In part 1 of a New Deal for California, I discussed why any effort to rebuild the state must begin with a frontal assault on high unemployment as the only reliable means of achieving budget stability - as opposed to self-defeating quests for balance via austerity. In part 2, I studied how the quest for a more perfect democracy is inextricably linked to a renewal of democratic control over the state's own revenues.
Today, I want to discuss two areas of policy that are among the largest spending categories in the California state budget, but which also represent two faces of the state, and two approaches to developing its youth, and two sets of values - namely, education and prisons.
Arnold's recent proposal to put a floor under higher education at 10% of the state budget and a ceiling over prisons at 7% of the state budget is only the most recent example of a long trend of discussing the two in the same breath. As I discussed in the linked article, Schwarzenegger's approach is fundamentally flawed, a mirage of egalitarianism masking a reality of utter callousness. A moral society cannot pay for the future of its most talented youth through the deliberate immiseration of its least advantaged.
However, a New Deal for California will have to grapple with the reality that California will either educate or incarcerate its young, and that the power to choose lies with us.
The current state of California politics can be summed up in a simple comparison: in the Republican gubernatorial primaries, we see one candidate promising that their first action upon becoming governor is to put 40,000 people out of work and the other complaining that this isn’t enough; in the Democratic convention, we see a party divided over whether to fight for majority rule for budgets or for budgets and taxes.
As a state, California seems caught between the scissors of an increasing need for public services to provide a basic level of social protection for the sick, the elderly and the poor and to restore our high-road, high-wage economy based on superior public education and green technology, and a paralyzed, undemocratic, and irrational political structure that is unwilling and unable to take the necessary actions to meet those needs.
We know that the strategies proposed by the GOP’s gubernatorial candidates won’t work because they are essentially a retreat of the last seven years of failed policies – Schwarzeneggerism without a human face.
Yet Democrats lack a forceful message about what we want to do beyond the immediate issue of the budget.
Picture a nation where all children have enough nutritious food to eat and never worry where they'll find their next meal. They eat three solid, healthy meals a day, have a couple of snacks, and go to bed without fearing hunger. According to President Obama, who made a campaign pledge to end childhood hunger in the United States by 2015, this is the world he wants to see by six years from now.
The Obama Administration is beginning to put some effort behind this pledge. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is holding a series of listening sessions around the country on ways to achieve the 2015 goal. One of those sessions was recently held here in Oakland, Calif.
Groups and individuals from various sectors, including state agencies, industry and advocacy groups, and service providers showed up and shared ideas on how to end childhood hunger over the next six years. We at the Alameda County Community Food Bank were there to represent the hundreds of thousands of county residents who live with hunger - numbers that are escalating on a monthly basis.
We've laid out a number of recommendations that will lead our country down the right path toward ending hunger. The administration and Congress can take a number of steps:
An impressive gathering of political leaders, advocates and policy wonks were in attendance on Monday in San Francisco for a major forum examining the social and economic factors that influence health and the role those issues should play in the upcoming health care reform debate. The event was jointly sponsored by the California Endowment, the Stanford Center for the Study of Poverty and Inequality, and Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity.
When will the those who really need it get their bailout?
There will be another economic stimulus package in the next few months. President-elect Obama made it clear at his first press conference last week: "If it does not get done in a lame-duck session, it will be the first thing I do as president of the United States." A glance at headlines from the past few days drives the seriousness of the situation home:
Apparently 37,276,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007) Americans are not considered to be human, have no value and hence unworthy of any consideration in the formulation of policy. Just as cats and dogs are regulated by the government for unacceptable behavior but are not the recipients of any government transfers, those living in poverty are perpetually mired in a morass of neglect and indifference by all levels of government who often discover that the only free "public housing tract" (Mumia Abu Jamal) available to them, is prison.
Considering all of the rural areas and dirt-poor urban centers in the country, you have to be a little surprised that Jim Costa's Central Valley district is the worst in the country for quality of life.
