California

By Tim Salyer
President
California Therapeutic Communities (“CTC”)

On July 31, 2008, representatives from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Division of Addiction and Recovery Services (“DARS”) notified providers of in-prison substance abuse programs (“SAP”) that, due to Governor Schwarzenegger’s signing of the Executive Order, all in-prison treatment programs in 30 of our state’s prisons will be temporarily suspended. Because of this suspension, treatment staff was notified that they were NOT to return to work and that their pay was indefinitely suspended.

The Executive Order is having a devastating effect on the rehabilitative efforts of CDCR and the contracted non-profit and for-profit companies that provide substance abuse services in prisons. Already, hundreds of employees, mostly in the Central Valley, have been laid off and the companies they worked for are losing hundreds of thousands of dollars every week. While the Executive Order was implemented to help save California money, it will end up having the opposite effect as unemployment numbers swell and businesses throughout the state will cease to exist.

Further problems are sure to ensue. The rehabilitative services that are provided by CTC member companies have become very effective in reducing both the return to custody (recidivism) rate and the overall population of the California prison system. Without these services, we can expect a rise in recidivism and the prison population, which will end up costing the state even more. Recidivism rates dropped dramatically for those completing in prison and post prison community based programs – less than 28% return to custody.

We believe the CDCR interpretation of the Order is erroneous. The Order states:

“…all State agencies and departments under my direct executive authority take immediate action to terminate the services of the following four (sic, “six”) categories of employees and individuals: (1) Retired Annuitants; (2) Permanent Intermittent Employees; (3) Seasonal Employees; (4) Temporary Help Workers; (5) Student Assistants; and (6) individuals providing services under contract, except for services provided pursuant to multi-year contracts for development of Information Technology projects.”

This order does not appear to apply to private organizations under contract for inmate and/or parolee rehabilitative services as has been inferred by CDCR/DARS.

The immediate impact of shutting down these in-prison programs overseen by the DARS is:

By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento

In ancient Athens, when an elected official acted offensively in the opinion of his peers, his punishment was not to be defeated, but either death or “exile”. Some would say Assemblywoman Parra is lucky.

The punishment of recalcitrant Members is not a new thing in the legislature. Freshman Republican Curt Pringle was given a refurbished restroom as an office by Speaker Willie Brown in the wake of the poll guard scandal that marked Pringle’s election. The “Gang of 5” were stripped of staff and status during their abortive revolt in 1988.

Brown was not known as a Speaker with a heavy hand. He had been present when Speaker Unruh had locked up Republican members in the chambers overnight for failing to support the budget bill (sound familiar?). The fallout damaged Unruh’s ability to lead and forever tagged him with the sobriquet, “Big Daddy”. Brown also witnessed the political carnage produced in the Speakership War of 1980 – brought on, in large part, because of what was perceived as arrogance on the part of then Speaker McCarthy’s staff.

These were not lessons lost on Speaker Brown. He used to say that he only asked two things of his caucus members: a vote for Speaker and a vote on the final budget package.

The budget had to be placed off limits to member demands for quid pro quos (my vote in return for this) both because it required a 2/3 vote – hence the implication of the Republicans – and because it couldn’t be made a Christmas tree (with a present for everyone) during bad times. In 1991, the GOP and Governor Wilson insisted that the votes needed for that terrible budget be provided by the delegation from San Diego in order to entrap the late Mike Gotch, who had narrowly defeated a Republican incumbent the year before. Playing my role as a protector of members in ‘harm’s way’, I had advised Gotch not to supply his vote.

Speaker Brown dispatched his caucus chair and majority leader to engage me in conversation about it at the back of chambers. With me distracted, he led Gotch to the podium to ‘add on’ his deciding vote. When I complained Brown said only that he had his job to do as I had my job to do – and that he’d done it better.

This vignette only to reinforce the point that no Speaker can allow any one member to hijack California’s budget for individual reasons.

The latest to try is, of course, King County Assemblywoman Nicole Parra, exiled for her action to the Legislative Office Building. Parra announced publicly that she would vote for the budget only if she got a water bond placed on the ballot – imprudently making her vote a “quid pro quo” in apparent violation of the Penal Code Section that makes such actions a felony. A small office across the street might be considered better punishment than the mandatory three years in state prison for conviction under the penal code. Especially since Ms Parra is termed out and will only have to sit in the LOB this week and the next.

By Casey Mills

Earlier this month, Governor Schwarzenegger vowed he wouldn’t sign any legislation before a budget was passed, an obvious attempt to blackmail Democrats into hurrying along the process and accepting a Republican-driven result. Since then, mainstream coverage of the budget battle consistently includes hand-wringing over the looming deadline – this Saturday – for placing or altering measures on November’s ballot. This sort of coverage goes on to cite all the ‘major’ initiatives that wouldn’t go before voters due to the current logjam. Yet of the four big initiatives that must meet Saturday’s deadline to move forward, none are essential to a progressive Democratic agenda, and all were initiated at least in part by Schwarzenegger himself. State legislators should let the deadline pass … and let the Governor eat crow.

There’s no doubt that vital legislation remains trapped due to the Governor’s freeze on signing bills. A variety of important health care initiatives, for example, would benefit immediately from the budget passing. Landmark bills involving farm worker protections and electoral reform are also winding their way through the process, and deserve immediate attention by the Executive once they’re ready.

