Tomorrow is August 1, and the ball basically gets tipped for what could be a wild month of local events throughout the nation, as both sides of the political divide do battle over the health care bill. One side is funded by lobbyists and special interests, and will be out in force in August, creating mini-Brooks Brothers riots all over the country, harassing members of Congress, doing whatever they can to be the squeakiest wheel in the hopes of drowning out support for health care reform. So how will Democrats respond?
With polls suggesting that public support is sagging for President Obama's push to overhaul health care, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said the party will use the August break to make a strong sales pitch to middle-class voters.
"We're going to be on the air. We're going to be in the neighborhoods," said Hoyer, D-Md. "Our members are going to now have the opportunity to go home ... and say to their constituents, 'Look, this is what we're doing. This is why it's good for you and your family.' " [...]
A House Democratic memo obtained by USA TODAY shows the steps the party is taking to coordinate its message over the break. Lawmakers are encouraged to hold town-hall-style meetings, post videos on the Internet and find small-business owners "whose testimony can provide a powerful narrative," the memo states.
There's an opportunity here for California activists in both swing and heavily Democratic districts to impact the debate. House progressives actually moved the ball to the left, after Henry Waxman sealed a deal with Blue Dogs on the Energy and Commerce Committee, forcing leadership back to the table after 57 members signed a letter saying they would never vote for such a compromise. 14 of those members come from California, and so a key activist mission over the recess would be to get more House Democrats to sign on to these principles, to pass a health care bill that provides affordable options for everyone and as robust a public insurance option as possible, open to as many people as possible, to compete with the private market. The Center For American Progress has created state-by-state fact sheets about how the current system harms regular people, and Waxman's Energy and Commerce Committee has put out detailed district-level fact sheets for how HR 3200, the current bill in the House, would impact people.
In addition, this activist movement to find enough progressives willing to block negative compromises can provide a teachable moment for how to do this at the state level. On certain votes, we can change incentives and move them in the right direction, even in our political system, which is currently wired for conservatives.
If events are happening in your district, let us know. If your representative corresponded with you about health care, let us know that too. This is really a pretty consequential month for health care reform in America.
I'm sure many political observers will laud this New York Times magazine article on California's crisis and the men and women who seek to solve it, but I found it oddly pedestrian. The profiles of the candidates reveal little of substance, and aside from displaying the salient fact that Arnold has no interest in the well-being of his constituents, I didn't see the point.
"Someone else might walk out of here every day depressed, but I don't walk out of here depressed," Schwarzenegger said. Whatever happens, "I will sit down in my Jacuzzi tonight," he said. "I'm going to lay back with a stogie."
Overall, I saw too much focus on personality in dealing with what is essentially a problem of process.
Actually, while I didn't agree with all of it, I thought Gary Kamiya had a much smarter take, and it didn't mention Arnold Schwarzenegger or the names of any of his potential replacements more than once. The headline, "Californians are sinking themselves," doesn't seem to match the bulk of the article, which focuses on the dysfunctional governing process.
The immediate source of California's financial problems is a lethal combination of ideology and rules. It is deeply politically divided, and its governmental mechanisms are completely broken. Bay Area leftists stare at Orange County conservatives across an unbridgeable abyss; a large and potent group of anti-government libertarians faces off against an equally powerful group of pro-tax, proactive government liberals. If California, like most states, required only a simple majority to pass its budget, the disagreements between these camps could be worked out; after all, the Democrats control the Legislature. But California requires a two-thirds majority, which gives the GOP, now dominated by anti-government, anti-tax ideologues, veto power over the process. The result is deadlock.
Compounding this problem is California's notorious initiative process, which allows voters to bypass the Legislature and place initiatives directly on the ballot simply by gathering enough signatures. The initiative process was originally passed by voters in 1911 to circumvent the power of the oligarchic railroad trusts by restoring direct democracy. And it still offers citizens a chance to take control of important issues. But it has gone out of control, abused by powerful interests who hire people to collect signatures and ram through bills that no ordinary citizen can be expected to comprehend. By sidelining elected officials, it achieves the worst of both worlds: It gives ordinary citizens, who lack requisite expertise, institutional memory and accountability, too much power, and then forces legislators to clean up their mess -- except that because of ideological gridlock and the supermajority requirement, they can't.
Kamiya looks at the three strikes law and in particular Prop. 13, which he views as the ultimate manifestation of the Two Santa Claus theory, that California can have endlessly lower taxes with endlessly more social services.
This was, in effect, a mass outbreak of cognitive dissonance, an up-yours delivered to government with the public's left hand, while its right hand reached out for Sacramento's largesse. Now, 31 years later, the bill has finally come due. There is no free lunch. If you want good roads, parks, decent schools (California's schools, once the best in the nation, are now among the worst) and adequate social services, you have to pay for them.
Out of this, Kamiya points his finger at the people who voted in Prop. 13 and failed to modify it over the ensuing 31 years, who are "self-centered" and have "not decided what it thinks about the New Deal, or government itself." They need to "grow up," Kamiya says.
I think this ignores the fact that Californians have traditionally been offered precious few choices to rectify the broken system. The Democratic Party essentially has made a pact with themselves to nibble around the edges for three decades instead of confronting the great unmentionable crisis of governance. People see the dysfunctional politics play out year after year and become rightfully disaffected with the system. And they are never told anything from anyone in a position of power to counteract the Two Santa Claus theory, and so they necessarily believe it. I don't blame citizens for responding to their leaders. The problem lies with the leadership itself, or more to the point the lack thereof.
I was 5 years old and on the other coast of the country when Prop. 13 was passed, and I'm not about to bear the brunt of the blame for that decision. I would blame myself if I continued to live with the failure of the political leadership to confront the root causes. But Californians are starting to use movement politics to go around the leadership and force the necessary solutions. The sheer enormity of the problem and the size of the state makes this a difficult option. But the alternative, to acquiesce and wait patiently for the leadership to figure things out, is unthinkable.
California's senior Senator has heard the talk, has heard the voices of her constituents, and basically doesn't care.
"We are getting to the point if people aren't going to respond to the patience and openness of Senator Baucus, we should begin to make a different plan," said Andrew Stern, president of the 2 million-member SEIU.
Stern said his organization issued a release chastising Feinstein last week, because she should "put her foot on the gas, not the brake" on health reform.
"The gas pedal to go where?" Feinstein replied, explaining she has questions about how a broad expansion of health coverage will be paid for.
"I do not think this is helpful. It doesn't move me one whit," she said. "They are spending a lot of money on something that is not productive."
What we have here is a difference of opinion over the nature of representative democracy. Are politicians elected to reflect the will of their constituents, or are they elected to provide their own enlightened opinion on public affairs and public policy? Sen. Feinstein has already given her perspective before. She acknowledged that public opinion in California was sharply against authorizing the war in Iraq, but she voted for it anyway, arguing that she knew things her constituents didn't know (namely, hundreds of lies told by the Bush Administration). On health care, she has the same perspective; we, the citizens of California, had an "accountability moment" in 2006, Feinstein was elected, and now we can all STFU as she applies her own reasoning and belief on health care and other topics.
Needless to say, I don't agree with her perspective. It sounds to me like something that a member of the House of Lords would say rather than a politician in this country. Not to mention the fact that it cuts completely against the trend of participatory democracy that has energized the Democratic side of the aisle since Howard Dean's campaign in 2003-04. Dianne Feinstein thinks your role as a citizen is to vote for her and then keep quiet for six years and she bequeaths her wisdom.
