Speak Out California Weblog

Does the Public Think Politicians Are Crying Wolf (Again)?

2009-06-30T22:35:31Z

A recent large headline in the San Jose Mercury News got me thinking. The headline was, "A dire warning from the Governor". (Online headline is different from the morning's print headline.) From the story, "Schwarzenegger said ... his threat ... is necessary to prod lawmakers into swift action."

I have to admit that even I rolled my eyes when I saw that -- even though I understand how serious the problem is. And this led me to think that maybe there is a "crying wolf" factor at work here. This has been going on now or a long time.

A few months ago the crisis was reaching a breaking point, dire warnings were issued, and most importantly the public was starting to pay attention. This triggered the leadership in Sacramento to do what I think was the worst possible thing: they came up with the fluffy budget compromise that "solved" the crisis and resulted in the failed May 19 Special Election. I believe the compromise was a mistake that broke the tension and led people to believe that the "crisis" was over, so they tuned back out.

I think the "chicken little" aspect of the whole affair kept people away from the polls in droves.

I am not faulting the Governor and other state leaders for headlines like thos and other warnings because the crisis is real. Our leaders all need to do whatever it takes to get people to pay attention, to realize this budget crisis is real and that everything that can be cut has been cut, that they really are going to have to let people out of prisons and close parks and still will run out of money anyway. Bankruptcy and all of its consequences looms. For real. The public has to get involved and do their job in this democracy.

But I can understand why most Californians have tuned out. I think part of this budget problem is that it has become the norm to use drama and fear to prod others into action. And not just with the budget. There are so many terrible problems hitting us from so many directions. The economy really did collapse, and we may be on the edge of another Great Depression. For real. This has been a headline swarm for months. Swine flu is real, but is not as lethal as it first appeared it could be. This was the headline swarm a few weeks ago. And of course Global Warming is real, and serious. It has been a headline swarm for years.

Those are real and serious problems. But at the same time there are so many manipulative, well-funded and sophisticated PR campaigns, usually from corporate interests, that use fear and/or other manipulation. Remember the headlines warning aobut possible terrorist smallpox attacks? Remember being told that Iraq was on the verge of hitting us with nuclear weapons? Remember duct tape?

So people just do not know who to trust and necessarily are becoming immune to drama.

California's big media outlets could do a better job of explaining the real problems facing the state, beginning by dispelling the idea that the state is just wasting taxpayer money and everything can be solved with a few painless budget cuts. They need to do this in a serious, respectful way, with comprehensive investigative reporting. If print media won't do that, they should close their doors -- they aren't doing their jobs and aren't helping anyone anymore so they should let their advertisers support a medium that helps democracy rather than hinders it. If broadcast media can't do that, they should relinquish their broadcast licenses to others who will.

The poor, elderly and disabled have already suffered the cuts. They understand that this is for real. So maybe we need the crisis to hit home so (middle class) people can also understand that it is for real - this time.

George Will Gets It Right About Government

2009-06-24T16:18:24Z

Sunday's San Jose Mercury News contains an anti-government op-ed by George Will, "Democrats want nation dependent on government". (The online headline is different.)

This sounds scary, sinister, even somehow slightly evil. But if you look into the meaning of the words, the effect changes.

Here is what I mean. In America government is us. Our Constitution is the defining document of our government and it couldn't be clearer, declaring that We, the People formed this country "to promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves"... In other words, watch out for and take care of each other; "We, the People" have banded together to watch out for each other, take care of each other and build institutions to protect and empower each other.

So with them real meaning of the words in mind Will's headline becomes "Democrats want nation to take care of each other." Will is exactly right, and good for them.

Will's column is about the national healthcare reform battle and proposals for a "public option," which offers a Medicare-like health insurance plan to all of our citizens. Will opposes this, because,

"Competition from the public option must be unfair because government does not need to make a profit and has enormous pricing and negotiating powers."

In other words, he is complaining that a public option health insurance plan will provide more benefits to more citizens at a lower cost. Will casts this as a bad thing, because it threatens the ability of a few wealthy business owners to profit from people's need for health care.

Profits for a few instead of benefits to the public appears to be his idea of the purpose of government. But to the rest of us the point of health care reform is to take better care of each other while lowering the costs. This is why the "public option" is necessary -- private, profit-driven companies are not designed to accomplish delivery of essential services to everyone. Profit-driven companies are designed to deliver only to those who are willing to pay the most, which when applied to essential human needs violates fundamental tenets of democracy. We are supposed to be a one-person-one-vote country, not a one-dollar-one-vote country.