However, when it comes to items that must be approved by Saturday in order to go before voters, the ‘Big Four’ shouldn’t make progressives lose any sleep. They include:

Water: The Governor and Senator Dianne Feinstein want voters to okay a $9.3 billion water bond, which would go towards a slew of major infrastructure improvements. For starters, the bill remains woefully inadequate in terms of utilizing simple, cheap and effective strategies like water conservation, efficiency and recycling, which has earned it the ire of many major environmental groups. But even more important, Democrats have not had ample time to develop a counter proposal. There’s no question California faces severe challenges concerning its water supply, but at this point waiting a year for a good proposal is far preferable to rushing a bad one.

Lottery: Back in May, the Governor proposed borrowing $15 billion from state lottery income over the next three years. While Democrats continue to seek legitimate and progressive sources of new revenue to ensure a sustainable budget, Schwarzenegger continues to push this one-time fix with dubious certainty of success. Assembly Speaker Karen Bass hit the nail on the head when she called it “a Rubik's Cube budget, not a long-term, structurally balanced budget.”

By Robert Cruickshank

Today Darrell Steinberg is expected to finally be elected as Senate President Pro Tem, bringing the failed leadership of Don Perata to a welcome end. George Skelton welcomes him to office with a column on the landmark smart growth bill that Steinberg has been pushing through the legislature. Although the bill won't pass this year, it has a big head of steam behind it, and faces good prospects in the 2009 session.

Steinberg's bill would link land use planning in California to the AB 32 global warming targets. From Skelton’s article:

"One issue everyone has been afraid to touch is land use," Steinberg says. "Everyone understands about using alternative fuel. But land use has been the third rail. AB 32 changed the equation because now land use has to be part of the solution to global warming. You can't meet our goal just with alternative fuels. You have to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled.

"If people are going to drive -- and they are going to drive -- we need to plan in ways to get them out of their cars faster. That means shrinking -- not the amount of housing, not economic development, not growth -- but shrinking the footprint on which that growth occurs."

“Steinberg wants it to occur within a smaller circle around downtown.

“Basically the bill would work like this: Each metropolitan region would adopt a "sustainable community strategy" to encourage compact development. They'd mesh it with greenhouse emissions targets set by the California Air Resources Board, which is charged with commanding the state's fight against global warming.”

Also included are preferential funding for transportation projects that fit with the "sustainable community strategy" and an expedited permitting process for those developments that fit the law's and the community strategy's goals.

Tom Adams of the California League of Conservation Voters called the plan "the most important land-use bill in California since enactment of the Coastal Act three decades ago" and he's right to say it. But the plan does more than help the environment and reduce carbon emissions.

One year ago I called for "redefining the California dream" - restoring the economic security of California workers by abandoning sprawl and turning to urban density and mass transit. This is not just an environmental move, but it is absolutely necessary for job growth, affordable housing, and basic financial security.

By Katy Farber

I’m a big fan of California. I’m almost as far from the state as I could be, here in Vermont, but I usually wholeheartedly agree with the environmental and public health decisions made by the California legislature to protect their citizens.

The ban on phthalates for one. The chemical and toxin labeling law (hence all those “May Cause Cancer in the State of California” labels you see all over cheap goods from China). And the higher fuel efficiency standards, which have considerably reduced smog. Then, they were poised to ban BPA (bisphenol A and PFOA (a chemical in food wrapping). No dice.

What happened? In a close vote, the California legislature voted not to ban BPA and PFOA.

The FDA has long defended the use of BPA in plastics, citing studies done by the manufacturers of the chemical and the products that contain it. Again, they defended their stance about in the New York Times last week. Here is a breakdown of the studies done all over the world that share a much different view of BPA then the FDA states.

The timing of the FDA’s announcement is also suspect, coming only days before California’s vote on a BPA ban. Renee Sharp, Senior Analyst with the Environmental Working Group said on Yuba Net:

“The timing of the announcement by FDA raises eyebrows considering the California legislature is about to vote on a measure to remove the toxic chemical from some children’s products. BPA has been linked to altered brain development, behavioral changes and prostate problems in animals and should not be used in any consumer products that could potentially leach into food and liquids, especially in products young children use every single day. We have long since lost faith in FDA’s ability to be an impartial authority on BPA’s safety. Time and again, FDA has sided with special interests instead of the public interest on this chemical.”

By Rosa Martha Villarreal

In the 2008 presidential election, Hispanics represent the key swing demographic in states such as Florida, New Mexico, and perhaps even California. Though early polls show Barack Obama with a substantial lead among Hispanic voters, this demographic is not reliably in the Democrats’ column. Given an attractive Republican candidate such as Ronald Reagan in 1980 or George W. Bush in 2000, a significant number of Hispanic voters---especially Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans---will switch sides. With this in mind, both John McCain and Barack Obama have made pitched appeals to Hispanic voters based on the bitter immigration issue. Polls consistently show that education, the economy, and the Iraq war are the issues that most concern Hispanic Americans, so is immigration truly relevant?

Unlike what the strident anti-immigration foes suggest, the reason why immigration matters to Hispanics is not that we want to take over the country in a reconquista or impose the Spanish language as co-equal with English. Quite the contrary. For those of us who are native born Americans, English is our primary if not our only language; we are as thoroughly modernistic as our fellow Americans, and we serve in the military in disproportionate numbers.