If you don't agree with her, contact her office. I'm sure her staff will file that away somewhere.
The past couple days on Calitics, we've had Jason Rosenbaum detail grassroots efforts over Dianne Feinstein's confusing comments about and reticence to sign on to comprehensive health care reform. First he highlighted Health Care for America Now's petition urging Feinstein to get on board with health care reform. Then he deconstructed Feinstein's official statement on health care, which was unsatisfactory.
Feinstein is an important part of this debate. She doesn't sit on any of the relevant committees, but she has cachet in Washington, and with real health care reform coming down to just a handful of votes, her views will be crucial to the debate going forward. At a time when 85 percent of respondents to a Field Poll support a public health insurance option to compete with private industry, Feinstein must not be allowed to ignore the will of her constituents, as she did in her vote to authorize the war in Iraq.
Fortunately, practically every progressive organization in the state and even the country is hammering Feinstein for her naysaying, and demanding that she stay true to the principles she laid out, including controlling costs, expanding coverage and stopping the bad practices of the insurance industry, by endorsing a public health insurance option as part of any reform package. In addition to Health Care For America Now, MoveOn created an ad and drove phone calls to Feinstein's office. Today CREDO Mobile joined the fray with a petition asking her to support the public plan, and the return receipt after you sign offers a one-click retweet of a Twitter message to spread the word, which is innovative. The Courage Campaign also has a letter calling on DiFi to stand with the President and support a public option. Courage Campaign also offers one-click forwarding of the message to Twitter, Facebook and MySpace (MySpace still exists?).
Health care reform is the make-or-break issue of this year, and Dianne Feinstein needs to hear from every one of her constituents about it.
(In addition, Firedoglake is whipping the public option in the House, with the goal of finding 40 Democrats who will commit to opposing any bill that DOESN'T have a strong public option contained in it. Presuming that all Republicans will vote against any health care reform, this would have the effect of changing the incentives in Congress, currently tilted toward what the most conservative elements of the Democratic coalition would accept, and move them instead toward what the liberal base of the coalition will demand in exchange for their vote. There are lots of California Democratic House members on their list, so head over and get to the phones!)
It's taken the proposed destruction of practically the entire social safety net in California for progressives both inside and outside the political system to fight back. I'm actually more heartened by the work done outside it. I expect Lenny Goldberg to come up with a great alternative budget calling for tax fairness, and end to corporate welfare and a government for all the people instead of the rich. I expect Jean Ross to do the same, as well as AFSCME. They're all good proposals, but this is what they are paid to do. What I don't expect, and what I haven't seen, is a citizen's movement to rival the institutional and advocacy machinery. The Fix the California Budget Facebook page is really one of the first such grassroots pushes I've seen in recent memory.
Californians deserve real solutions to the budget deficit. Responding to our economic crisis with an all-cuts budget will only make the state's problems worse. Deep cuts to vital programs undermine our economic recovery and President Obama's investment in economic stimulus, disproportionately harm the most vulnerable Californians, and go against our core values.
More than 70 percent of voters sat out the May 19 special election because it is the Governor and Legislature's job to fix the budget. Polls show the defeat of the initiatives was neither an endorsement of an all-cuts approach nor a rejection of raising revenues.
Under Governor Schwarzenegger, we have suffered $23 billion in spending cuts in the current budget year alone. Additional drastic cuts will irrevocably change the state we love. Californians support and deserve a state that provides for the common good and the needs of our residents, and we need to pursue realistic revenue solutions that will protect our shared priorities. Cuts are not the only option!
Our state needs courageous leadership. We will support those who stand against an all-cuts budget, speak out for fair ways of raising revenue, and work to deliver a budget that invests in our future and protects all the people of our state. True leaders get their strength from the people they represent. We pledge to be that strength, and mobilize to support a sensible budget solution.
The specific action items are to call your lawmaker and provide that counter-weight to the internal pressure to support the all-cuts approach. They reference the majority-vote fee increase as a legitimate option that must be put before the Governor in place of the worst cuts. County Democratic Chairs and local activists are actually driving the pressure from below, rather than having solutions imposed upon them.
This represents an opportunity. It doesn't mean we win this fight - we're going to lose more than we win at first. And in a way, this is the corporate "reform" community's worst nightmare - the Bay Area Council and California Forward would rather drive the reform process themselves and keep it within their own particular boundaries. But we can build a movement of a newly-roused core group of activists committed to setting California on the right path by restoring democracy, eliminating the conservative veto and reforming the broken system. This is a first step.
Yesterday at the Venice Pier, Marcy Winograd announced her campaign for Congress in front of about 75-80 supporters and friends, and many leaders of the progressive activist community in Los Angeles. The campaign showed their thrift and commitment to recycling by using the old Winograd '06 campaign posters and skillfully pasting a "'10" sticker in the appropriate place. It's going to be that kind of campaign.
After a few speakers (I particularly enjoyed Julian Barger from the Harbor area of the district calling Jane Harman "Congresswoman Helmsley" for her double standard on civil liberties for her vs. civil liberties for all Americans), Marcy gave a short speech where she emphasized her no-holds-barred progressive values and offered a true contrast to her incumbent opponent. She called for a "new New Deal" to put America back to work, announced support for John Conyers' HR 676, questioned the continued bailout of the banks and the use of Predator drone strikes in Pakistan, argued for rapid transit and renewable energy in the Los Angeles area, and said of her primary challenge, "this will reverberate throughout the country."
Winograd spoke to various concerns of families in the district, noting that areas of Torrance are experiencing skyrocketing foreclosure rates, and that business has declined over 20% in the port at San Pedro. This is an area where, with a longer campaign time frame than her quick run in 2006, Winograd can make headway in all areas of the district and throughout the South Bay, speaking to the economic concerns of the area and drawing contrast with Jane Harman's more conservative approach. Obviously, the greater concern about Harman more recently has been her defense of the Bush Administration's the warrantless wiretapping and her generally hawkish stance abroad. But there is an opening for a core economic argument, still the major preoccupation of voters, to be made.
Winograd's announcement got covered in LA Weekly and the CoCo Times. Mainstream news pieces about this primary challenge never fail to emphasize that the 36th is a "moderate" district and that Winograd will have to "broaden her appeal" to win over those voters. This assumes that Democratic primary voters, or virtually anyone, makes election choices based on firm ideological footing. Poll after poll has shown that on the issues, Americans portray a far more progressive belief system than their typical electoral choices. Maybe consultants and Democratic strategists need to "broaden their appeal" to potential candidates that can articulate a progressive agenda.
It's great news that Van Jones has been tapped for a high-level job in the Obama Administration, as a special adviser for green jobs. Having his voice at the Presidential level is bound to be valuable, and great for at-risk communities who will not be forgotten with Jones as their defender. At the same time, I have to agree with the first comment in this Grist story.
If it is more than a rumor, then Van faces some decisions that would keep me awake at night. Would he be more effective where he is, or on the insde of the administration??? How much power would he really have?? Could he go along with the administration the next time it starts talking about "clean coal?"
Indeed, he might have to make that determination almost immediately. Because the FutureGen project, a "clean coal" research facility in Illinois, is likely to be funded with stimulus money in the short term. This is just research, of course, and even Energy Secretary Steven Chu supports it "with modifications." But the fact is that clean coal technology hasn't worked and offers a false sense of hope that we can just keep burning dirty fuels and not get dirty ourselves. It would be nice to have Van Jones' perspective on this, but he's embedded inside the Administration now.
