Four of five S.D. Congress members vote against bailout

By George E. Condon Jr. and Finlay Lewis
U-T WASHINGTON BUREAU
September 29, 2008


WASHINGTON – Undeterred by heavy lobbying and threats of reprisals, four out of five members of San Diego County's congressional delegation voted against the Wall Street bailout hammered out by the Bush administration and the bipartisan leadership of the Congress.

Only Rep. Susan Davis, D-San Diego, voted for the $700 billion plan. Voting against was Democrat Bob Filner of San Diego and Republicans Duncan Hunter of Alpine, Darrell Issa of Vista and Brian Bilbray of Carlsbad.

For Hunter, who is retiring, the measure presented perhaps the last big vote of his 28 years in Congress. And the administration trained one of its big guns on him to pressure him for his vote.

Vice President Dick Cheney personally appealed for Hunter's support. But Hunter said he told Cheney he could not because the measure amounted to a “massive exposure for the American taxpayer for what's at best a very limited return.”

“He said he appreciated my rationale and that he disagreed with it,” Hunter said. “Over the years we've had a lot of conversations on important issues. A lot of the time we agree; a lot of the time we don't.”

For Issa, the stakes were particularly high, as he angered the Republican leadership and threatened his hopes to become chairman or ranking minority on a key House committee.

Issa was particularly outspoken in denunciation of his own party's leadership at the White House, the Treasury Department and the House. “Our president and our Treasury secretary are wrong on this issue,” he said.

On the other side of the aisle, Filner showed no reluctance to attack his own party leadership. “There was arrogant leadership on both sides,” he said.

“The leaderships want something that the rank and file doesn't. They did it all amongst themselves. The four principals went in a room and then reported back to the caucuses but they didn't take any input from the caucuses. ... This is a push back from the people who want some input.”

Davis couched her support of the bill with an acknowledgment that its provisions represented a wrenching adjustment to the rapidly weakening economy but she argued that the measure's approval was nonetheless a necessary step.

“No bill is a magic bullet but the cost of doing nothing may be far greater than the painful steps we take today,” she said in a statement prior to the roll call.

Bilbray explained his vote in a statement, contending that the measure would not do anything “to address the systemic problems that created the current financial crisis.” Bilbray, who did not return a call for comment, also complained in the statement that the bill offered “nothing but a promise to ensure that this is just a one-time deal.”

“It is not the responsibility of the American taxpayers to foot a $700 billion bill for the irresponsible actions of Wall Street and borrowers,” Bilbray said.

Bilbray's opponent in the Nov. 4 election, Democrat Nick Leibham, claimed the incumbent's vote helps prolong “the current financial crisis and sent Wall Street into free fall.”

“This man is a disaster. Literally,” Leibham said in a statement. “He has turned his back on the economic well-being of San Diego families and businesses.”

Marty Block Ad

John Burton set to announce candidacy for Democratic Party chairmanship

By Anthony York (published Tuesday, September 23, 2008)


Burton has told those close to him that he is running to succeed outgoing chairman Art Torres, who will leave the post after the party elects a new chairman in April. Burton was not immediately available to comment.

The job of party chairman is particularly important in this era of legislative term limits, and since voters approved Proposition 34, which set campaign contribution limits to candidates, and greatly enhanced the state parties’ rolls as arbiter of millions in political donations during campaign cycles. Burton largely wrote the initiative.

Other candidates in the race include current party vice-chairman Alex Rooker. Los Angeles County Party Chairman Eric Bauman has also been mentioned as a candidate.

Rooker has developed a long endorsement list, which includes incoming Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and a number of legislators and members of Congress. It was unclear how Burton’s entry into the race would effect those endorsements.

Rooker did not immediately respond to calls seeking comment on Burton’s candidacy.

State Democratic Party delegates will vote to replace Torres on April 25, during their spring convention. The new chairman will take office one day after the vote.

For Burton, taking over as party chairman would be coming full circle, in a way. He was the legislative author of Proposition 34 in 2000. That measure was designed to shift political money, and fundraising power, away from individual candidates and increase the stature of political parties.

Under the rules of Proposition 34, parties can receive unlimited donations, but the measure introduced new contribution limits for legislative and statewide candidates.

Since leaving office in 2006, Burton has headed the John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes, a non-profit “dedicated to improving the quality of life for California’s homeless children and developing policy solutions to prevent homelessness,” according to the foundation’s Web site.