The issue is relevant because the anti-immigration rhetoric has taken the tenor of the ethnic baiting of 19th century when the United States “acquired” vast territories from Mexico in 1848 and the island of Puerto Rico from Spain in 1898. Although a majority of Mexican and Puerto Rican nationals are still bitter about these events, most American Hispanics are less concerned about the past than about issues that affect our families in the here and now. However, the immigration debate has stirred up some bad memories.

It is particularly discouraging that historians have not vigorously rectified the casus belli for the Mexican-American War in the public consciousness. Many Americans still think that Mexicans maliciously “shed American blood on American soil.” In light of today’s bitterness about people illegally crossing into our borders, it is interesting that so many Americans (with the possible exception of Patrick Buchanan) fail to see the irony that in the 19th century it was Americans who crossed into Mexican territory, most of them illegally, with the expressed intention of creating facts on the ground and fulfilling their dream of Manifest Destiny. Among those illegals was the infamous Donner Party.

By Irwin Nowick

This is the latest on the D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court’s decision on the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. It’s been a relatively quiet week, but there are some interesting developments.

First, I saw snippet of Justice Kennedy’s remarks on a panel of the Ninth Circuit conference on CSPAN at a Ninth Circuit Conference and I think Second Amendment review of state and federal laws may be more vigorous than people may realize – particularly in terms of mechanics and procedures of licensing and registration.

Secondly, Dick Heller was finally given his completed handgun registration which he picked up and transported home on his bicycle.

Three, in terms of “Molegate”, Anna Schecter at ABC News had a web story on August 19th entitled “Gun Control Lobby Claims McCain Insider Had Ties to NRA Spy Op, NRA Allegedly Hired Spy to Pose as Gun Control Activist.” In the story – which Dr. Cavala first made these connections in an article on these pages on August 7, “Cavala: Espionage “Double Agent” For the N.R.A. Linked by Lobbyist to McCain Campaign” – James Jay Baker who served as executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) in the late 1990s when it allegedly hired a woman to pose as a gun control activist and funnel information back to the NRA.

A McCain campaign spokesperson said Baker was only a "high level volunteer" for the campaign - and not that influential. Talk about “throwing someone under the Bus”. The Brady Campaign (and others) is now looking into legal options on this with the NRA continuing with a “no comment” policy. I await the depositions.

Mother Jones reported that the NRA paid the now-defunct security firm that hired Mary McFate aka Mary Sapone aka Mary McFate to snoop, Beckett Brown International $80,000 in a 12-month period spanning 1999 and 2000. It appears that the NRA in effect paid her $80,000 for her efforts over the years. Pravada – not the best source of reliable information – has piled on pointing out other activities by Sapone/McFate.

I will be on KRXA 540 AM at 8 AM to discuss this and other California political issues

Today Darrell Steinberg is expected to finally be elected as Senate President Pro Tem, bringing the failed leadership of Don Perata to a welcome end. George Skelton welcomes him to office with a column the landmark smart growth bill that Steinberg has been pushing through the legislature. Although the bill won't pass this year, it has a big head of steam behind it, and faces good prospects in the 2009 session.

Steinberg's bill would link land use planning in California to the AB 32 global warming targets:

"One issue everyone has been afraid to touch is land use," Steinberg says. "Everyone understands about using alternative fuel. But land use has been the third rail. AB 32 changed the equation because now land use has to be part of the solution to global warming. You can't meet our goal just with alternative fuels. You have to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled.

"If people are going to drive -- and they are going to drive -- we need to plan in ways to get them out of their cars faster. That means shrinking -- not the amount of housing, not economic development, not growth -- but shrinking the footprint on which that growth occurs."

Steinberg wants it to occur within a smaller circle around downtown.

Basically the bill would work like this: Each metropolitan region would adopt a "sustainable community strategy" to encourage compact development. They'd mesh it with greenhouse emissions targets set by the California Air Resources Board, which is charged with commanding the state's fight against global warming.

Also included are preferential funding for transportation projects that fit with the "sustainable community strategy" and an expedited permitting process for those developments that fit the law's and the community strategy's goals.

Tom Adams of the California League of Conservation Voters called the plan "the most important land-use bill in California since enactment of the Coastal Act three decades ago" and he's right to say it. But the plan does more than help the environment and reduce carbon emissions.

One year ago I called for "redefining the California dream" - restoring the economic security of California workers by abandoning sprawl and turning to urban density and mass transit. This is not just an environmental move, but it is absolutely necessary for job growth, affordable housing, and basic financial security.

California can no longer afford sprawl. The national housing bubble burst right here, in the exurbs of Stockton, Modesto, and Moreno Valley. As gas prices rise at a rate of 30% every year since 2002, sprawl becomes literally unaffordable for most Californians, with a devastating ripple effect throughout the economy.

Republicans will predictably be furious with Steinberg's plan, but that's because they represent the emergent "homeowner aristocracy" - certain (by no means all) households that bought their home prior to 1990 or so, those who want to preserve the conditions of the 20th century at all costs.