Leadership is self-generating, but leadership like Van Jones' comes around only once in a long while. We have a lot of battles in California over green jobs and alternative energy that could have used a strident voice like Jones'. There's an effort to triple our commitment to clean energy through a renewable portfolio standard. The Senate leader's top priority is career tech education with an eye to green jobs and the new economy. Perhaps Jones' departure means that new leaders will take hold of these issues and push them forward. But perhaps not. It leaves a big hole.
I congratulate him as I've congratulated other Californians who have moved to Washington. But it's interesting, from my perspective, that the two individuals most likely to be able to drive a movement politics in the Golden State - Hilda Solis and Van Jones - have packed up and joined the Obama Administration. I can't say I blame them, this state is a basket case. And their talents will be used well.
Since it's Don't Curse Week here in LA County, I will be forced to be brief. Last night a group of grassroots activists, including remnants of the Obama organizers in California, various progressive advocacy groups, and Democratic Club leaders, discussed a potential citizen-led ballot initiative to reform the California budget process. Nobody disputes that something drastic must be done to permanently end the conservative veto and restore democracy to the process. If you ask 100 activists what needs to be done you will get 105 answers. Arriving at the conclusion that offers the best opportunity for success, both in being adopted as a reform by the voters and as a practical matter for the legislature, ought to be opened to a vigorous debate and a deliberative process.
That is the direct opposite of what happened yesterday, when a group of self-appointed leaders tried to dictate the form in which the reform will take, and sought to invite the remainder of the group to join their already-decided-upon course of action. So the fight to restore democracy has begun with an undemocratic edict, from the grassroots no less, that is based in the same kind of mushy, don't-make-waves approach that has devastated the state for decades upon decades. If it sounds topsy-turvy, you're not alone.
In short, the self-appointed leadership has decided to put up a website to "eliminate the two-thirds rule" and "restore majority rule" to the budget process. This is a very tightly controlled statement based on, essentially, the fiction that eliminating the two-thirds rule is what these folks are seeking to do. They are not. As you may know, there is a 2/3 rule for passing a budget, and a 2/3 rule for any changes in the tax code that involve increasing revenue. To the layman, this might seem like two discrete parts, but that's really not true. A budget includes taxes, spending, and a few other priorities. Changing one without the other does actually nothing to overcome the conservative veto. And yet this is what the self-appointed grassroots leadership's proposal would do, only covering the repeal of 2/3 for passing a budget and not for taxation.
This is really the final blow in what was a long slide away from progressive leadership at the grassroots level. I've heard a lot of justifications and rationales for not including fully half of the equation of settling a budget in the process of reforming the budget, most of them so twisted with pretzel logic as to be indecipherable. Some say that there's no way tax changes could pass in the current environment, so we should strive to make whatever progress we can. That's the kind of tissue-soft, gutless, out-of-touch-with-where-America-is-right-now statement that has made California a political basket case. Those who bow down to the keepers of the tax revolt are usually the same people that are saying a spending cap that includes tax increases is destined to pass, or the same people saying a constitutional convention will take care of the tax problem even though it, too, is subject to a vote of the people. It doesn't make any sense. There's an argument that the polling shows any tax issues are a loser. That's just not true. The latest PPIC poll shows very little difference between repealing two-thirds for the budget and for taxes - within the margin of error.
The other argument is that California lawmakers, given a majority vote on the budget, will have powerful leverage to bend the Yacht Party to their will on tax issues, or go directly to the people with tax solutions. These are the same people who spend every day of their lives lamenting the terrible negotiating skills of Democrats in the legislature, and laughing at those who claim the Yacht Party is surely just a little bit more pressure away from folding.
Changing the (repeal of 2/3 for the) budget but not taxes is TOM MCCLINTOCK'S view of things. It makes Democrats own a budget that can only be modified with expenditure cuts. In the event of a deficit, Democrats would have to either cave and cut services or hold out with the exact same dynamic that we saw this year. And it will not allow the legislature to tackle the structural revenue gap that comes from a tax system too closely tied to boom-and-bust budget cycles. This is perverse consultant-class thinking that is dangerously outdated, constantly compromising, and believes in political reality as static rather than lifting a finger to change that reality. Thinking that March 2004 and June 2010 are the same is just ridiculous, and thinking that no argument can be made to the public, after the longest and most self-evidently absurd budget process in decades, that the system is fundamentally broken and has to be changed to allow the majority to do their job, is in many ways why we're in this position to begin with.
And this is where the self-appointed grassroots leadership will take us. This was carried out through perhaps a deliberative internal process ("Several hours!" we were told), but with no input from the broader grassroots. The website set up has no ability for public comment, no discussion of why the position was taken, and, most crucially, no explanation that "restoring majority rule" as conceived by the proposed ballot initiative does not restore majority rule. You can call that a lot of things, but the most accurate would be "a lie." It is a lie to suggest that this proposal would repeal 2/3. It does not. And it is being carried out in a top-down process that reminds one of the worst aspects of the Sacramento consultocracy rather than progressive leadership in the grassroots.
The working theory is that everything is on the table and this effort is initially to gauge support in the process. That it is being done through misleading means really doesn't inspire confidence in how open the process will be. They can go down that road, and I actually support signing on to the site as a show of support. But caveat emptor. And if you do sign, maybe contact the leaders and ask them why they aren't being truthful about their intentions or transparent about the decision-making process.
Before last night's blogger conference call with LA City Council President Eric Garcetti, my opinions of the budget deal from Sacramento weren't very well-formed. I think I have become so inured to craptastic solutions from Sacramento that this one looked no worse than others. Of course, I don't have a responsibility to constituents and a need to implement the outlines of the plan, so Garcetti's very forceful words against the package kind of snapped me out of my slumber. Here's a paraphrase.
"I think it's a reflection of a broken system. It's like shooting a little morphine into a sick patient. I think depending on federal dollars to balance the budget is irresponsible, and will blunt the impact of the stimulus. It means that the county and school districts will see a lot of projects rolled back. The health care cuts are going to be devastating. You're going to see a lot more homeless people this year, a lot more people who need critical care and can't get it. So there is no joy in this resolution other than that it is a resolution."
Very strong stuff. And he's not wrong. My one quibble would be that it's not the reliance on federal stimulus dollars to balance the budget, which is necessary and will save jobs throughout the system, that gets me, but the continued reliance on borrowing and the raid of voter-approved funds for mental health and early childhood programs, which is illegal and will require the unlikelihood of passing new initiatives.
There isn't any margin for error if, say, one of the FIVE measures that will now be on the ballot in order to secure the budget fail, or if the giant corporate tax cut fails to satiate business, or if nobody wants to buy our debt or buy the state lottery, which is losing revenue. It's another seat-of-our-pants craptastic budget which makes no long-term solutions and essentially keeps intact a broken structure. Garcetti is right that the problem is systemic, and so that's the goal for progressives in the state for this point forward - systemic change.
This certainly made for a great picture - thousands of teachers in Pershing Square in downtown LA rallying against budget cuts to education. You can put it next to state employees rallying against state employee cuts. And nurses rallying against health care cuts. And, I don't know, park rangers rallying against park closures. But social movements don't happen in a vacuum. History shows us that coalitions built across platforms succeed in galvanizing public opinion and forcing through progress. Teachers angry about education cuts is something I endorse. They're well within their sphere of expertise to complain about that area of the budget. I don't know that it's helpful at all in the midst of this crisis. Especially when it's so narrowcast and specific.
The California Teachers Association released a TV ad Friday that says "some Sacramento politicians are going too far" in considering changes to the schools budget.