They Shoot Horses, Don't They?

The slow death of the San Diego Union-Tribune now has progressed into a collapse. Kind of like Lehman Brothers or AIG as the paper has bought out it's most respected columnists and writers in order to reduce overhead and expenses. It has also closed its D.C. bureau after almost 65 years in operation.

So what's next? If the paper is bought out then what will happen to reporting in San Diego? Love it or hate it (I mostly hated it, I mean the front page was just wire service stories and maybe one good story a month) it was a major news organization and all of the electronic media took its lead from the paper. (Which speaks volumes on the quality of local news in San Diego.)

Should this be seen as a good sign that possibly a balanced media could come to San Diego?

Or just more of the same, only this time with more Fry's ads.

Huh?

Last night at a City Attorney debate, the question of the Chargers staying in San Diego came up. Which prompted a curious response from Jan Goldsmith which Scott Lewis from the Voice of San Diego caught on his blog.

Goldsmith, a Superior Court judge challenging Aguirre in the Nov. 4 election, said he would approach it differently. If the team's pursuit of a stadium in Chula Vista doesn't work, he would seek to form a joint powers authority with all cities in the county, and hold talks with the team.

“They don't want to talk now because maybe they think he'll run out and hold a press conference to attack people, or every time something goes wrong there's a lawsuit,” Goldsmith said of Aguirre. “Sometimes businesses don't react well to that type of approach.”

So as Scott Lewis asks in his commentary. Does this mean that Goldsmith's promise to keep the office of City Attorney apolitical has now been rescinded? Goldsmith says he can't recall he talked about joint powers authority as he stated to Mr. Lewis.

Goldsmith said he doesn't remember what he said at the forum. He said he always says that he would only "seek" the formation of a joint powers authority with other cities if the City Council approved of it.

"I did check with some folks who were taking notes and the notes were unclear about what I said. If I didn't say that last night, I need to clarify it," Goldsmith said.

Huh?

Trying to tackle(pun intended) the Charger issue on your own does seem to be a political ploy to me. Maybe snatch some bolt fan votes by saying I'll make sure this team doesn't leave San Diego County for Stockton or wherever.

What say you, good citizen?

Progressive San Diego: Official Reasons for Dual Endorsement in D3

The post below requires a response from Progressive San Diego. Progressive San Diego aims to put into practice the openness and transparency we advocate. ALL OF OUR REASONS for the dual endorsement were stated in our letter AND there were no other reasons. The blog commentary below is absolutely false speculation. I encourage all readers to take a look at PSD's endorsement letter.

Tommie Watson
operations director, PSD

Uptown Throwdown Continued

So now an update on the D3 race pitting Todd Gloria vs Steve Whitburn race.

On the 28th of last month the San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council decided to scrap the triple endorsement since John Hartley came in third and throw their full weight behind Gloria.

Rumors are flying that Steve did very badly during the COPE interview and didn't do so well answering some questions and did not do a great job explaining his answers. His responses softened his support within some of the membership. Unfortunately, I couldn't get clarification from my source what were those questions and how did he answer them. All my source said was that it was wasn't good.

On top of this Progressive San Diego, an organization that has been strong supporters of Donna Frye. Has decided to dual endorse both candidates this past week as opposed to fully Support Donna's protege Steven Whitburn. This is surprising since many members of the board are strong Donna supporters who were very active in her runs for Mayor and the organization strongly supports many of her issues.

Could this be fallout from Donna's new found friendship with Carl DeMaio? If so, Is Steve's close association with Donna becoming a liability? After all it's been said that recent actions by Donna in terms of her support of the Mayor's veto on Big Box and her position against the amicus brief on marriage equality have been causing rifts within groups that you could rely on supporting her. Are these rifts the cause of this seeming shift toward Todd's favor?

What do you think?

The Devil You Know and The Devil You Don't

Here in San Diego we have a choice this November. It's not an easy choice like for President. (I mean c'mon the DNC was awesome and Obama's speech was even better.) It is the choice for San Diego City Attorney. Now, normally this would be a no brainer. However being we've got some what many would see as questionable candidates on both sides would make some see a difficult choice.

On one side we have the incumbent Mike Aguirre. Mike styles himself as a selfless crusader that is willing to expose corruption and hypocrisy regardless of who it is. I think he sees himself as RFK and is bringing back the mandate of a City Attorney that works for all San Diegans.