Again, Will and other conservatives use lots of scary words. But if you look at the meanings of the words, their complaint is with Americans who want to enjoy the fruits of democracy and equality, and take care of each other.

And this is supposed to be a bad thing?

Citizens Ask For Responsible Budget

2009-06-20T18:47:30Z

I came across two letters-to-the-editor in today's San Jose Mercury news, asking California's leaders to be responsible and include revenues instead of just cutting services to the people of the state. Here is what they wrote:

State leaders must find more money
Our California Legislature really needs some budget advice from California's moms and dads. If my family was in a deep financial crisis that meant I couldn't provide my kids with the essentials they need, I would turn over every cushion looking for spare change, get a weekend job, or sell things in a yard sale. I would try almost anything to bring in more money.
While our state leaders have said these budget cuts are agonizing for them, they haven't yet considered every option to avoid or lessen them. Cuts to programs serving children, families, and the elderly could be avoided if legislators closed corporate tax loopholes, and raised taxes on items like tobacco and alcohol in order to raise revenue. According to recent public opinion polls, these revenue options are overwhelmingly popular while drastic cuts to social programs are not.
I urge our leadership to step up and do right by California's kids and families.
-----

To be responsible, state must raise cash
Our California legislative leaders keep repeating that "all options are being considered" in an effort to balance our state's budget. Yet Sacramento has said very little about options to increase revenue. California families need our lawmakers to do better than just slash essential programs that we all need. To be responsible, we also need to raise revenue.
Truthfully: An 83 cent increase on tobacco taxes is far more responsible than cutting up to a million kids off health care coverage. And raising revenue on items such as tobacco and alcohol is popular, while making drastic cuts to social programs is not.
Before we start slashing billions of dollars from health care and education, let us truly examine all the options.

People want their government to serve them, not just the big corporations. Cutting services to people in order to keep taxes low on big tobacco and oil companies is a terrible way to run a state.

Did You Know About The Huge Corporate Tax CUT?

2009-06-18T17:08:22Z

Most Californians don't know that there was a huge corporate tax CUT in the recent budget deal. With this huge budget problem requiring tax increases and service cuts for the people of California, they passed a huge tax cut for large corporations.

The Working Families e-activist network sent out an email that included the following:

While Governor Schwarzenegger claims the only way to balance the budget is by slashing funding for education, health care, public safety and other vital services, a handful of large corporations are poised to receive significant tax giveaways which will wind up costing the state nearly $10 billion over the next five years.

. . . Fairness dictates that everyone shares in the pain, and that should include some of the world's wealthiest corporations. The decision to keep tax loopholes open and make cuts instead is a conscious choice, and it's one that legislators should be held accountable for making. Before considering additional cuts to programs Californians care so deeply about, the California Legislature needs to act now to shut down these unfair, unnecessary corporate tax giveaways.

Send a Letter to Your Legislators to Shut Down Unfair Corporate Tax Giveaways!

Click the link and add your voice to this effort.

Schwarzenegger's Talk Was Cheap

2009-06-18T01:30:39Z

Governor Schwarzenegger has talked about the need to act responsibly and pass a budget.

So the legislature is trying to do just that. According to the Sacramento Bee, "... the Legislature's joint budget conference committee, on a party-line vote, adopted a plan that included about $2 billion in new oil production and cigarette taxes to help bridge a $24 billion budget gap."

So what is the Governor's response to a balanced approach to fixing the budget?

"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he wouldn't sign a plan that was balanced with tax increases."

He will shut down the state, close the schools, lay off thousands of workers, because the legislature balances the cuts with small tax increases on tobacco and oil companies.

This is known as "dancing with the ones who brung ya." The Republicans get elected with millions of dollars from big corporations, and that is who they answer to. They will close schools, lay off police and firefighters, and keep elderly people from getting needed medical care or oxygen tanks delivered, just to protect the cash that is flowing to a few very large corporations. From the referenced post,

If you look at the independent expenditure reports for the 2008 California election you'll see a massive amount of last-minute money. ... you learn that this money came from corporations like Arkansas' Wal-Mart, Blue Cross of Ohio (Ohio?), Reliant Energy, major real estate companies, and from other PACs.
... huge amounts of money coming from large corporations like Philip Morris, ATT, Chevron, Safeway, Sempra Energy, Verizon, big insurance companies, big pharmaceutical companies, big real estate companies ... and other conduits like the Chamber of Commerce.