As Jerry Brown recognized when he was governor 30 years ago, and still recognizes today, density done right is the key to maintaining the middle-class California dream for the 21st century. Only by following the Portland model of strictly limiting sprawl and encouraging infill development and providing the transportation options needed to serve that development can we bring affordability back to California, and secure the economic future for new generations of Californians.

Steinberg's genius move is to link that strategy to the fight against global warming. It's nice to finally see some real leadership from Democrats on this matter and particularly from the new leader of the State Senate. SB 375 may not make it to the governor's desk this year, but it deserves our strong support in the 2009 session. It will transform California for the better, and there are few bills aside from SB 840 that can credibly make that claim.

Tyrone Freeman, the rising star who had led the United Long Term Care Workers local of SEIU, has stepped down from his post in order to allow an investigation into his spending habits.

Tyrone Freeman, president of the Service Employees International Union chapter, said in a written statement that he was taking a leave of absence and that the local would be placed in a temporary trusteeship.

"In order to ensure that any investigation of the allegations is fair and free from any question of interference or influence, I am taking a leave of absence effective immediately for the duration of the investigation," the statement said. "I believe these steps will allow our union to continue to serve the best interests of our membership during this time." (LA Times 8/20/08)

Freeman had been a star protege of SEIU International President Andy Stern, and had frequently clashed with United Heathcare Workers West president Sal Rosselli. Joe Matthews had an interesting post about this last week at Blockbuster Democracy:

Why does the action need to be so clear-cut? Because the labor movement is on the rise in Los Angeles. To attend a city council meeting or a mayoral press conference is to watch the labor movement governing the city. As the journalist Harold Meyerson has written, the rise of the LA unions as a labor force has been aided by the widespread perception that our unions are not old-style, corrupt empires. This is supposed to be new labor. The public needs to see transparency and accountability in the response to this.

As for Freeman, I hope he can make amends for this conduct and have a future in the labor movement. But it can't be as president of this local.

While the move isn't permanent, it would be hard to imagine Freeman back at ULTCW. My guess is that he finds a job elsewhere within SEIU, but likely outside of California.

By Frank D. Russo

At a press conference in the Capitol shortly after 1 p.m., Arnold Schwarzenegger spoke about what he called a compromise plan of his own to raise revenues, make cuts, and reform the budget process, saying, “Here’s officially my proposal.” Later on, when questioned, he said that these are some of the proposals that had been thrown out in “Big 5” discussions with the Democratic and Republican leaders in both houses that he has been having behind closed doors.

Some are calling this “The August Revise.” The Governor proposes a budget in January—and the one at the beginning of this year was quite draconian, calling for closure of a quarter of the state’s parks and robotic cuts across the board in state programs. It was thought to be part of a “shock doctrine” approach and not taken seriously by many. Then, as required by law, the Governor proposed a “May Revision,” which was then debated in the budget committees of both houses which passed different versions of their own, reconciled by a conference committee from both houses. This is now the third budget proposed by Governor Schwarzenegger this year.

Additional details of this proposal are being briefed by the state Department of Finance. Much of what was said at the press conference was at a broader conceptual level. But at least this is now coming out in the open for all to see and analyze. Hopefully some of these details, which is what the budget is all about, will help to move the process along.

We have posted an article with some of the details from what the Governor's office has released. You can listen to the 12 minutes of what the Governor said here. If and when we haave a transcript, we will publish it.

In his brief description of his proposal, he said that it called for $2 billion in spending cuts below that passed out by the Senate-Assembly Conference Committee over a month ago on July 17. There is additional revenue in the form of a temporary one-cent increase in the state sales tax, to be followed in the out years by a cut in the sales tax rate below where it is presently. It also contains “the strongest rainy day fund in the nation,” in the Governor’s words. It gives the Governor power to make mid-year budget cuts, and contains an “economic stimulus package” which contains many provisions that are not really budget related, such as overtime pay of computer workers in the Silicon Valley, that have been criticized in the press. Once again, at least now they are presumably out in the open for all to chew upon.

• Proposal Calls Spending Cuts Of $2 Billion Below Conference Committee Level
• Calls For Temporary 3 Year Increase Of Sales Tax
• Proposes Again Budget Reform Package

Spending Cuts Proposals and Budget Reforms Would Have Big Impact on People With Disabilities, Mental Health Needs, Seniors and Low Income Families - Advocates Fear More Cuts to Critical Programs

By Marty D. Omoto
Director/Organizer
California Disability Community Action Network

With the Legislature still deadlocked on the State Budget, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued today a new budget compromise that he says takes both Democratic and Republican ideas to close the $17.2 billion budget gap. The Governor's proposed compromise includes an additional $2 billion in spending cuts on top of reductions adopted by Legislative Democrats in the Budget Conference Committee budget that remains stalled on the Assembly and Senate floors. Advocates fear those cuts will hit health and human service spending for critical programs impacting people with disabilities, mental health needs, seniors and low income families.

The Governor said that his new compromise proposal "...protects education funding, maintains important safety net programs, does not borrow funding from local government or transportation, and avoids massive out-year deficits".

His new proposal includes a temporary three year sales tax increase of 1 cent, which he previously proposed, proposals for a bigger reserve fund for "rainy days", more spending cuts and other budget reforms. Many of the proposals today have been part of the Governor's earlier budget proposals this year, including his ideas for budget reform that legislative Democrats generally have opposed.