Yet, he has alienated key members of the traditional Democratic constituencies with his rhetoric on public sector unions, his perceived boorish behavior toward staff and people he believes as his opponents in his quest. Not to mention his questionable statements to the press like suggesting a citywide evacuation during the `07 firestorm. These issues have led some high profile Democrats to support his opponent, Jan Goldsmith.

However Jan Goldsmith isn't a great alternative. A former leader of Assembly Republicans in Sacramento. He has spent his entire political career fighting against progressive causes. I mean other then the bill to legalize ferrets. (I mean of all the issues to champion in this state, you choose ferrets? Really?) What did he do in Sacramento that would be seen as a major accomplishment?

Yet because he promises to return stability and normalcy to the City Attorney's office he has been able to peel off support that would have traditionally gone to Mike.

Now I'm not saying that Mike is down for the count, but you have to wonder what the game plan is to win in November. And ultimately the question for San Diego voters is do we vote for the devil we know or the devil we don't?

Your thoughts?

Update: Here's Aguirre's thoughts on those high profile Dems supporting Jan.

DeMaio Fined by Ethics Commission

The UT has reported that City Councilman-elect Carl DeMaio has been fined $1,500 by the Ethics Commission for deliberately soliciting campaign contributions from city employees.

The fine comes exactly one month after the FPPC declared that DeMaio violated the Political Reform Act in his bid to win the District 5 council seat.

My favorite part of the story comes when DeMaio tries to blame his violation on the Ethics Commission, the same defense he used with the FPPC violation. While he says that the commission provided him with a letter supporting his decision to intentionally add city employees to his e-mail solicitation lists, Stacey Fulhorst, the commission's executive director, disagrees (emphasis added):

'Our investigation showed that Mr. DeMaio knew some city employees would be among those invited to the fundraiser at his home,' Fulhorst said. 'If you as a candidate put city employees on a solicitation list, you are considered targeting them.'

She said the letter covers candidates who send out mass solicitations as long as city employees are not specifically targeted. She added that DeMaio did not know about the advice letter until after the investigation was under way.

I'm sure DeMaio will try and brush this off as not being a big deal. Some may think it was just an e-mail list, and deserves little attention. I disagree.

Even if this were nothing more than an e-mail list containing 90 people who shouldn't be on the list, it underscores a major flaw in the right-wing's "Superman."

At worst, DeMaio seems to feel he can bend rules to conform to his benefit and lie and deflect his way out of responsibility. At best, he has twice been extremely sloppy in following basic campaign rules.

Either way, these two violations highlight the reason so many distrust his motives. It also showcases himself as being exactly what he claims to be fighting against.

How can you be a "reformer" when you behave the same as those you claim to be acting against?

District 7 Grantville

From today’s Voice of San Diego:
http://voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2008/08/13/survival/485distseven081208.txt


Marti Emerald said she supports the Grantville Action Group, the group of some of Grantville's business and property owners who oppose the designation of the community as a redevelopment area. She said she sides with the small business owners there who fear being pushed out in favor of the new vision for the community under redevelopment.


A legitimate position especially in a City of Villages.


April Boling said she believes Grantville will redevelop whether it's a redevelopment project area --"Redevelopment, capital R," she calls it -- or not. She supports the creation of a master plan for Grantville and the creation of the redevelopment area. Her chief reason: reinvesting the tax increment generated there to take care of the big infrastructure needs in Grantville, like aligning Mission Gorge Road with Interstate 8.


The problem with redevelopment zones is that they encourage the creation of development corporations (CCDC, SEDC) that run over established businesses and create the Mission Valleys that April wants to avoid.

Redevelopment zones were created in he early 1970’s to help the most blighted areas get on their feet. What has happened is that local governments have used them, especially in California since Prop 13, to recapture taxes lost from property by creating a larger sales tax base in areas that questionably qualify as a redevelopment zones.

There is a Grantville Action Group that wants to have a say in their future. Let them. Small businesses are the backbone of a thriving society and they know their customer base best. Grantville isn’t where it could be but it’s not on life support. Making the area a redevelopment zone would deny the locals a fair say in their future and strip them of the responsibility of maintaining their own back yard.

Managed Competition & You

So once in a great while something that U-T prints catches my attention other than the Fry's ad.

Yesterday, it was Gerry Braun's article on managed competition. In it, Braun explains the complexity of the seemly simple task of dead animal removal. While on the surface, the job seems simple enough. You pick up the dead animal and take it to the dump to be disposed of. But there are so many variables that muddy up that simplistic notion that you begin to ask.