But think about this: it isn't "corporations" who are doing this. Corporations are just abstract concepts, really nothing more than a bundle of legal contracts and enabling laws. It is people -- a few specific people. When you hear that a corporations did something, it wasn't Bob in Sales or Alice in Accounts Receivable who made decisions that affect your life like this, it was really a few people at the top who have control of the resources of that corporation. The things they do are intended to benefit them personally, not to benefit the company. This is why so many companies are destroyed while the executives get rich and then leave a mess behind. Corporations are not the problem, it is the use of corporate resources to influence government that is the problem.

And this time, while we try to solve a budget problem that looks like it could shut down the state, it is a really big problem.

Perspective On Tax Increases

2009-06-14T15:52:19Z

People get hysterical when talking about tax increases. They say wealthy people will pack up and leave (parking their yachts in the Nevada desert?) They say companies will relocate.

For perspective, if there is a 2% tax increase on incomes over $500,000 a person with $600,000 taxable income will pay $38.42 more in taxes per week.

If you think people who make $600,000 a year can't afford $38.42 per week, and will leave behind their beautiful house and connections and friends, I suggest you should think again.

Notes: Taxable income is income after all deductions. Tax rates only apply to the income in that bracket, so a person with $600,000 in taxable income will pay the increased taxes on $100,000 if the taxes apply at $500,000. This means a 2% tax increase applies to that $100,000 only, which is $2,000 per year, or $38.42 per week.

Update - It has been pointed out to me that amounts paid in state taxes are deductible from federal taxes, so about $13-14 of this state tax would then taken off of taxes owed to the feds, so the net weekly increase paid by the super-rich in this example would be about $25, instead of $38.42.

Question for our conservative commenters: now that it is $25 per week would the super rich still be forced to leave their nice houses, friends and connections and take their yachts with them to Nevada, as they would be forced to by a $38 per week increase?

CA Budget - Where Is The Public?

2009-06-11T06:00:33Z

As the state's budget woes grow it is increasingly difficult to gauge what the public wants (or even understands.) The information channels are stuffed with corporate/conservative propaganda and astroturf like the "tea parties" but there is little comprehensive, accurate and truly objective information available to help the public understand what is happening. For example, few stories about the budget explain that a minority of only 1/3 of the legislature is blocking the passage of a budget, or that a budget was passed by the legislature in January and was vetoed by the Governor. Few stories explain the extent of budget cuts the state has already made.

The uninformed public isn't helping solve this. Turnout for the special election was only about 28 percent of our 17.1 million registered voters, which is about 20% of the 23,385,819 eligible voters. So the election didn't tell us what about 80% of our citizens want to do. It did show that a solid majority of 20% of us didn't want those particular ballot initiatives. But what does this mean? While 31% of Los Angeles County voters were for proposition 1a, just this last November 68% voted for the Measure R sales tax increase. This corresponds with other gauges of the meaning of the special election. So the special election provides little guidance for policymakers.

An April Field Poll of Californians showed that Californians are against raising taxes and against cutting school budgets, health care and higher education. Should we conclude from this that they are just in favor of bankruptcy? Before we conclude bankruptcy is what people really want, we need some polling to see if people understand what it would mean to their own lives. For example, do pepole understand the economic effect from laying off all of the state employees, teachers, etc., closing down the schools, colleges and universities, hospitals, prisons, and stopping all the firefighting and police services that people expect. Are they really in favor of this, or do they just not understand what they are asking for?

Meanwhile, the poll found that 74% approve of increasing taxes on millionaires, and 56% favor legalizing and taxing ~~millionaires~~ marijuana. So maybe there is some guidance from that.

These figures on taxes are supported by an April 15 Gallup poll finding that 48% of Americans think they are paying the proper amount of taxes, but 60% believe the wealthy are under-taxed (and "23 percent think they pay their fair share, and 13 percent feel that they are overburdened").

The SEIU has just released a TV ad which they will be spending $1 million to run, along with a new website, CommonSenseForCA.org. They are asking for a balanced approach to fixing the budget, not just through cuts but also with new revenue. Here is the ad, and please visit the website.

Let us know what you think.

In DC At Took Back America

2009-06-02T17:15:47Z

I am in Washington, DC, attending the America's Future Now! conference. This conference used to be called "Take Back America" but they had to change the name. I have been calling it "Took Back America."

First observation: the conference is much smaller this year than last. The economy is certainly part of the reason - many of the attendees are local this year. I flew here by cashing in miles, not cash, and am sharing a room. I have a media pass instead of paying a conference fee. Many of the people who are here from out of town are representing organizations and not paying their own way.