Specifically, the teachers union attacks a proposal floating around the Capitol to give school administrators more flexibility in how to use so-called categorical money that is currently earmarked for class-size reduction.
"Tell your lawmakers: Ending the class size reduction program won't save California one dime. It only hurts our kids," the voice in the ad says.
Now, nobody wants class sizes to inflate. But when each single-issue silo zealously guards their small piece of power and tries to call to action only for that specific piece, several things happen. First of all, the counterpoint is easily cast as "special interests clinging to power." Second, there is absolutely no continuity of message across the groups, and in fact their messages can conflict with one another. As I've said many times, unity is the great need of the hour. And there seems to be no comprehension on the part of CTA or frankly any other progressive or labor group that budget money is fungible and everything that the state does affects their single issue in one form or another.
By way of example, how great would it be if CTA put up an ad saying, "Times are tough, and yet the state spends billions of dollars warehousing low-level drug offenders who need treatment and not jail. We need education and not incarceration. Tell the governor and your legislator to end 30 years of failure in our prisons and return to sensible sentencing policy to save us billions and help fund our schools." It's really not that hard. Even Dan Walters can do it.
The fastest growing segment of the state's deficit-ridden budget, by far, has been its prison system, reflecting severe overcrowding, generous labor contracts and federal court pressure to reform inmate health care.
"Corrections," an ironic misnomer, has jumped from less than $5 billion a year to more than $10 billion in the last decade, over twice as fast as school spending, the biggest budget item. It now costs about $45,000 a year to feed, clothe and medicate each of the state's 170,000-plus inmates, or roughly five times what taxpayers spend on a typical public school student. And that doesn't count what it costs to supervise tens of thousands of parolees.
One element of any plan to close the state's immense deficit, as well as relieve the overcrowding that invites federal intervention, must be to get a handle on prison costs by shedding some low-intensity inmates.
We could see the state employees union demand to restore the car tax. The firefighters could call for full funding of education. Etc.
If each group goes after their piece of the pie, ultimately we're all going to lose. History teaches us that only with a movement united together can we create prosperity and security for all Californians.
You don't have to constantly refresh or check your RSS feeds for the next couple days - budget talks have been called off for Christmas. There is a meeeting between the Big Three tentatively scheduled for Friday.
In my view, just that we're talking about a Big Three instead of a Big Five is progress, suggesting that the Gov will go along with the work-around budget if he can save face on a few "stimulus" items (like, you know, taking people's overtime and meal breaks away. They can eat while working!). The Governor never appeared in a movie about schizophrenia, but that's how he's been acting the past few days, holding press events at key sites where infrastructure improvements are being shuttered (a levee in Sacramento, the 405 Freeway in Karen Bass' district in LA) blasting the legislature, while at the same time claiming that progress is being made toward a budget solution.
During a press conference along Interstate 405 in Los Angeles, the Republican governor said he and Democratic leaders made "some great progress" Sunday and that it may only take two more meetings of the same sort to reach a compromise this week. Schwarzenegger had been calling for a solution by Christmas, though he acknowledged Monday that a legislative vote would not take place until next week at the earliest.
"It could easily be that before Christmas Eve or Christmas Day that we have an agreement, that the legislators can be brought back between Christmas and New Year's to vote on it," Schwarzenegger said.
(UPDATE: Kevin Yamamura reports that the negotiations have come down to three issues: "rollback of environmental review for construction projects, greater use of private investment and contractors, and deeper spending cuts, including those affecting the state work force." These have almost no impact on the budget as a whole - you're talking about cutting two state worker holidays - and are designed only to reward private business interests. Arnold has always been in the pocket of the Chamber of Commerce.)
You'll notice that none of these press events are being held in front of any state employee offices. That's because, in general terms, people don't look kindly on mass layoffs and cutbacks right before Christmas. It gives them the impression that the person making those layoffs is kind of a Scrooge. Of course, the immediate halt to all public works projects, at a time when we should be encouraging stimulus projects of this type, also have an impact on jobs. Not only does every contractor working on those projects get fired, but vendors get stiffed for work that they've already completed, leaving the state open to lawsuits. The Governor should kind of be ashamed to stand in front of any backdrop with cancelled projects behind him, considering his epic mismanagement is partly to blame. This is particularly true when considering that the voter-approved infrastructure work is vital to public safety and the state would undoubtedly be liable in the event of catastrophe.
Communities nationwide have repaired fewer than half of the 122 levees identified by the government almost two years ago as too poorly maintained to be reliable in major floods, according to Army Corps of Engineers data.
State and local governments were given a year to fix levees cited by the corps for "unacceptable" maintenance deficiencies in a February 2007 review that was part of a post-Hurricane Katrina crackdown. Only 45 have had necessary repairs, according to data provided in response to a USA TODAY request. The remaining unrepaired levees are spread across 18 states and Puerto Rico - most in California and Washington.
The Governor is cleverly casting this as a problem of "the legislature" hoping nobody will notice that he performed the veto, he blocked the very plan that could get these projects restarted.
Fortunately, grassroots Californians are noticing, and you can see the contours of a coalition forming, perhaps resembling the 2005 special election coalition only with more staying power. Groups like Courage Campaign and the local blogosphere have the reach to engaged communities starving for information. The California Budget Project provides the statistical heft. Labor and environmental groups have the ear of the legislature. And there's a new member of the coalition - former Obama organizers in California who are moving with unusual speed to support a sane budget solution and slam the Governor for his intransigence. At Schwarzenegger's 405 Freeway presser, you can hear a small band of protesters in the background noise. That was organized by Obama volunteers through their new Facebook-like application, CommunityOrganize.com. Pam Coukos distributed a letter-writing tool urging a budget solution. California for Obama has done the same in an email blast, asking it to be distributed to the various volunteer teams. And there is already talk about veterans of the Obama movement running for state and local office.
This is pretty new and early. But you can see how this network of committed organizers can gradually become a state political force, especially if the coalitions are built and networks made between the groups mentioned above. I have long said that what is missing in California is a popular grassroots movement that can go around the media filter and whip up support for progressive values through direct action. It is said that California is too big for such a movement to catch fire, but in political terms, we all know that the state is very small, and a committed movement can make an outsized difference. This won't happen overnight, but we're moving in the right direction. Now we just need a gubernatorial candidate to ride the grassroots wave...
There's an interesting dynamic happening in California. At the national level, the state's power is growing. Californians hold the Speaker of the House and four key committee chairs, including the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and now the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have Californians at the helm. Any energy and environmental policies will have to go through the committees of Californians, and they'll have California allies inside the Administration, with the selection of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Dr. Steven Chu as Energy Secretary and Los Angeles Deputy Mayor Nancy Sutley as head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Other Californians are up for possible Administration jobs, like CA-31's Xavier Becerra (US Trade Representative) and CA-36's Jane Harman (CIA Director). It's a good time to be a California politician in Washington.
It's a TERRIBLE time to be a California politician in California, as it dawns on everyone in Sacramento that the state is ungovernable and hurtling toward total chaos. The two parties are miles apart from a budget deal, and even their biggest and boldest efforts would only fill about half the budget gap. The peculiar mechanisms of state government, with its 2/3 rule for budget and tax provisions, and its artificial deadlines for bills to get through the legislature, which causes remarkable bottlenecks and "gut and amend" legislation changed wholesale in a matter of hours, and the failed experiment with direct democracy which has created unsustainable demands and mandates, make the state impossible to reform and even get working semi-coherently. The state's citizens hate their government and hate virtually everyone in it with almost equal fervor, yet find themselves helpless to actually change anything about it, and believe it or not, ACTUALLY THINK THEY'RE DOING A GOOD JOB setting policy through the initiative process, which is simply ignorant (though they paradoxically think that other voters aren't doing a good job on initiatives). The activist base does amazing grassroots work, very little of it in this state. We have a political trade deficit where money and volunteerism leaves the state and nothing returns. And the political media for a state of 38 million consists of a handful of reporters in Sacramento and a couple dudes with blogs.