Legislative Democrats are likely to oppose the budget reforms as proposed by the Governor and many of the spending cuts - though no details were released on where he would make those cuts. Legislative Republicans previously were opposed to any tax increases, including sales tax increases, but have been in favor of more cuts.

SUMMARY OF GOVERNOR'S NEW PROPOSAL

The Governor's proposed compromise budget includes the following (as released today):

So, Arnold Schwarzenegger just held a press conference that was webcast on his website. He proceeded to introduce exactly the same plan that he had been pushing for the last 6 weeks: a 1% sales tax and a bunch of budget reforms. The sales tax, by the way, which would affect far more people and inflict far more harm than reverting to the Reagan era tax brackets. No specific mention of a spending cap, but I'm sure we will hear more about this new "compromise plan".

Ultimately, I think the point of this was just to castigate the legislature. "The Republicans need to come out of their idealogical corner where they say no tax increases, and the Democrats need to come out of their ideological corner where they say no cuts," the governor said.

Except wait, rewind that a bit.  The Democrats say no cuts? Except the over 8 Billion already cut? Except for the further 3 or so they are offering to cut now?  Speaker Bass has already tried three ways from Sunday to compromise with the Republicans, but they just won't do it.

Oh, and the Governor also addressed his speech at the Republican National Convention.  Apparently he won't be making it if there is no budget.  If I'm John McCain, I'd be working on getting a replacement speaker.

UPDATE: You can watch the video here.

By Mark Beach, AARP Californiahttp://www.aarp.org/states/ca/
Mike Connors, California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform and
Deborah Doctor, Protection & Advocacy Inc.

In 2004, AB 1629 was enacted at the last minute with minimal review by the legislature and less public scrutiny. The bill established a new reimbursement system for Med-Cal payments to nursing homes, with substantial annual increases. So far, AB 1629 has:

• Delivered an estimated $150-200 million in annual guaranteed taxpayer-funded profits for skilled nursing facility owners. Even the worst nursing homes in the state – found responsible for deaths and injuries of residents – received generous profits from tax dollars;

• Paid for an increase in administrators’ wages of approximately 11%; and

• Coincided with an upsurge of complaints, ranging from deaths to dangerous mistreatment.

Governor Schwarzenegger’s proposed budget exempts nursing homes from budget cuts. Nursing homes will receive a rate increase this year while other services face substantial cuts, and nursing homes are the only Medi-Cal providers with a guaranteed profit within their rate.

The law was intended to sunset this year, but has been extended through 2009, and the governor and legislature have recommended a two year extension, without changes.

AARP California, California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform and Protection & Advocacy, Inc. (soon to be Disability Rights California) want the legislature, social justice groups and the public to know that the extension of this law must receive full public review and only be considered against other state expenditures and cuts directly affecting the survival of millions of elderly and disabled citizens.

Studies show immediate impact of this law

Although supporters of AB 1629 claim that the law has led to improvements in care in nursing homes, a University of California at San Francisco study, Impact of California’s Medi-Cal Long Term Care Reimbursement Act on Access, Quality and Costs, convincingly shows that since more tax dollars starting flowing to the nursing homes in the spring of 2006, quantity and quality of patient care lost ground as administrative costs and industry profits rose. For example, in 2006 at least 144 homes that did not meet minimum staffing standards for the entire year were awarded substantial increases in reimbursements and guaranteed profit.

For the last few years, I've been quite involved in the CDP.  I care deeply about the California Democratic Party and the tactics and policies that it pursues. I know that this Party can be a vehicle for real fundamental progressive policy change at all levels of government. However, we have a wide range of obstacles in front of us in the coming years to ensure that we strengthen our Party for the challenges of the next generation. That is why I have decided to run for vice-chair of the California Democratic Party.

As Democrats, we are fortunate. We needn't concern ourselves with suppressing any voting blocs or hiding from our positions. The simple truth is that when the people come out to vote, we win. But turnout operations require people, thus we must become a truly people powered party. In word and deed. We need to continue the work of the neighborhood leader program, and build upon our recent successes. We need to register more voters, and then make sure they get to the polls.  That much we all know, but getting all that done requires a people-powered machine of volunteerism.

We must engage the grassroots of the party, and throw open the doors of the California Democratic Party.  It is increasingly clear that if we are to truly build a people-powered party that we need more transparency at all levels within the CDP. If we are to ask people to volunteer for our campaigns, shouldn't they know what they are signing up for? It's simply a matter of motivation, people are more likely to dedicate their time, effort, and resources to a party that explains their strategy to them.  This CDP should be of, by, and for grassroots Democrats as we attempt to ensure our collective success.

This people-powered party shouldn't simply exist to serve a legislative caucus or any particular donor, but rather to ensure that the collective action of thousands of grassroots Democrats can be heard.  This means truly opening up ourselves to introspection.  It means reviewing our processes to ensure that we are an institution that is seeking the best solution rather than the easy solution. It means recalibrating ourselves to overcome inertia in the service of positive change. After all, if there is one thing that term limits have taught us, it is that incumbency is ephemeral, values are permanent.