I think another reason attendance is down is because, to some extent, we did Take Back America, so the urgency has dissipated. I think it didn't need to be as urgent and doesn't have to be there next time. A problem of progressive politics is that people get excited about elections but not so much about getting ready for every next election and the one after that. Millions are raised at the last minute because of the urgency of hard-fought campaigns, but little is donated to the infrastructure and advance work that would save the same campaigns from being hard fought and urgent in the first place.

If more work were done between elections, elections would be so much easier to win. This is leverage - a small investment of time and resources now leads to a large return later. This investment includes money: a hundred dollars given to progressive organizations today lays the groundwork for passing progressive policies and electing progressive candidates later.

Here is what is good: the conference is advancing the cause of between-election-infrastructure creation. We should have a conference or two like this in California!!

New Budget Essay One: the "Meaning" of the Prop 1A Vote

2009-06-02T11:51:38Z

This is a guest post from former State Senator Sheila Kuehl. This is a more accurate analysis of the real reasons the initiatives failed than the spin you are probably hearing on the radio or word-of-mouth. As we discussed the other day, polls show a number fo reasons the voters rejected the proposals, few of them related to taxes.

The Problem With the Rhetoric

Immediately after the election, the Governor announced that the "voters had spoken" and that the defeat of Prop 1A "clearly" meant that Californians stood adamantly against any new taxes or fees. He must have been reading the leaves in the bottom of his tea cup in order to come to a favored conclusion, however, because there was no evidence to support his assertion. Quite the opposite, as a poll taken between May 16 and May 20 showed. (see below)

The Governor didn't stop there. Building on his unsubstantiated assertion, he went on to maintain, that he, therefore, had no choice but to propose a budget that would put the wrecking ball to California's safety net for healthcare, children, the elderly and schools. As shown below, his conclusion as to the meaning of the "No" vote on Prop 1A is not true, and, therefore, these proposed cuts, and a budget with no new revenues, is not the most acceptable answer for California's voters.

What Would Prop 1A Have Done Again?

Many voters indicated they were confused by Prop 1A and with some good reason. Like every one of the Propositions on the May 19th ballot, Prop 1A was originally constructed to satisfy Republican demands in exchange for a minimal number of "aye" votes on the February budget. As such, Prop 1A would have placed a spending cap on future budget expenditures. Then, in order to placate Democrats who did not agree with the spending cap as drafted, an extension to the new sales tax was added to the Proposition, giving virtually everyone something to hate.

An Interesting Irony

It seems sadly ironic that, just as the rest of the United States is rejecting the right wing's long stranglehold on our rhetoric, California, the long hold-out, is embracing it. Years ago, Grover Nordquist, one of the right's mouthpieces, said that his goal was to shrink government down to where it could be drowned in a bathtub. By patiently denigrating government, valorizing private enterprise, establishing inflexible term limits to guarantee an inexperienced legislature, setting up a 2/3 vote requirement to raise a tax, but only a majority to lower one, government in California was set up for the shrinkage.

But California proved stubborn. Support of schools and the safety net continued. Since, by definition, these are jobs only the government can perform, government continued to be an important part of all solutions to poverty, education and healthcare.

Until now. This month, even our moderate Republican Governor, along with a seemingly cowed Democratic majority in both houses, contemplates throwing in the towel and balancing the budget with nothing but cuts, cuts, cuts, thus fulfilling Grover Nordquist's desire.

But the call for these cuts is predicated on misreading the tea leaves of the defeat of Prop 1A, in an election in which only 23% of registered voters voted (4 million out of 17.1 million, or about 10.5% of Californians).

What Did The Voters (and the Non-Voters) "mean" by the Defeat of Prop 1A

The only real information we have about voters' intentions is a poll conducted between May 16th and May 20th of 603 people who voted in the election and 405 who did not. According to several sections of the poll:

1) 3 out of 4 voters and non-voters simply thought these propositions should never have been put to them for a vote.
2) 7 out of 10 did not like that the Governor and the Legislature keep balancing the budget "on the backs of average Californians" instead of requiring special interests to pay their fair share. Only 20% thought all Californians were being asked to share the pain equally.

How About the "No on 1A" voters specifically?

This is the result that puts the lie to the Governor's interpretation. Of voters who voted "no" on Prop 1A, less than half said the government should rely entirely on spending cuts and not increase taxes.

65% of all voters agreed that shared responsibility should be part of the solution and not simply reliance on spending cuts to balance the budget.

Do "No" Voters on Prop 1A Support Any Taxes?