Many of these problems have accumulated over a number of years and cannot be laid at the feet of anybody in particular. But in general, the reason that we've gotten to this crisis point, the reason that California is a failed state, is because by and large the dominant political parties WANT IT THAT WAY. I'm not saying that the state Democratic Party or its elected officials, for example, wants the state to be flung into the sea, metaphorically speaking, but there's certainly a tendency toward the closed loops of insiders that prefer a predictable and stable status quo, that naturally restricts reform and leads to corruption, gridlock and crisis. I'll give you an example. Last night I was on a conference call where Eric Bauman, Chair of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, announced that he would drop out of the race for state party Chair and run for Vice-Chair, because when 78 year-old former State Senator John Burton entered the race, all his labor, organizational and elected support dried up. Fitting that he didn't mention his grassroots support, because it clearly doesn't matter who they prefer.
There is little doubt in my mind that John Burton will run the party, or rather delegate it to whatever lieutenant will run the party, in the exact same way it has been run for the last decade or so, characterized by missed opportunities to expand majorities, a lost recall election for Governor, cave-in after cave-in on key budget priorities and a failure to capitalize on the progressive wave of the last two electoral cycles. These are not abstractions, and they have real-world effects, $41.8 billion of them at last count. And honestly, the Special Assistant to Gray Davis didn't represent all that much change, either.
We have an ossified party structure, and a phlegmatic legislative leadership that is unable to get its objectives met because the deck is essentially stacked against them. The times call for a completely new vision, one that can energize a grassroots base and use citizen action to leverage the necessary unraveling of this dysfunctional government to make it work again. The work on Prop. 8 since the election has been tremendous, but ultimately, if public schools are closing and unemployment is above 10% and the uninsured are rising and the pain felt in local communities is acute, then we have a much larger problem, one that requires a bigger movement allied with the civil rights movement to make change.
The key flashpoint is the 2010 Governor's race. There is currently no one in the field with the ability to break the lock that the status quo has on California and deliver a new majority empowered to bring the state back from the brink. In an article published last month, Randy Shaw put it best.
None of the current field appears likely to galvanize a grassroots base, or to be willing to take on the "third rails" of California politics: massive prison spending, Prop 13 funding restrictions, or the need for major new education funding. Dianne Feinstein? She'll be 77 years old on Election Day 2010, and she has long resisted, rather than supported, progressive change.
Jerry Brown just finished campaigning to defeat Proposition 5, which would have saved billions of unnecessary spending on the state's prison industrial complex. This follows Brown's television ads for the 2004 election, which helped narrowly defeat a reform of the draconian and extremely expensive "three strikes" law. Brown's consistent coddling up to the prison guards union is the smoking gun showing that he is not a candidate for change.
Gavin Newsom came out against Prop 5 on the eve of the election, undermining his own "break from the past" image. He also spent another local election cycle opposing the very constituencies who an Obama-style grassroots campaign would need to attract.
With her Senate Intel. Committee post, it is unlikely that Feinstein will run. He forgets John Garamendi, who supported Prop. 2 (!) because of his fealty to farming interests and who first ran for governor in 1982.
Shaw mentions that the state is ready for a Latina governor, and mentions the Sanchez sisters. He's right in part, but has the wrong individual in mind. I am more convinced than ever that the only person with the strength, talent, grassroots appeal and forward-thinking progressive mindset to fundamentally change the electorate and work toward reform is Congresswoman Hilda Solis. She authored the green jobs bill that Barack Obama is using as a national model. She is a national leader on the issue of environmental justice and has the connections to working Californians that can inspire a new set of voters. She beat an 18-year Democratic incumbent, Matthew Martinez, by 38 points to win her first Congressional primary. She has worked tirelessly for progressive candidates across the state and the country. In a state whose demographics are rapidly changing, she could be a powerful symbol of progress that could grab a mandate to finally overhaul this rot at the heart of California's politial system once and for all. This is not about one woman as a magic bullet that can change the system; this is about a woman at the heart of a movement. A movement for justice and equality and dignity and respect. A movement for boldness and progressive principles and inclusiveness and openness. A movement that can spark across the state.
I know that Solis is interested in the Vice Chair of the Democratic caucus if Becerra takes the job in the Obama Administration. Congresswoman, your state needs you desperately. Please consider running for Governor and leaving a legacy of progress in California.
Howie Klein notes that the next in line for the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, should Charlie Rangel succumb to his ethical struggles, is progressive Pete Stark. This has many on Capitol Hill in a tizzy: including those who should have the loudest voice in determining Democratic chairmanships, anonymous operatives and industry lobbyists.
Next in seniority to Rangel is Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Chairman Fortney (Pete) Stark, D-Calif., who is given virtually no chance. "The conventional wisdom is he would have a tough time getting elected chairman," said a Democrat close to leadership. From suggesting Republicans were sending troops to Iraq to die "for the president's amusement" to referring to a former GOP lawmaker as a "little fruitcake," Stark is prone to gaffes, sources said. "The guy behind [Rangel] is just not tenable. Republicans would have a field day," an industry lobbyist said, while noting the business community would "go nuclear. It would just be open warfare." A more viable pick might be Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Chairman Sander Levin, D-Mich., who is next in seniority, although sources cautioned the cerebral Levin may be too deliberate for the high-profile job. Levin also appears to relish his duties at the helm of the trade panel. He is also seen as very much in tune with the labor movement, although industry sources said Levin was someone they could work with, as opposed to Stark. Also, the Democratic Caucus still largely respects the seniority system, the Democratic strategist said. "If you make the decision that Stark is too out there, then I don't see how you go over Sandy," he said. "He's been a loyal member, and nobody would doubt he's got the intellectual and legislative expertise for the job."
As Matt Stoller notes, there are NINE anonymous sources in this article. You'd think the people who presume to control Congress and who gets selected for particular committees wouldn't be so cowardly, would you? But of course, they just want to be behind the curtain, impervious to political pressure.
Do you recall any of the Inside the Beltway types viewing a Republican appointee to any job thru the lenses of how that person might be accepted by working families or by organized labor? Or did I miss the issue where CongressDaily suggested that Elaine Chao might be the world's absolute worst Labor Secretary because she loathes working people and doesn't recognize their aspirations as legitimate or worthy of her attention?
Did anyone ever question whether one of Congress' biggest corporate shills on environmental issues, Dirty Dick Pombo, would be unqualified to be Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee because he was unanimously loathed by every single environmental group in the country? And what about that issue of CongressDaily-- or any other daily-- that pointed out that maybe Joe Barton (R-TX) shouldn't be chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce because the $1,315,660 in legalized reported bribes he's taken from Big Oil over the years is far more than any other member of the House, more even than notorious Big Oil puppets like Don Young (R-AK- $964,763), Steve Pearce (R-NM- $804,815), Tom Delay (R-TX- $688,840), and Pete Sessions (R-TX- $582,264), and that all the green energy groups feel that Barton is an integral part of the energy problem in our country and decidedly not part of the solution? No, I must have missed it too.
Indeed. This might be a good time to contact the Speaker and tell her that Democrats up for Democratic committee chairs shouldn't be subject to a veto by industry.