But reform is a two-way street.  In order to build a truly people-powered party, we must follow up by building a program to increase donations to the party from grassroots activists. As transparency can increase activism, it can also increase fundraising.  While nobody expects to compete with presidential candidates, the growth of online donations from Howard Dean to Barack Obama shows that there is money there for those who speak clearly and openly of their beliefs. The same is true of the CDP .  Grassroots donations will not come until the grassroots activists are completely assured that their money will be spent wisely and for their intended purpose of supporting Democratic values.  This is not an overnight process, but rather a long process of growing relationships and building trust.

One way of supporting those Democratic values is to invest resources to expand the reach of our Party and fully implement our 58-County Strategy. Despite any conventional wisdom to the contrary, we are capable of growing the Party all across the state.We should encourage the growth of our Democratic County Central Committees and support their party-building efforts, whether they be volunteer voter registration drives or the hiring of regional field organizers.  Furthermore, we need to field candidates everywhere, because, as Howard Dean said, we can't expect votes unless we ask for them.  We needn't limit ourselves to the Coast, because despite the attacks that our leveled against us, we are right.

We are right that we can't sell our civil liberties for a false promise of Big Brother providing us security. We are right that we all deserve access to health care without the concern of going broke (and then losing our homes to foreclosure). We are right that climate change presents to us a major and immediate challenge. We were right that Iraq was a war that should have never been authorized and never been waged. And we are right to provide the troops with all that we have promised, including quality health care and quality education when they return. Because despite the foolhardy nature of the mission, they have served admirably.  We are right that California, and the nation, need clean, publicly-owned, and trustworthy elections. And we are right that all Californians should be free to marry the one that they love.

We already have the capacity to make this a people-powered party. All the tools are already here. It's simply a matter of will. Together we can build this CDP into our CDP .  Over the coming months I hope to talk to any delegates and as many interested Democrats as possible to discuss these challenges to the CDP in more detail.  I do not take this lightly. I have considered this for a long time, and feel that I can provide value to the CDP in the role of vice-chair. My experience with Calitics has given me a catbird seat view of the issues presented to the CDP.  And I am confident that my education and experience as a lawyer and a policy analyst will be an asset to the party. I have experience working for and against statewide propositions, and understand the good, bad, and ugly of California politics.  I have high expectations for this party and know that we will always have more work to do.  I'm ready to do some of that work.  If you have questions, let me know. Email me at brian AT calitics dotcom, and I'll get back to you promptly. And if you're going to be in Denver, well, I'll do my best to speak to as many Californians as possible.

Bio: Brian Leubitz runs Calitics.com, the leading California progressive blog covering California politics and policy. He holds a law degree from the University of Texas and a Master of Public Policy (M.P.P) from the Goldman School at The University of California, Berkeley. After practicing law in San Francisco, Brian transitioned into politics and launched Calitics .com in 2005.  He has worked on several campaigns in the state, including the Yes on 93 (term limits reform) and the No on 98/Yes on 99 (eminent domain and property rights) campaigns. He currently is a member of the Democratic State Central Committee, serves on the CDP's resolutions committee, and is on the boards of the San Francisco Young Democrats and the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club.

By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento

Tony Quinn, former Policy Director of the Republican Assembly Caucus, today labels the California Democratic Party “stupid” for its opposition to Prop 11.

His somewhat confusing argument is that because the Democrats gained a two-thirds majority in 1976 under a Court-drawn redistricting plan they might do so again under another Court or Commission drawn plan. But if Prop 11 – the Governor’s redistricting scheme is defeated – the result will be either a moderate Republican Governor or a referendum that will force a “sweetheart deal” between the two parties.

Come again?

Is Quinn saying that the proposed redistricting commission will provide Democrats with the benefits of a partisan gerrymander? I thought it was supposed to a “reform” measure.

But all this is more bunkum.

The Governor and the Republican backers of Prop 11 know that Democratic opposition - which now includes not only the State Party and the vast majority of Legislative Democrats, but also the Democrats in Congress and Speaker Pelosi – is the major threat to it’s passage. So they’ve embarked on a campaign to convince Democrats that it is somehow beneficial to them to take authority away from a Democratic majority in the Legislature and give it instead to a Commission where Democrats are in a minority.

If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.

Quinn’s argument that Democrats would fare better under such a Commission than in a plan they draw themselves is ridiculous. The plan facts of California’s demography indicate that a two-thirds majority – for either party – is simply not possible. (You can’t divide a 44% Democratic state into 80 districts where Democrats win 54 of them). However it would be possible to draw 41 seats that Republicans could win – giving them a majority and, equally important, providing them with a rationale to encourage conservative contributors. Democratic lawmakers would not take this course.

Would new Republican lawmakers, elected in Commission-drawn lines at the expense of Democrats, serve to “moderate” the GOP caucus? Look at the ‘moderate Republicans’ in today’s competitive seats. Are votes for the Governor being supplied –today- by Guy Houston, Shirley Horton or Bonnie Garcia to a compromise on the budget? Of course not! There are NO moderates among the elected Republicans and won’t be until there is a revolution within the GOP.

Monday night.  Be there.

Maybe he can tell them all how they have to compromise and raise taxes and to stop with the nonsense right-wing Republican talk that lies to the people.

Somehow, I expect it to be more in line with the dogma.

By the way, aren't the legislators not supposed to leave for their respective national conventions until a budget is signed?

I guess it's OK if you're Arnold.