According to the poll, 62% of "no" voters supported increased taxes on alcohol (75% of "yes" and "no" combined supported this tax), 62% supported increased taxes on tobacco (74% of all voters), 60% supported an oil extraction tax on oil companies drawing oil and gas in California (73% of all voters), 58% supported not allowing corporations buying property to be protected by Prop 13 (63% of all voters), 55% supported not allowing tax credits for companies to go over 50% of what they owe in taxes (59% of all voters).

Conclusion: Voters Would Support a Balanced Approach

Even so, the budget will have to incorporate deep cuts no matter what the solution. The only question is how much, and whether some of the cuts can be made less deeply because revenue solutions are part of the answer.

Next: A Possible, Though Still Painful, Way to Balance the Budget

Election Results -- What The Public Wants

2009-05-28T20:10:30Z

Did the results of the special election on the budget propositions really show that the public is against taxes and government, as the Republicans claim? Recent polling looked at the reasons the propositions failed. Polls are a useful way to understand what people really thing because they take a scientific sample, actually asking the voters what they think, instead of just repeating something that Republicans just say. Let's see what the voters give as their reasons for opposing the propositions. From the polling:

74% of voters polled thought the election was just a gimmick, not an actual fix for California's budget problems.
70% of the voters polled said the legislature is a captive of special interests (possibly because people are learning that the "budget deal" that they came up with in the middle of this emergency included a huge tax cut for large, multi-state corporations.)
In a budget battle dominated by Republican demands for spending cuts instead of asking the rich and corporations to pay their fair share only 19% of voters polled said that Californians are being asked to share the pain equally.
And to drive that point home, only 29% of voters polled said that the budget should be balanced only with spending cuts. According to the polling "even among 'No' voters, less than half (46%) say the government should rely entirely on spending cuts with no tax increases."

In summary, voters resented that the legislature is held captive by the 2/3 rule, and want them to address that instead of coming up with short-term gimmicks to get through another year while making things even worse later.

Additionally, and completely contrary to anti-tax and anti-government claims, the polling showed "broad support for new revenue streams." According to the polling report, the public supports:

]]>

Increasing taxes on alcoholic beverages (75% support)
Increasing taxes on tobacco (74% support)
Imposing an oil extraction tax on oil companies just like every other oil producing state (73% support)
Closing the loophole that allows corporations to avoid reassessment of the value of new property they purchase (63% support)
Increasing the top bracket of the state income tax from nine point three percent to 10 percent for families with taxable income over $272,000 a year and to eleven percent for families with taxable incomes over $544,000 a year (63% support)
Prohibiting corporations from using tax credits to offset more than fifty percent of the taxes they owe (59% support)

The corporate right has to spin last week's special election as an anti-tax vote. What else can they do? But, as usual, their spin goes completely the other way from the facts.

Let's put them to the test. The corporate right claims that this election showed that the public is solidly against government and taxes. If they really believe that, how about reinstating majority rule in California, instead of requiring a 2/3 vote to pass budgets and taxes?

Since they claim that the public is solidly against taxes, will they also support a straight up-or-down vote on taxes? Of course not. The public is not
with them and they know it. This is just a ruse to continue destroying our great
state and our democratic process.

Statement on the California Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Proposition 8

2009-05-26T19:13:52Z

Speak Out California
Statement on the California Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Proposition 8

The California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that denies a specified group of our citizens the same rights as other Californians are allowed.

It is unfortunate that instead of being in the forefront of civil and human rights California is now in the position of denying a core human right to a selected group.

We are pleased that the Court allowed 18,000 couples whose decision to make a life commitment to each other to keep that right, but this apparently one-time-offer is no longer available to others who wish to have the same rights as all other Californians. This has happened because of a misguided and deceptively misleading religiously-based ballot initiative that was financed by big money from out of state and the intolerance of other well-funded organizations.

This is not over. The next step is to bring the matter back to the people. This time we need to dispel the fears and hatred that drove Prop. 8 by making it clear that it is a fundamental issue of human dignity for people to have the right to choose a life partner.

We at Speak Out California look forward to participating in that effort and in finally allowing all people the right to marry in the state of California, as many other states have now recognized as a fundamental right and a matter of simple human decency.

Please click here to join our ranks at Speak Out California, and please join the Courage Campaign's Fearless efforts to organize the fight to bring equal rights to all Californians, and visit http://www.couragecampaign.org/1million.

In addition, please join the Meet in the Middle for Equality rally in Fresno, Saturday May 30, 1:00pm at City Hall.