• The CDP has a version of Neighbor-to-Neighbor called Neighborhood Leader. The program asks for a commitment from the activist to talk with 25 friends on multiple occasions throughout the year. I don't have metrics on it, which would be nice to know, but my suspicion is it needs to be expanded.
• There is a lot of back and forth about the extent of the ground game here in California. Many have written in to talk about the field operation in key districts and field offices throughout the state. Some have said that I overlooked this element, including all the doorhangers and phone calls made inside the state. Others have told me that the calls tried to shoehorn too many messages into one (I did have experiences calling for multiple propositions and a candidate at the same time, which ends up shortchanging all of them) and that the results on the ground in general were unfocused. And the insistence from some to talk about field elides the point. Even if I grant that every targeted legislative campaign had the most aggressive and far-reaching field program in American history, the facts are that most of these campaigns lost, and so it's time to come to terms with the fact that the type of organizing done in the state isn't working.
• Some have suggested that Democrats, in fact, did not underperform the Presidential ticket in House races, but I think a lot of this is fun with statistics. Yes, House Democrats in California may have done better than Barack Obama, but that would be because a substantial number of them had token or no competition. Like 30 out of 53. While on the chart at the link, it appears that California exceeded the Presidential numbers, the proof is in the lack of pickups despite a 24-point blowout at the top of the ticket.
• Other local organizers have the right idea. I'm going to reprint this comment in full:
We ran a very intensive and very grassroots effort in Monterey County with more than 1000 volunteers (5 fold increase over 2004) that was by and large successful, got some newcomers into office and saved some progressive incumbents from conservative challengers.
We did all of this without CDP help.
We were offered use of the CDP voter database which in many ways was quite inadequate when it came to mapping and would have costed us money. We were also offered 1000 doorhangers on Thursday before the election (we have 80,000 Democrats in Monterey County).
Instead we commissioned our own slate mailers and door hangers and mailed and hung 80,0000 and 30,000 respectively in conjunction with the local unions. We used the VAN through CAVoterConnect for free with great results for us. We were able to manage our volunteers with it and we used it for all of our phone banking and Neighbor-to-Neighbor activities.
Here is what the CDP could have done - and can still do for future campaigns:
Support the VAN and help all local parties get access. Help integrate State VAN with Obama VAN.
Conduct more capacity building, especially in how to run county-based campaigns, along the lines of Camp Obama but applied to state and local races.
Provide a template for door hangers that local parties can buy into instead of having to go out and design their own.
Work toward a more modular - bottom-up campaign.
Vinz Koller/ Chair/ Monterey County Democratic Party
I particularly want to emphasize the VAN, the California VAN is for some reason not integrated with the DNC's Votebuilder program, which doesn't make much sense to me. There ought to be an effort to clean up all that idea in the off-year to get it ready for 2010. Votebuilder is simply easier to work with and can be managed by volunteers. And since there will be off-year elections this year, it can be test run.
• I don't think I ever blamed the Obama campaign for draining the state of resources, but let me say again that I don't. In addition to many of the best volunteers leaving the state, many of the top organizers, including most of labor, left as well. And Obama's election was crucially important for a variety of reasons so you can't blame them.
• Therefore, the biggest thing California Democrats can do to reverse this disturbing trend of the "political trade deficit," sending money and organization elsewhere and never importing anything, is to argue for and pass the National Popular Vote plan, which would force locals to organize their own communities in a Presidential election. If the Electoral College were offered as a system today, it would be found to be an unconstitutional violation of the principle of "one person, one vote" as determined by the 14th Amendment. It shrinks the pool of competitive states down to a geographically significant battleground, and has made California irrelevant - again - as it has been for Presidential races for a generation. A disruptive change like the National Popular Vote would go a long way to changing how campaigns are conducted in Presidential years in California.
Back in 2006, I and a lot of other grassroots progressives were angered that California showed little to no movement in its Congressional and legislative seats despite a wave election. You can see some articles about that here and here, when I explained why I was running as a delegate to the state Party. And frankly, I could rerun the entire article today, but instead I'll excerpt.
I've lived in California for the last eight years. I'm a fairly active and engaged citizen, one who has attended plenty of Democratic Club meetings, who has lived in the most heavily Democratic areas of the state in both the North and South, who has volunteered and aided the CDP and Democratic candidates from California during election time, who (you would think) would be the most likely candidate for outreach from that party to help them in their efforts to build a lasting majority. But in actuality, the California Democratic Party means absolutely nothing to me. Neither do its endorsements. The amount of people who aren't online and aren't in grassroots meetings everyday who share this feeling, I'd peg at about 95% of the electorate.
I mean, I'm a part of both those worlds, and I have no connection to the state party. I should be someone that the CDP is reaching out to get involved. They don't. The only time I ever know that the CDP exists is three weeks before the election when they pay for a bunch of ads. The other 23 months of the year they are a nonentity to the vast majority of the populace [...]
Only two Democrats in the entire state of California were able to defeat incumbents last November: Debra Bowen and Jerry McNerney. Both of them harnessed the power of the grassroots and used it to carry them to victory. They also stuck to their principles and created a real contrast with their opponents on core issues. The only way that the California Democratic Party can retain some relevance in the state, and not remain a secretive, cloistered money factory that enriches its elected officials with lobbyist money and does nothing to build the Democratic brand, is by building from the bottom up and not the top down. By becoming more responsive to the grassroots and more effective in its strategy, we can ensure that California stays blue, which is not a given. This is a long-term process that is in its third year, and will not happen overnight. But it's crucial that we continue and keep the pressure on.
In 2008, we experienced that most anomalous of events, a SECOND wave election in a row. Barack Obama won the biggest victory at the top of the ticket in California since WWII. And yet, the efforts of downticket Democrats yielded only minimal success. This is despite a decided improvement in the party in terms of online outreach and voter registration. So something is deeply, deeply wrong with how they're conducting campaigns.
I'm going to lay out the good, the bad and the ugly on the flip and make some suggestions as to what we must do to improve this for the future.
The past few days have seen another spate of "OMG, Republican incumbents are in trouble!" stories in the traditional media. Aside from them not understanding and internalizing the theory of coattails, this problem is particularly acute among the California media, where gerrymandering is just supposed to lock up Congressional and legislative seats airtight, except when, you know, it doesn't. Peculiar to this rendering of the world is the idea that nobody ever moves, dies, or reaches the age of 18 in any particular district, and thus voter registration statistics are completely static. But of course this is not true, and once the Democratic Party started putting resources into registering new and lapsed voters, why look what happened:
One of the major reasons for these competitive contests has been the narrowing gap in registered voters between the parties. While Republicans still enjoy a substantial advantage over Democrats in all three districts, their leads have shrunk significantly.
Four years ago, Republicans led Democrats among registered voters by margins of 17 percent in the Orange County-based 46th, 15 percent in the San Diego-area 50th and 11 percent in the Riverside County-based 45th. By this year's registration deadline of Oct. 20, those leads had shrunk by 6 percent in the 50th, 5 percent in the 46th and 6 percent in the 45th.
There are still the conventional wisdom-besotted punditocracy that simply can't conceive of these major shifts in the electorate (it's not like anything has happened the past eight years that would lead people to desert the Republican Party in droves, right?), who believe that incumbents just win and that's the end of it. But just ask one of those incumbents what he fears on Tuesday:
HUNTINGTON BEACH - Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach/Long Beach said Friday he's concerned that Republicans will be discouraged by a possible Democratic landslide at the polls, affecting his re-election bid.