One of the most important but so far overlooked narratives of this election cycle is the return of taxes as a major political issue. The recession is hitting government budgets just as that same downturn, combined with soaring gas prices and global warming is creating demand for new spending.

Against this backdrop conservatives are now convinced that their way out of an ugly election cycle is to rally the public behind their rabid anti-tax politics. Constant attacks on Obama as a tax-raiser are partly to blame for McCain's recent rise in the polls.

And here in the states Republicans are again turning to the tax revolt, their bread and butter for 30 years. Republican intransigence on the California budget is best seen as part of this national strategy to break Democrats on the tax rack.

The Wall Street Journal has a great overview of tax politics in the states, including a lunatic proposal to eliminate Massachusetts' income tax and a equally nutty plan to allow Oregon residents to deduct an unlimited amount of federal tax on their state returns.

Here in California conservatives are already circling the wagons on taxes. John and Ken, the reliable bellwethers of SoCal conservatism, raked Arnold over the coals yesterday over taxes:

Schwarzenegger tried to defend new taxes as necessary because the state was still paying off debts incurred by predecessor Gov. Gray Davis. But the hosts pressed further and suggested that Schwarzenegger abandoned his original mission of fixing the state's fiscal situation in order to pursue environmental goals.

That seemed to upset the governor, who maintained that his environmental policies had nothing to do with the state budget.

"This is absolutely absurd what you're saying right now," Schwarzenegger said. "....You're living in the Stone Age if you think that the environmental issue has anything to do with the budget or the declining economy worldwide."

"Don't lie to the people," Schwarzenegger added. "That's all I can tell you, don't lie to the people. Don't pull wool over their eyes. It's nonsense Republican right-wing talk."

To which John and Ken then asked whether Arnold was under anesthesia. Stay classy, Los Angeles.

What this shows is that the conservatives are in no mood whatsoever to give ground on taxes. The drubbing John and Ken gave Arnold is a taste of what many Sacramento Republicans might face from within their own party. Their fear is that by voting for a tax increase, they're going to face primary challengers who will simply tell the wingnut base "my opponent voted for a tax increase" and their ambitious political careers will be over.

So it seems very unlikely that Republicans will give in this time. That leaves it up to Democrats to force the issue. The only thing that should scare Republicans more than a primary fight is losing the general election. That means Dems have to go after Republicans hard - and that in turn means Dems have to finally stop avoiding the issue and for the first time in 30 years make a case for taxes.

The problem is that, with reporters like Lisa Vorderbrueggen repeating conservative tax framing, Dems have an uphill battle. Way too many Californians assume taxes are taken out of their own pocket and never returned to them, even though Californians derive great and real economic value from government spending.

One angle would be to, as Anthony Wright suggests over on the left-hand column, make the budget about the economy. Explain the value of the services Californians receive from government and show how, in a recession, the loss of those services will hurt their bottom line.

Dems would also do well to explain to voters how Republican tax cuts are behind this crisis - from the 1998 McClintock tax cuts to Arnold's $6 billion VLF cut to the repeated borrowing that Republicans have demanded, this budget crisis would be quite manageable were it not for reckless tax cuts.

Further, explain how tax cuts are also responsible for our economic downturn. With more government spending on higher education, health care, and mass transit, many of the costs that currently cripple households would be eased.

It's not about the "budget" and never has been. This about taxes. With their backs up against the wall conservatives have returned to the strategies that brought them to power in the first place, and in California that means stoking a tax revolt. Unless Dems are able to defang that argument this budget crisis, and perhaps even the 2008 election, are not going have a happy ending.

• Another Lawsuit Planned To Force State To Pay Vendors During Period of No Budget

• Judge's Order Is Effective Until Lawsuit Filed By Medicaid Defense Fund on Behalf of Medi-Cal Recipients Goes Is Decided

By Marty D. Omoto
Director/Organizer
California Disability Community Action Network

In a major victory for Medi-Cal recipients and providers, US District Court Judge Christina A. Synder issued a temporary order Tuesday (August 19) to temporarily half the 10% Medi-Cal provider rate reduction that went into effect July 1. The judge's order impacts the Medi-Cal rate reductions for Medi-Cal "fee for service" providers including doctors, dentists, pharmacists, adult day-care centers and other providers who provide services to people in the Medi-Cal program. The order reverses the 10% cut to those Medi-Cal providers for dates of services provided on or after July 1, 2008.

The order excludes some hospitals who do not contract with the State and do not provide emergency care. The case number is CV 08-3315 CAS (MANx). Visit the CDCAN website for copy of the 22 page temporary injunction .

The case was filed against Sandra Shewry, director of the California Department of Health Care Services, which oversees the Medi-Cal program. That department is under the California Health and Human Services Agency, overseen by Secretary Kim Belshe. The judge's order, while temporary, is still a major setback for the Schwarzenegger Administration.

Suit Filed By Medicaid Defense Fund For Medi-Cal Recipients

The federal lawsuit was filed in the US District Court of the Central District of California (in Los Angeles) by the Medicaid Defense Fund for a number of persons who receive Medi-Cal services and supports.

Temporary Order Made Because Judge Believes Suit Could Win

The temporary order by the district court judge was made because he believed there was a possibility the lawsuit could have a chance of prevailing. The case has not yet gone to trial, but the judge's order - which the plaintiffs (those who filed the lawsuit) requested, would halt the provider rate cut for most of the Medi-Cal providers impacted.