Here is the Courage Campaign "Fidelity" video:

Please read the following statements by California and national leaders on this unfortunate decision: (We will continue to post statements through the day.)

]]> Speaker Pelosi:
Today's ruling by the Supreme Court in support of Proposition 8 is deeply disappointing because this ballot initiative takes away individual rights.
I have long fought for equality for all of California's families and will strongly support efforts to restore marriage equality in California, so it can join the ranks of states such as Iowa and Vermont.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles):
Today is a setback for equality in California, but it will not be the end of the story. When marriage equality legislation was first introduced in the legislature it couldn't get out of committee. Since then we've passed marriage equality bills twice and more than 60 legislators signed the amicus brief last November trying to overturn the inequities in Proposition 8. The people of California and the tide of history are clearly moving toward equality. While everyone who believes in equal treatment under the law is disappointed by the court's decision today, we should all take pride in the fact that truth and time are on our side. My colleagues and I in the Assembly will continue to work to promote equality for all Californians in any way that we can.

Lt. Gov. Garamendi:
Today we lost an important battle, but on this disappointing day, it's worth remembering that the final outcome of this struggle has already been determined. Time is on our side, and Californians will one day soon repeal Proposition 8. Patti and I have been married for 43 years, and we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the LGBT community and their allies as they work to convince the electorate that all Californians, regardless of sexual orientation, deserve access to marriage and equality. While we will always face roadblocks, our society journeys down a path of increased equality under the law.

Senator Mark Leno:
"Today's decision is extremely disappointing for California and hurts thousands of caring couples who wish to make lifelong commitments to one another through marriage. Let today's decision be a rallying cry for all Californians who believe in equality and fairness, and encourage thousands more to stand up and fight the pervasive injustices LGBT people face in our community and our nation."

"The issue before this court was much greater than marriage equality. The question asked of our justices goes to the core of our society. Can a majority vote undermine a foundation stone of our constitutional democracy, equal protection under the law? Today our highest court ruled that minorities do not matter."

"Through our disappointment, we will still find hope and encouragement, including the 18,000 couples whose marriages in California remain secure and protected today. Through our sadness, our resolve to fight for justice and equality only grows stronger. Love is an unstoppable force, and equality is right around the corner."

Assemblymember Tom Torlakson (D-Antioch):
In my years working with kids, what I know to be true is that kids thrive when they have parents in their lives that are committed to one another and are part of a stable, loving family. The decision today is a set back for equality, but also for children. Children deserve to see the state's highest court uphold the civil rights of their parents and recognize the validity of their relationships.

Assemblymember Dave Jones, former Chair Assembly Judiciary Committee:
"In my view, Proposition 8 was a revision of the California constitution, not an amendment. Any constitutional revision must first be passed by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature before being placed on a ballot for a vote of the people. I believe today's decision betrays the sacred trust of every Californian who depends on the Court to protect them from pernicious discrimination. Like Justice Moreno, I believe that 'requiring discrimination against a minority group on the basis of a suspect classification strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution...'"

Janice Rocco, NOW's Southwest Regional Director:
"The court has permitted a bare majority of voters to eliminate the fundamental rights of a minority. The act of writing discrimination into our state's constitution is a shameful chapter in our state's history. The attitudes and long-held beliefs that allowed a slim majority to pass this discriminatory initiative are changing rapidly and soon the majority will support equal marriage rights. Those of us who fight for equality know that it won't be long before we are successful in amended the constitution to provide equal marriage rights to same-sex couples. This is one of the most significant civil rights issues of our time and today's decision is devastating for same-sex couples and all those who support equality and justice for all."

Assemblymember Marty Block:
Harvey Milk once said "I cannot prevent anyone from getting angry, or mad, or frustrated. I can only hope that they'll turn that anger and frustration and madness into something positive." I can't think of more fitting words on a day like today.

Even as someone who is accustomed to writing and giving speeches, I find it very difficult to find the words powerful enough to convey my disagreement and sadness with the California Supreme Court's decision on Proposition 8.

From a purely legal standpoint, I honestly believe their decision was flawed; from a civil rights standpoint, I feel it is just plain wrong.

California often sets the national tone on key issues. Change is rarely easy, even when it is right. Today we have all taken a step away from what is right.

While it seems absurd today that a law that prohibits a person's right to marry could ever be conceived, let alone enforced, we must all remember that it wasn't so long ago in our great state that it would have been illegal for a person of one color to marry a person of another.