"If (Republican nominee John) McCain does not do well, and Republicans stay home, my lead could evaporate," the nine-term incumbent of the 46th Congressional District said.
Huntington Beach Mayor Debbie Cook, the Democratic challenger, said the race is a "statistical dead heat," and agreed that a solid turnout for change - from the economic problems facing the country - could be the difference in Tuesday's hotly contested race.
"All the uncertainty that's going on now is helping," she said, adding that incumbents who have been "part of the system for the past 20 years" could be vulnerable.
This is all the more reason why Democrats and progressives need to remember Jim Corman and get as many voters to the polls as possible. And Don't Stop At The Top, of course.
And if the scenario is bright in the Congressional races, the Assembly looks even brighter. Why, even Dan Walters has figured this one out.
Voters may not realize that they could dramatically alter that balance, but interest groups that are pouring millions of dollars into legislative and ballot measure campaigns certainly get it.
Democrats could pick up one seat in the Senate and are so certain of gaining three to five seats in the Assembly that they've diverted resources into several marginal districts, taking advantage of Obamania-inspired voter registration gains, to shoot for the six added seats that would give them a two-thirds majority. That margin is required for the budget and tax increases and could happen as the Capitol wrestles with a rapidly deteriorating economy and a fast-growing budget deficit.
We know about those top-line seats: AD-80, AD-78, AD-15, AD-10, AD-26. But it's Linda Jones' race in AD-36 that has captured my attention. She represents the ultimate swing vote as the potential 54th Democrat in the State Assembly, the vote that would give us a 2/3 majority, which in California is a governing majority. And Linda Jones happens to be really great, campaiging on a message of green jobs in the waning days of the race.
As part of her campaign to create a stronger economy for the region, Democratic Assembly Candidate Linda Jones (36th District) today announced her "High Desert Region Green Jobs Initiative" - using 'green jobs' to increase opportunities for unemployed and underemployed adults in the High Desert communities. Lt. Governor John Garamendi, a longtime advocate for environmental protection and renewable energy, offered his full support of the plan, calling it a "giant leap forward" for the region's economy.
"Investing in the 'green economy' is a win-win because it will create jobs and increase our clean energy efficiency," said Linda Jones. "The High Desert Region Green Jobs Initiative will create outreach, educational, and training programs to recruit, develop, and sustain a green industry that will create jobs, increase our clean energy efficiency, and grow our economy for the region."
There's a website, High Desert Green Jobs, that details the initiative. It's fantastic that someone in a swing district trying to become the first Democratic member of the Assembly from this region in 34 years is offering such a bold agenda.
This district had an eight-point GOP lean just two years ago. Now the registration gap is GONE. 400 votes separate Democrats and Republicans. Don't give me that redistricting stuff, nothing's stopping this progressive wave. I'm excited for Linda Jones and so is her community.
There's just one day to go. You need to Stay for Change because you can have a major impact right here in California. I'm going to give predictions on everything in the morning. But right now, I'm psyched.
This Politico story confirms what I've been saying for 18 months - California has a serious opportunity at the state and federal level this November. The idea that the delegations are somehow fixed is a crutch that defeatist operatives use to explain why they lose year after year. The truth is that, in a time of financial crisis and economic uncertainty, multiple seats are up for grabs regardless of the district-level makeup (and that's swinging to Democrats as well). Why else would the NRCC be riding to the rescue of longtime California incumbents?
Darren White and Erik Paulsen were prized Republican recruits, House candidates poised to be the new face of the GOP on Capitol Hill.
But as the two head into the homestretch of their campaigns, GOP operatives say they'll probably have to win - or lose - on their own. The money national Republicans earmarked for White in New Mexico and for Paulsen in Minnesota will likely go instead to protect GOP incumbents who once looked like locks for reelection.
GOP Reps. John B. Shadegg of Arizona, Lee Terry of Nebraska, Henry Brown Jr. of South Carolina and Dan Lungren of California are all fighting for their political lives, a reversal of fortunes that has caught even the most astute campaign observers by surprise.
By the way, the man who gulped the hardest reading those paragraphs was Dean Andal, who will similarly become roadkill for the NRCC as they run screaming from his train wreck of a campaign.
Those "astute" political observers, by the way, haven't been paying attention. Lungren's CA-03 was clearly the most movable in the state and has been for the entire cycle. The demographic shifts are identical to CA-11, and the exurbs are exactly the regions that are switching to the Democrats this cycle. There will be no difference in registration in that seat on Election Day, mark my words. And other seats are winnable in the state as well.
In California, Republican operatives have noticed some troubling trends.
Two years ago, Lungren - who is completing his seventh term in Congress - beat physician and Vietnam War veteran Bill Durston by 21 points. But the economy has taken its toll, and Lungren's district has one of the highest foreclosure rates in the country. In a newly released Democratic poll, Lungren leads Durston by just 3 percentage points.
Former GOP consultant Allan Hoffenblum said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and other California Republicans, including Reps. David Dreier and Brian Bilbray, are also at risk.
"The Republican base is not sufficient by itself to elect a Republican in those [California] districts; they still need the independent vote," Hoffenblum said. "In the past decade, they have been reliably voting Republican for president and for Congress. ... There are a lot of angry and scared voters out there. This is not your traditional environment."
After eight years of George Bush, it was NEVER going to be a traditional environment. People can't stand him, and the economic crisis threw the failures of his Presidency into sharp relief. Being a Republican is TOXIC in this political milieu. Ken Calvert in CA-44 is running mailers calling himself "An Independent Voice Working for You." Ken Calvert!!! No incumbent with an (R) next to his name is safe, to put it mildly.
So folks, understand that the road to salvation this year does NOT go through the eastern parts of the state and into Nevada to canvass for Barack Obama. He is going to need a progressive Congress to keep him honest and make sure he exercises bold leadership in dealing with the mess George Bush will leave him. California needs your ATTENTION. The progressive wave crested well before hitting the Pacific Ocean in 2006. We have a half-dozen candidates for Congress, and another half-dozen for the state legislature, that can absolutely win if they have the money and the volunteers to get their message out. If you want progressive legislation, if you want California's perpetual budget crisis to end, if you want a government that cares about improving people's lives, STAY IN CALIFORNIA and find one of these races.
There are more than this, too. More on that tomorrow. You have absolutely no excuse. Go find the campaign nearest you and lend them a hand. We can build that wave as high as we want.
The most remarkable quote of the week came from a backbencher Yacht Party Republican named Mark Wyland, commenting on the historically late state budget. If the California Democratic Party had a locker room, this would be serious bulletin-board material:
Voters are unlikely to punish lawmakers for the budget delay in any substantive way on Nov. 4 unless it's to pass a ballot measure that would change how political districts are drawn, said state Sen. Mark Wyland (R-Carlsbad).
"My experience with voters is that they really don't care how long it takes to get a budget," Wyland said, following his participation in a panel discussion at an event on reforming state government.
According to Wyland, prolonged budget stalemates like this year's sometimes encourage voters to keep their incumbents. Because districts are usually heavily skewed in registration to one party or another, he said, sitting legislators are more likely to hear encouragement for their party's ideological position than disfavor.
And voting against the party - in Wyland's example, for tax raises or to reinstate the unpopular vehicle-license fee - is an invitation to face a primary challenge in the next election cycle, he said.
This is the calcified opinion from the Yacht Party, and why they'll never be moved from their ideological perches. They believe that they have more to fear from internal challenges on the grounds of insufficient fealty to failed conservative policies than from the consequences of those policies. And there's a lot of evidence on their side, although not as much as they think.