Poverty, poor health and low graduation rates have put the San Joaquin Valley's 20th Congressional District dead last in a new national scorecard that ranks the well-being of residents.
Even notoriously grim Appalachia fares better than the congressional district that sweeps in Fresno, Kings and Kern counties, the study made public Wednesday shows. The assessment of health, education and income ranks the district 436th out of 436 districts nationwide.
CA-20 has the lowest rate of college graduates in the country, just 6.5%. The median annual salary is just $16,767, and life expectancy is 4.5 years lower than in rich, high well-being areas like the Upper East Side of Manhattan. It's an appalling set of numbers.
We know the challenges in this district. Factory-style farming has lowered the air quality and increased the public health risks. As income inequality stratifies, places like the Central Valley get left behind, even more so in a California with a 6.9% unemployment rate. A lack of development into 21st-century jobs causes a brain drain, and higher energy prices cripple rural America.
And there's a residual benefit. A dirt-poor district is a district that doesn't vote heavily or pay much attention to politics, paradoxically so since they need to the most. And so we get Representatives like Jim Costa, whose district has the lowest participation rates in the entire state. Which means he can vote the wrong way on issues like FISA or war funding and not get much feedback about it from a constituency that's struggling to survive. In this context, his desire to return federal funds to the district or improve quality of life would seem to be low, at best. It's a vicious circle: poverty breeds inattention, inattention breeds bad lawmakers, bad lawmakers have trouble improving poverty.
We need less legislators like Jim Costa who seem more interested in pleasing their corporate contributors than the suffering citizens in their own districts. The problem is how to reach a low-information constituency, and how to make that connection, that sustained political power and engagement is vital if we want to end poverty and build the post-carbon, post-agrarian economy that would lift up whole regions like the Central Valley.
(I added a photo of Sen. Yee joining the protest at UCSF. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
The people who cook lunches, clean classrooms, and provide medical care at the University of California live in poverty. 96% of the people who do these important, necessary jobs are eligible to receive public poverty assistance. Many people working at the UC -- one of the world's most prestigious universities -- have to work two or even three jobs just to pay rent and put food on the table for their families.
I just got back from the picket line here at UC Santa Barbara, where I'm a teacher and graduate student. The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 3299 (AFSCME), which represents the 8,500 people who cook, clean, and work in health clinics across the University, today began a five-day strike after more than a full year of demanding a better contract with fair wages . There are about 100 or so workers and supporters at the main entrance to UCSB right now, demonstrating for a fair contract. Spirits are high, because everyone knows that the University simply cannot work without them -- so they're going to win a fair contract. It's just a matter of time.
Manuel Perez is bringing a socially conservative, economically progressive county back to the Democrats. Imperial County is one of the poorest in California. It's part of the California 80th Assembly District, which reaches from Palm Springs to Mexico and Arizona. dday gives the best brief of it here. It's not on the radar of some of the wealthy liberals in the west of the district, which is one of the reasons why we've lost this race to Bonnie Garcia over and over. Imperial County has been voting against registration and handing victory to the Republicans, but it's looking up in 2008. Voters in Riverside and Imperial Counties have a winning progressive this year.
This is a call to all those who support the progressive platform that John Edwards pushed throughout the primary season. Even if you currently support another candidate actively, this is a call to you. And even if you are just unable to support anyone but John, this is a call to you. And even if you never actively supported John Edwards but you admired the stands he took on issues, there is something you can do.
Now, I've spoken to both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. They have both pledged to me and more importantly through me to America, that they will make ending poverty central to their campaign for the presidency.
And more importantly, they have pledged to me that as President of the United States they will make ending poverty and economic inequality central to their Presidency. This is the cause of my life and I now have their commitment to engage in this cause.
In America today, families are working harder to get by.
Half of American families say they are living paycheck to paycheck,
and 3 out of 10 American workers have not been able to save a dime for their retirement.
(Welcome back Representative! - promoted by Bob Brigham)
We have a problem with our economy. The raw numbers say the economic pie is growing, but the larger pieces are all going to a small minority of Americans -- meaning that for most Americans, wages are barely keeping pace with inflation.