The battle for marriage equality isn't a battle for special rights; it's a battle for equal rights. Together, we must turn our anger and frustration into something positive. Together, we must work to ensure that all Californians are granted the same rights and liberties and treated equally under the law.

Assemblymember Noreen Evans:
"Here in this country and in this state we have witnessed a long parade of court decisions upholding the treatment of African Americans and women as property and denying them the right to vote; upholding the state's legal authority to round up Asian Americans and imprison them for no reason other than fear; denying the rights of others to marry and hold property because of their race, creed or color. Today's Supreme Court decision joins this pantheon of shame."

Democratic Party Chairman John Burton:
Today's decision, while heartbreaking, doesn't end the historic struggle for marriage equality. It renews our dedication to making sure all California families can again enjoy the dignity, commitment and responsibility of marriage.

I commend the California Supreme Court for validating the rights of the 18,000 lesbian and gay couples who married last year before Proposition 8 passed. These couples and their children will continue to enjoy the full security and legal protection of marriage.

Within the next few years, I know California will restore legal, civil marriages for gay and lesbian couples. The California Democratic Party will play a leading role in ending marriage discrimination in California and I look forward to the day when that happens.

Senator Barbara Boxer:
Unfortunately, with this decision, I am concerned that we are back to square one on the issue of equal rights for same-sex couples.

This ruling sets up a very unfair reality in California where some same-sex couples will have their marriages affirmed, while many more will be denied their fundamental rights.

I remain committed to working actively with people across the state to make sure that same-sex couples have equal rights under the law.

Senator Feinstein:
"I know today's decision is a tremendous disappointment for many people. But I also know that the opinions of Californians are changing on this issue, and I believe that equal marriage rights will one day be the law in this state. This is already the case in Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont. So, I believe this issue will come before the voters again, and I am very hopeful that the result will be different next time.

Today's State Supreme Court ruling also declares that the 18,000 same-sex marriages that have already taken place in California are valid, and I believe these marriages will allow people to see for themselves that marriage equality is a step forward for California and not a step back."

Service Employees International Union:
"Equality is a value dear to our union's members," said SEIU International Executive VP Mary Kay Henry. "We opposed Prop. 8 and the forces of division and discrimination that produced it. This ruling merely delays the day of regaining an important aspect of equality in California. It does not diminish the dignity of our members and their relationships or our determination to win equality in this country."

Assemblymember Nancy Skinner:
"This is a decision that affects all Californians in a very personal way. It impacts my family in saying that somehow my daughter's love for the woman who is her partner is not as valid as the love others have for the opposite sex.

Eliminating the legal right of marriage has implications on all of us whose children, grandchildren, brothers, sisters, or others may be gay. Removing the legal rights bestowed by marriage not only denies legal benefits to same sex couples, it changes our legal relationships--a daughter's partner's child is no longer legally our grandchild, a brother's partner may no longer be considered our brother-in-law.

The role of our courts is to protect each and every one of us against discrimination, even that discrimination that may be favored by voters.

I am deeply disappointed that our state's Supreme Court has upheld discrimination and has denied all of us a basic legal right to marry and to be legally related by marriage."

Are Voters 'Anti-Government?'

2009-05-26T17:33:22Z

In the op-ed piece titled, "A rising anti-government tide," Republican leader Newt Gingrich wrote last week about California's special election,

"This vote is the second great signal that the American people are getting fed up with corrupt politicians, arrogant bureaucrats, greedy interests and incompetent, destructive government."

For those unfamiliar with the history of Newt Gingrich here is a quick lesson in what you are hearing. Newt Gingrich is a father of Republican nasty-talk. In 1990 Gingrich introduced a memo titled, "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control," advising Republicans to use certain words over and over, always describing opponents as "destructive," "incompetent," "greedy," etc., and always describe Republicans as "humane," "fair," "principled," etc. Please go read the memo and see for yourself. Gingrich's advice was to just insult and insult and be nasty dirty up the discourse, and you will win elections. And, of course, that is what they did and they did win elections - for a while. They are still nasty and just insult and insult, but they haven't been winning elections.

So, knowing that, take anything Gingrich says with a grain of salt. (Never mind that Gingrich is also known for committing adultery in a car in the parking garage of the U.S. Capital, with a much-younger Congressional aide while he was Speaker of the House, during the Republican effort to impeach President Clinton for adultery!) And ask yourself why any supposedly respectable news outlet would give him a platform to do the damage that he does.