The temporary court order means that the State reduction of close to $600 million in State general funds would have to be - at least for now - restored back to the Medi-Cal program to pay providers. It is not clear yet how the State will comply with the order with no State budget in place.

Medicaid Defense Fund Will File Another Suit To Order State To Pay Other Vendors

At this point the judiciary is pretty much the only government entity in this state I have a modicum of belief in; they aren't hamstrung by ridiculous rules that make it impossible to function, so they can simply follow the law.  State agencies, when properly run, also can exhibit some independence.  Lately, there have been several cases ruled in favor of reformers at the expense of malign protectors of the health care status quo.

After a series of investigations from the California Department of Public Health, 18 hospitals have been fined for substandard care.

Violations included an improperly inserted catheter, a ventilator that was not turned on and surgical tools left inside patients after operations [...]

The hospitals were fined $25,000 for each violation - the latest of dozens of penalties the state has issued in recent years to more than 40 hospitals.

"The number of penalties will decrease and the quality of care will dramatically improve as hospitals take action to improve," said Kathleen Billingsley, director of the health department's Center for Healthcare Quality. "The entire intent of these fines is to improve the overall quality of care in California."

As care is improved, so must access for treatment.  The proposed cuts to Medi-Cal by the governor would have decimated the ability for the poor to find a doctor.  The cuts never made it through district court.

A federal judge has ordered a temporary halt in the state's 10 percent reduction in Medi-Cal reimbursement rates, improving access to care for 6.5 million low-income patients but throwing a new wrench in already difficult budget negotiations.

The U.S. District Court decision forces the state to reimburse most Medi-Cal providers at rates prior to the 10 percent cut, which lawmakers and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made effective July 1 as a cost-cutting measure to help resolve a $15.2 billion budget shortfall this year.

The move increases reimbursement rates the state pays to doctors, dentists, pharmacists, adult day-care centers and other providers who serve Medi-Cal patients. It excludes some hospitals who do not contract with the state and do not provide emergency care.

This just shows the fallacy of a cuts-only budget, which runs into all kinds of voter mandates and constitutional demands.  The good news here is that reimbursement rates will be sustained, albeit at a level low enough that half of the state's doctors will still probably reject Medi-Cal patients.  The Democratic budget would also have rescinded the Medi-Cal rate cuts.

In a separate decision in the State Supreme Court, the justices ruled that doctors cannot deny care to gays and lesbians based on moral objections.

Justice Joyce Kennard wrote that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state's law, which "imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations."

In the lawsuit that led to the ruling, Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside said that the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home but told her their beliefs prevented them from inseminating her. One of the doctors referred her to another fertility specialist without moral objections, and Benitez has since given birth to three children.

Nevertheless, Benitez in 2001 sued the Vista-based North Coast Women's Care Medical Group. She and her lawyers successfully argued that a state law prohibiting businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation applies to doctors.

Of course, we cannot rely on the courts to shape public policy.  But they set the boundaries - the lines that lawmakers cannot cross.  And those boundaries are leading to increased access and improved care.

By Jared Huffman
Member
California State Assembly

From the Assembly Floor:

I’ve listened carefully to the many speakers from the Republican caucus, and I hear you: You hate the Democratic Budget. Now please listen to this: I don’t like it either.

My Democratic colleagues and I don’t like cutting schools and essential social services; I don’t like reducing State Parks and environmental programs down to barebones funding levels. And I don’t like raising taxes. But I am willing to accept the tough choices reflected in this budget compromise because we are in a crisis, and tough choices are required to move California forward.

In this fiscal climate, I don’t think there is a budget deal to be had that both sides would like. But surely, there has to be a budget that Republicans could accept. To get there, we need you to tell us what you want, not just what you hate.

There’s a lot of talent in the Republican caucus – we’ve seen it even today. I’ve enjoyed the creative speeches from many of you. When Mr. Blakeslee throws up his microphone to speak, there’s often a hush in the room because he is so philosophical and articulate, we want to hear what he has to say. And so many other of my Republican friends are talented and gifted in many ways.

The tragedy is that you’ve chosen to apply all of that talent to partisan speeches, posters, and blogging to your political base. If you had dedicated half that effort to developing a budget plan, I think we’d have a deal by now.

If you had done the hard work of actually developing a budget plan, you would see that you can’t balance a $15 billion deficit and still keep your pledges to Grover Norquist without some very brutal impacts to the people of California. You can’t find $7 billion in additional cuts beyond the Democratic budget proposal without all of the draconian actions we saw in the Governor’s January budget proposal: closure of 48 state parks and beaches, massive cuts to public education, early release of tens of thousands of criminals – things you said that you opposed. You know that.

Which probably explains why speaker after speaker for the Republican caucus today has railed against het Democratic budget proposal but not offered a single detail on how you would balance the budget. You’ve spoken in generalities about “tightening our belts” without offering a single detail on how we should tighten our belts. We’ve heard vague references to Republican ideas and “solutions” that were allegedly quashed in committees, but not one of you has described these “solutions” and explained how they would help solve this year’s budget deficit. You haven’t identified a single additional cut that you would like to see.