Clearly, it's time to reconnect the economic fortunes of front-line workers to those of their CEO's -- who are commonly making making tens of millions of dollars annually -- by cutting off tax subsidies for these enormous compensation packages if they are more than 25 times the salary of the lowest paid worker in the company.
Anti-war movements have their bases set in popular culture. Political leaders will co-opt the popular culture in order to shape their images and to present their messages. Being a pop culture leader in an anti-war movement is not without its peril. Being the target of pop culture is similarly not without its peril.
The purveyors and icons of popular culture have to climb aboard the Peace Train (thank you, Dolly Parton) in order for an anti-war movement to advance. We saw this in large measure during the Vietnam Civil War when artists like Bob Dylan, Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young and others wrote and performed anti-war rhetoric. Norman Whitfield wrote the song "War" and wanted the the Temptations to perform it. However, apparently in response to the conservative following of the Temptations, only Edwin Starr of the Temptations and Whitfield recorded the single so as not to alienate the fan base.
More recently, we have seen the results of The Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines making an off-handed remark and Michael Moore's film-making which were excoriated and blown out of proportion by the Repugnants. More specifically, fans of Maines, Emily Robison, and Martie Maguire were encouraged to destroy the group's albums and CDs following Maine's remarks about the embarrassment which is the so-called Pres. Bush. However, The Dixie Chicks kept its stride and bounced back with with an amazing anti-war song, "Not Ready To Make Nice," one of my favorite songs of all time. The song and album won five Grammy Awards at the 49th Grammy Awards Ceremony. I also personally credit The Dixie Chicks for helping to significantly turn the country away from the dominion of Darkness. Michael Moore has similarly risked his life and standing in the community in order to present Truth to Power with his documentary films including "911." As with The Dixie Chicks, Moore has suffered at the hands of the Repugnants and their lackeys.
Now, Pink has joined the fray. I love her song and lyrics "Dear Mr. President" that features the Indigo Girls and adore the accompanying video as well. If you have not heard the song, check it out at i-tunes. If you have not seen the video, it is now playing on Time Warner Cable On Demand, at least in the Beaumont/Banning area:
I'm on dozens of Email lists, everybody from the New York Times to Victoria's Secret (great articles over there) sends me Email and I spend way too much time scanning and deleting most of it daily. I subscribe to Email lists from news organizations, campaign committees, government watchdog groups and all kinds of public service organizations. I also get stuff addressing me as Dear One, with great investment opportunities in Nigeria and missives that promise to make me larger, but I delete them all summarily as I have nothing to invest and..., never mind.
Most of what I receive is of a "progressive" or "liberal" nature but in the interest of knowing what the adversary is up to, I also subscribe to publications from conservative groups, the spectrum runs from the Coulter, Limbaugh breed of invertebrates to the American Enterprise Institute and other large lizards. I"ll tell you, a little of this stuff goes a long way.
I got a real dandy this morning from the Heritage Foundation, you know, the conservative think tank that has worked so tirelessly for the Bush administration, embroiling us in various wars of empire and providing invaluable aid and advice in support of administration efforts to relieve American citizens of such pesky irritants as habeas corpus, civil liberties and due process of law, while conducting additional studies aimed at relieving us of our money.
Heritage has long fought the good fight for corporate rights and limited government. These are the guys who burn the midnight oil to come up with ways to help corporations pocket employee pension funds without exposing themselves to criminal liability while working diligently to ensure that federal regulatory agencies are toothless, and in all ways impotent. The effectiveness of their efforts on behalf of corporate America can be measured in such events as the Crandall Canyon mine collapse.
The organization, which came into existence in 1973 was bankrolled by Joseph Coors, of the Coors Brewing Company and billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife,Paul Weyrich was one of it's founders, there were no wild eyed leftists in that circle unless they were carrying a rake, polishing the crystal or cleaning the pool.
