost or delayed in the mail, is a serious one.
"The renewal process is already a lot of paperwork and they warn you if you don't get everything in on time you could lose your coverage," said Campbell, 31. "I think this could probably affect me pretty negatively."
Sounds like something you'd want to cover. You know, the story has an arc and some drama, with a callous Governor claiming the mantle of universal health care in public and trying to cast off the sick and the poor in private.
On the other hand, there's this somewhat meaningless move to create a cabinet-level position for volunteerism, an effort to outsource normal government functions, and let them rise and fall on volunteer efforts. Seems like not much of a program at all, and certainly of less importance to everyday Californians than this plan to purge the Medi-Cal rolls. Anyway there are plenty of volunteer organizations that perform these functions all the time.
Under the change, the governor's commission for volunteerism, California Volunteers, will maintain its staffing and budget. But its executive director will gain expanded duties as a cabinet secretary, playing a role in disaster-related planning and response efforts and coordinating volunteers at disaster sites.
The office will also manage donations that flow into the state for disaster relief, a responsibility now held by the state's Office of Emergency Response. It is the first time a governor's commission overseeing federal money to manage volunteers - panels required by law since 1993 - has been elevated to a cabinet role.
Really no change at all, aside from a change in the faceplate on somebody's office door.
But that fit the narrative of the "Governator is teh awesome" much, much better. So off it goes to the front porches of all the Grey Lady's readers.
And some people blame the 2006 election loss on Phil Angelides. Ho-kay.
Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown went right to work Tuesday, preparing to sue the federal government "at the earliest possible moment" for the EPA's denial of a waiver to let California implement Fran Pavley's AB1493, the law regulating auto tailpipe emissions that was to begin with model year 2009. The regulations, which sought to control greenhouse gases and not just boost auto efficiency standards, would have had the effect of an increase in MPG to roughly 43, far above the 35MPG by 2020 just mandated in the federal energy bill. Indeed, the EPA in its decision noted the passage of the energy bill as a reason to deny California's request, claiming that there should be one standard and that the new bill pre-empted California's authority. So much for state's rights conservatives.
The lawsuit is about as close as you can get to a slam dunk. The case law is already enormously in favor of California. They have been granted every waiver they've ever requested from the EPA since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1963, and the "compelling and extraordinary conditions" of the state's topography, climate, and number of cars on the road has always been specifically cited. That hasn't changed. In addition, federal lawsuits in California and Vermont have upheld the standards set out in AB1493 as fully legal. And just this year, the Roberts Supreme Court has ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the federal government can regulate greenhouse gas emissions, writng that:
"Judged by any standard, U.S. motor-vehicle emissions make a meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations."
Sadly, it's true that the Bush Administration probably has the ability to put up enough of a fight in the courts to make implementation virtually impossible so long as he remains in office. And so this is likely to come down to a decision for the next President to make. So you would think that the media, knowing this, knowing the potential of global warming to impact all of our lives, would bother to ask a question about it. But so far in 2007, out of 2275 questions asked of the Presidential candidates on the Sunday chat shows, 3 mentioned global warming. Here's a news peg, Russert, Stephanopoulos, Blitzer, Wallace and Schieffer. Have at it!
The only thing the 52-day budget stalemate proved is how irrelevant the California Legislature has become. Change a few laws and we wouldn't need them at all.
State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata wants to reform the state budget process. I say reform the whole bunch out of business. Nothing the legislators have done over the past two months -- maybe the past several decades -- has made life better for Californians.
This guy's the editor of the editorial page, and a crank, so he doesn't appear to examine the reasons WHY the legislative process is stalled. This is classic "a pox on both your houses" editorializing, the likes of which you'd typically find in the back of a bar. And I would guess this pretty much molds political opinion for many in the Central Valley, where independence is no doubt prized.
[Welcome, visitors from Crooks & Liars. If you're interested in California politics, please have a look around Calitics. You might even want to register and join Calitics, a Scoop-based community.]
This isn't exactly California politics, but there is a California hook, and it's too good to pass up.
Crooks & Liars has video of KGO's late-night talk show host Bernie Ward destroying Texas Republican radio host Chris Baker on MSNBC. The two were there to discuss the New York Times' reporting of the Bush Administrations' recent financial dragnetting.
Ward gets Baker to completely lose his cool and storm off the set. This is instructive not because Baker lost his cool, but because of the way that Bernie Ward refused to play his game:
Baker: Time of War! New York Times Treasonous! Bush Haters!
Ward: Should the government control what a newspaper prints?
Baker: Time of War! New York Times Treasonous! Bush Haters!
Ward: Answer the question. Should the government control what a newspaper prints?
[Repeat until Baker loses his mind, calls Ward names, and storms off because his Rove-approved talking points aren't working.]
Ward changed the basic assumptions of the conversation, and then refused to be baited by Baker's Republican-party talking points or the host's attempts to drag him into a diversion about "the courts" (where you've already conceded that government censorship of the press is a legitimate question). See how effective that was?
Avistan as a colon cancer medicine has been costing about $50,000 a year. The cost of the same medicine as a breast and lung cancer treatment is expected to be $100,000 a year.
The dosage will be higher for these treatments, but the incremental increase in manufacturing cost is minimal. So what's going on?
Genentech is signaling that the higher price to treat breast cancer reflects the higher value society places on fighting this disease. That's different; the usual pharmaceutical industry response is that the high prices are necessary to recover the research and development costs.
That's the free market in action, Mr. Weintraub. Breast cancer is pricier than colon cancer. Now, I don't know anything about Mr. Weintraub's financial situation, or his family's. But let's imagine that his wife, mother, or sister is looking at a minimum $100K bill just for this pharmaceutical treatment for breast cancer.
I wonder if he'd so glibly to dismiss health insurance then? Or is Mr. Weintraub's family so rich that they would never feel a $100K bill for a drug? If so, he doesn't have much business lecturing the rest of us about how we ought to pay out of pocket for our medical care.
I'm beginning to understand the roles of the full-time Op-Ed writers at the Sacramento Bee. Dan Walters plays Dan Broder without the gravitas, while Daniel Weintraub plays a diet version of John Stossel. Today, we'll have a quick look at Weintraub's most recent oeuvre: an ode to his power to imagine a world without health insurance in response to Carole Migden's introduction of a bill to require large corporations to provide health insurance.
Weintraub spends several paragraphs talking about how great the market is for delivering things like food, cars and houses, and painting a grim picture of how awful it would be if one's employer controlled one's access to those goods. That's all true. The (regulated) market is really good at delivering those kinds of goods: lots of choices, fairly good information that regular folks can understand easily enough, prohibitions on adulteration and deceit, and generally, enough time to process the information one does get. One might note in passing that the regulation of these markets was fought hammer and tongs by the industries affected.