But back to the subject-at-hand, whether voters really, as Gingrich claims, expressed an "anti-government" message last week? Does Gingrich have his facts right? Let's check a fact. Gingrich wrote, "This model of high-tax, big-spending inefficiency has already driven thousands of successful Californians out of the state..." But everyone who actually knows anything about California knows that the reason people leave the state is because of high real-estate prices. And the reason they are high is because so many people want to live here. Of course, the implication (because it coincides with another Republican talking point) is that businesses leave the state because of taxes. Studies that look at actual facts show this isn't true, either. Brian Leubitz on Friday wrote about this at Calitics,

"He [Gingrich] highlights the Yacht Party theme that all these businesses are leaving California...except that they aren't. As noted by the CA Budget Project blog, the PPIC has shown that this really isn't true. PPIC event went so far as to say, in a report, that "it is important to be wary of anecdotal evidence of businesses fleeing the state to support arguments that California has an economic climate hostile to business.""

Can any readers name even a single business that has left California because of taxes? If so, leave a comment.

Next: A look at the polls.

Don't Forget The Governor Vetoed A Budget That Passed

2009-05-22T02:30:38Z

As we face this state budget crisis, we would like to remind people that it didn't have to be this way. The Democrats in California's legislature tried to do the responsible thing to keep the state running and head this off, and passed a good budget in January. The Republicans and the Governor instead wanted to create a crisis and force the state into bankruptcy.

From January, Schwarzenegger vetoes budget bills,

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger this afternoon vetoed the Democratic plan to reduce the budget deficit by $18 billion and will urge lawmakers to use his January proposal as a template for implementing midyear cuts...

The move forces leaders to start over in their efforts to close a budget deficit estimated at $40 billion over the next 18 months. It jettisons -- for now -- what Democrats hailed as "the only game in town" -- because it included tax increases approved without Republican votes.

Schwarzenegger rejects latest budget proposal,

Democratic leaders sent Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger an $18 billion deficit-cutting package on Tuesday, a plan he quickly vetoed as anti-tax groups filed a lawsuit to stop it.

The activity came amid the Legislature's third special session since the November election to deal with California's worsening budget deficit, projected at $42 billion over the next 18 months.

For some reason, it has been forgotten that this budget would have solved this problem and avoided the May 19 election and resulting chaos. But the anti-tax extremists blocked it because they don't want government to work, they want it to shut down. It is a strategy they are following because it keeps their base active and brings them corporate donations. They do not believe in government, they have said so, and they have all signed a pledge to that effect.

The Democrats should be strategic as well as responsible and pass this budget again. This time if the Governor vetoes it or the anti-tax extremists take it to court they will be doing so while people's own schools are forced to lay of teachers, and their own police departments are being forced to reduce patrols. It won't be hypothetical, it will be happening in their neighborhoods and their cities. The public will be able to see for themselves who is trying to keep the state running, who is trying to keep their schools open, and who is trying to shut the state down. And if it goes to court they will be forced to ask why we do not have majority rule in California, how there can be a law allowing a small number of extremists to block everything.

Government Spending

2009-05-21T06:05:00Z

Corporations have convinced the public that government and government spending are bad for the economy.

Question, was President Eisenhower's building the interstate highway system good or bad for the economy, the public and in the end for corporations?

Discuss.

Democracy

2009-05-20T23:22:58Z

Over at Calbuzz they make the case for democracy,

"Since the 1978 passage of Proposition 13, when Sacramento took on the task of managing the impact of property tax cuts ... across the state, the on-the-fly reorganization of political and financial relations between the Capitol and its provinces, coupled with a decades-long binge of budgeting by ballot box, has steadily evolved into a Byzantine patchwork of stunted and often self-canceling imperatives and ideologies.

By now, democracy -- in the sense of a government by, of and for the people -- has become so completely distorted, perverted and corrupted in California that tinkering, however well-intentioned, is not enough. It's not about "blowing up boxes," as Arnold famously, and demagogically, promised to do. It's about dismantling and rebuilding democratic government based on three key values: accountability, trust and modern, measurable performance of the people and programs funded by taxpayers.

[. . .] Specific solutions aside for now, fixing the fetid mess in Sacramento will require the commitment, not just of politicians who see the writing on the wall, but also of the mainstream media, which has nurtured widespread ignorance about the business of state politics and government by systematically ignoring it: Not a single TV station from a major California city has a bureau there.

Most of all, it will require the involvement of taxpaying citizens, who must bear responsibility for choices that have yielded harmful, if unintended, political consequences.

"We need a citizen-induced fix," as Wunderman puts it: "California government is not only broken, it has become destructive to our future."

Go read, at Calbuzz.