Heritage is now funded to the tune of 30 to 40 million annually by obscenely wealthy individuals and cash bloated corporations. They also receive large sums from foreign governments and such entities (it has been reported) as the Korean Intelligence agency. In return for their generosity Heritage spends about twenty percent of the take lobbying government on their behalf and publishing studies which tell them things that they want to hear and helping them market bullshit and lies to the rest of us.
OK, I can't stop thinking about this. All the Orange County Supervisors claim to be good "fiscal conservatives" who are "responsible" in spending our tax dollars. John Moorlach says that current pension benefits for county deputy sheriffs are "irresponsible" and "illegal under state law". Janet Nguyen tells us that we need a "county services office" in order to better serve taxpayers in Westminster. Now isn't THAT wasteful?
But then, this problem isn't just at the county level. In Sacramento, the Republicans in the State Senate think it's OK to "balance" the budget on the backs of the poor and needy.They decry health care for poor children as "wasteful spending", and then do whatever they can to preserve tax breaks for the ultrarich and mega corporations that aren't really needed. Is that their priority? Is it really more important that the ultrarich get tax breaks than poor kids getting health care?
Follow me after the flip for more as I wonder what exactly can be considered "wasteful"...
Yesterday, I saw this in The Register. And as soon as I saw this, I was stopped in my tracks.
Roughly 2.5 million low-income adults in California can't afford to adequately feed their families, resulting in health problems and household stress, according to a UCLA report released this week.
The report measures food insecurity, which can range from reduced quality or variety of diet to skipping meals because of costs. In 2005, 30 percent of low-income adults statewide reported choosing between food and other basic needs, according to data from the California Health Interview Study. Among them, 9 percent experienced a disruption in eating habits or skipped meals. The study did not include the homeless.
In Orange County, the UCLA report says an estimated 190,000 low-income adults struggle to buy food, and about 36,000 people sometimes go hungry. The numbers don't include children.
Oh my goodness! 2.5 million people in California can't afford to feed their families? And 190,000 of them are in "wealthy" Orange County? 145,000 of them in San Bernardino County? 740,000 of them in LA County? What's happening to these people who can't afford to eat? Why is this happening? And what can we do to solve this problem?
I have a conflicted relationship with the LA Times. On the one hand, they still do a stellar job covering international news; I would put the paper's Iraq reporting up with any other news organization in the world. But on the editorial side, the paper has taken up the neoliberal consensus with a vengeance, and turns a blind eye to vital issues to this community, like inequality and poverty. Nancy Cleeland, an excellent writer, has decided to leave the paper for just this reason:
(Welcome to the post-honeymoon era. - promoted by blogswarm)
What's going on here? I thought that Ahhnuld wanted to provide health care to poor children...
But now, he wants to cut welfare aid to these same kids. So they can go to the doctor for a check-up, but they can't eat and they can't have a roof over their heads? I really don't get this. If this is "post-partisan cooperation", then I'm not particularly impressed.
This past week, much to everyone’s surprise, Democrats in the House of Representatives managed to slip a proposal to increase the minimum wage into a bill funding the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services.
Faced with the specter of having to vote against increasing the wage floor from its current embarrassing level of $5.15 to $7.25 by Jan. 1, 2009, Congressional Republicans snapped into action and pulled the bill.
This is what these brave souls do in election season when they don’t want to have to go back to their districts and answer questions as to why it’s ok to cut hundreds of billions in rich people’s taxes but deny the working poor a boost.
Well, I say: “Not so fast, guys. Let’s chat about this for a few minutes.”
Not let me get this straight. Last month, you passed $70 billion worth of new tax cuts, mostly by extending earlier Bush cuts on dividends and capital gains. When tax cuts target investment income, the benefits flow to the wealthy, and these cuts are exhibit A: they reduce millionaire’s tax payments by $43,000, and those of middle-income families by $20. Sorry, that’s not a typo. It’s what you get when you put the YOYOs in charge of fiscal policy.
Wait a second, where you going? I’m not done. Set a spell…
I got a real dandy this morning from the