But the most glaring point made in this statement is one of contempt. It shows contempt for voters to act in the best interest of an ideology than in the best interest of the state. It shows contempt for voters to hold the budget hostage, causing extreme hardship in the lives of state employees, community health centers, policemen and firefighters, and public schools, and expect nobody to notice. It shows contempt for voters to use the tyranny of the minority to advance a cause completely at odds with the prevailing opinion of the state. Real people were affected and harmed by this budget, and all of us will be in the future as the bills of conservative borrow-and-spend economics and systematic destruction of government come due.
And the thing is, Wyland is relying on a failed model. Demographic shifts and a reckoning of the failure of conservatism has made no district safe. Indeed Californians can punish Yacht Party Republicans for their intransigence and obstructionism. There are a number of races at the federal and state level where Democrats have more than a chance to unseat Republicans and turn seats blue. In fact, with some luck and proper resources we can get very close to that 2/3 majority needed to pass budgets and fix the structural revenue deficit. That's where you come in.
The Calitics Editorial Board has identified five seats which strike a balance between winnable races and progressive leadership. We've decided to start a major fundraising push for these five candidates between now and the end of the quarterly reporting requirement on September 30. That gives us only a few days, but here's the kicker - Calitics will match every donation made to these candidates up to $500 each, for a grand total of a $2,500 candidate match.
Charlie Brown (CA-04): A recent Research 2000 poll showed Brown leading perennial candidate Tom McClintock 46-41 in this deep red district. Brown, a retired Air Force Lt. Colonel, nearly defeated indicted Congressman John Doolittle in 2006 and has shown tremendous leadership on veteran's issues and the FISA fight before even coming to Congress. He's a better Democrat we can all be proud of.
Debbie Cook (CA-46): Running in a tough district against certifiably crazy Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, Debbie Cook is running with an unabashedly progressive message. The Mayor of Huntington Beach, Cook is an expert on peak oil and energy issues, and would instantly be one of the most knowledgeable voices in the Congress on how to move toward a post-carbon future. She also believes in ending the Iraq occupation responsibly and achieving the goal of quality and affordable health care for all.
Hannah-Beth Jackson (SD-19): A former Assemblywoman and creator of Speak Out California, a blog and resource for Golden State progressives, Hannah-Beth Jackson has proven her progressive bona fides time and again. Running in rapidly changing Ventura County against the former state director of the Club for Growth, Tony Strickland, Jackson can prove that even Tom McClintock's old seat is not safe from the progressive wave. She would lead in the State Senate on issues of economic justice and the environment.
Alyson Huber (AD-10): AD-10 is another district where the demographics are changing, and Alyson Huber is perfectly suited to take advantage of this and turn the seat blue. Huber, an attorney and working mother, is focused on increasing access to health care and education for all Californians. She would help tremendously in bringing us closer to that needed 2/3 majority.
Manuel Perez (AD-80): A transformative leader, Manuel Perez is ready to take that leadership to Sacramento. Part of a growing group of Hispanic-Americans in the Coachella Valley who are leading a major progressive challenge to the typical politics of the region, Manuel has created community health clinics, served on the Coachella School Board as a trustee, taught classes, and organized his community to fight for change. He is uniquely suited to take his varied experience and lead in the State Legislature.
The time is tight, but we need to make Mark Wyland and the Yacht Party Republicans he represents cry. Please contribute to our Calitics Match fundraising effort before Tuesday!
The most hotly anticipated State Senate election this year is in the 19th District covering Santa Barbara and Ventura County, between Democrat Hannah-Beth Jackson and Republican Tony Strickland. Though the two are almost polar opposites, the chunk of the district in Santa Barbara, where residents have long memories about the 1969 oil spill, makes it impossible for Republicans to win with their "Drill Now" message on energy. So Tony Strickland opted to run some ads that Al Gore might have run were he to be contesting in the district, highlighting renewable energy through wind, solar, algae, tidal and other forms. This is completely at odds with Strickland's doctrinaire Republican record, with votes against green building standards, minimum renewable energy standards, and even fuel-efficient tires. Strickland has taken money from Big Oil and stood with global warming denialists in the recent past. It's incongruous for him to carry a pro-environment message.
So I hooked up with the Courage Campaign and the California League of Conservation Voters to put together a little video highlighting this incongruity.
What's interesting is that the Courage Campaign's Web tool invited those supporters who received their email blast to spread the word, and they were so successful, both online political reporters at the Ventura County Star, the region's biggest newspaper, covered the video. More important, the Jackson campaign has been energized to fight back against some of Strickland allies' misleading ads on taxes, and in doing so buttresses the outside groups' take about Strickland's terrible environmental record.
So progressive groups are ensuring that Strickland gets away with nothing in this race, and in turn the Jackson campaign is fighting back as well and counter-punching swiftly and effectively. This is a growing success story in the 19th.
Some great people have been sashaying through the Big Tent to huddle up with the bloggers. And the traditional media has joined them, to take exciting pictures of people typing to show how the bloggers kick it. Rockin'!
I did get a chance to spend a few minutes with Van Jones, an environmental and green jobs activist, to talk about the future of energy and how we can beat the Republicans at their own game. He also offered a candid assessment of the state of the Presidential campaign.
Jones thinks that the progressive movement and Democratic groups have been "hurt by having a good candidate. We were so galvanized against Bush in 2004 that every outside group went nuts, threw everything we had at the Republicans, and we almost came up with the win despite a less inspiring candidate. This year, the spirit of 2004 has been lost. Obama made the mistake of defunding the outside groups and we've become complacent to an extent." Jones said that last week's hit by the Obama campaign on the McCain housing issue was good, but it needs to be a 10-week phenomenon, not a 1-week phenomenon.
On green jobs, which is Jones' real focus area, he stressed that we need to move the environmental conversation from a cultural one to a political one. The green-collar economy "can be a place for people to earn money, not spend money. We need collective action for green citizenship, to create the jobs of the future in a Green New Deal. As long as carbon is free we're never going to move forward." He was pleased by the recent efforts by municipalities and states (green jobs bills have been passed in Massachusetts and Washington state, and the US Conference of Mayors is on board as well), but recognizes that the federal government must be involved as well. "This is about laws, not gizmos. Technology cannot be the savior. This has to be a bottom-up, inside-outside AND a top-down strategy. If the Feds are MIA, human life will be MIA in the future."
We talked about the offshore drilling debate, where Jones clearly stated that the Republicans won the day by lying to the American people. He had three major points:
• There is no such thing as American oil. There is oil drilled by multinationals that is sent overseas to China and India. American offshore driling will do nothing to solve any American oil problems.
• We banned drilling in offshore areas not to save birds and fish, but because of coastal families and coastal communities, because kids were walking into the water and coming out with oil on them, because property values were plunging. Democrats should not be willing to throw away America's beauty for a 2-cent solution in 10 years.
• We've seen the new phenomenon of the "dirty greens," who want to have an "all of the above strategy" on energy, with solar and wind, but also clean coal and drilling offshore and shale and all these dirty polluters. "All of the above" is not a strategy. It's not a wise choice, but a stupid swipe at a persistent problem.
Democrats are right on price - if you cut demand and expand supply through renewables, the price will drop. They are right on people, because those steps will create millions of jobs. And they're right on the planet, because it's the only solution to preserve our environmental future. What the Republicans are offering is Happy Meal Politics, the kind of politics that offers everything for free with no residual consequences.
Jones is a great messenger, and a real leader in the green movement. Democrats would do well to listen to him.