Does any private contractor really want this hassle? If some heartbroken person, frantically looking for their beloved pet calls to see whether their pet was picked up. Will the contractor find out? If there is a licensed pet that is picked up, will contractor try to contact the owner? I mean the list can go and on.

Now imagine if this was wastewater? Or water purification? Will the contractor put the public interest over profit? Will the contractor adhere to the guidelines in place to ensure the city isn't getting skimmed? Will the contractor bid honestly? I don't know about you but sometimes the private sector isn't the best place to run public works because public works inherently are types of projects that must be done in a manner that is done safely and securely for all. After all it's our money and our services and I don't want to worry the some contractor wanted to save some money by hiring people that weren't properly trained in order to pocket a few bucks at the expense of the city because it wanted to squeeze out a little bit more profit.

If Managed Competition is the future; by what mechanism can we be assured that our tax dollars aren't used in a manner that benefits contractors who are looking to maximize profit by endangering the public and shortchanging it too.

What are your thoughts?

"The Change You Deserve."

Warning: slightly salty language at the end so it might be NSFW
but still funny...

Say No to the Governor's Attacks on State Workers

If a state budget is not passed and the Governor's illegal Executive Order remains in place, we need you to support state workers by protesting with us:

WHAT: Informational Pickets

WHERE: State Building
1350 Front St.
Wednesday, August 6
12 p.m. to 12:30 p.m.

DMV
3960 Normal St.
Thursday, August 7
7:30 a.m. to 8 a.m.

Also, call the Governor at (916) 445-2841, and tell him to exercise leadership and get a responsible budget passed!

Schwarzenegger proposes tax increase

From Today's Capitol Alert:

Last Updated 3:38 pm PDT Monday, August 4, 2008
By Jim Sanders and Kevin Yamamura - jsanders@sacbee.com

http://www.sacbee.com/1090/story/1132181.html


Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed a temporary one-cent increase in the state sales tax for the next three years in exchange for long-term fixes he believes would solve the state's perennial budget woes, several sources familiar with the negotiations said Monday.

The governor's proposal comes as he and lawmakers are 35 days into the fiscal year with no approved spending plan.

Schwarzenegger has said he opposes tax increases, but was willing to consider all options to close an estimated $15.2 billion shortfall in the $101 billion general fund.

The state sales tax is 6.25 percent, but most counties have local tax additions, such as those for transportation projects, that drive the actual rate higher. A one-cent increase statewide would raise $4 billion to $5 billion a year, based on $29 billion in sales tax revenue expected in the current year.

Aaron McLear, a Schwarzenegger spokesman, had no immediate comment Monday when asked about the one-cent sales tax proposal.

The governor's sales-tax proposal appears to put him squarely at odds with his own Republican Party, which consistently has argued that the state has a spending problem - not a revenue problem.

Democrats are not certain to embrace the sales tax hike, either. Critics argue that sales taxes are regressive, meaning that the greatest impact falls on low-income Californians.

The long-term budget fixes that Schwarzenegger wanted in return for a sales-tax hike would include a system to save revenue in a rainy day fund during good years to bridge budget gaps in down years.

If we lose the 78th in November, this may be a reason why.

From today’s Wall Street Journal:


The Democratic State Central Committee of California has paid $450,000 in legal fees for state Senator Don Perata, while a separate group, taxpayers for Perata, has paid $550,000, according to filings with California’s secretary of state.


People give to the CDP to elect Democrats, not cover the asses of elected who spend money and then abandon the cause for which they were spending other people’s money.

More reason to give locally.

Wal-Mart's Anti-Worker Tactics Continue

The Wall Street Journal today reported that anti-worker mega-company Wal-Mart is holding mandatory meetings where they strongly encourage their employees to vote against Democrats in November.

According to the WSJ:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they'll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies -- including Wal-Mart.

The article claims that Wal-Mart's reasoning behind the move is to stop passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Wal-Mart has stooped to a new low in trying to force their employees to vote Republican.

I wonder if these mandatory meetings where they "informed" their employees of how they would like them to vote were any different than the intimidation and other practices that are used to prevent employees from forming a union.

I shouldn't be surprised since it is just another example of Wal-Mart doing everything it can to prevent the fair treatment of their employees.

From the CDP

John Chiang, our Democratic State Controller, is standing up to Arnold Schwarzenegger, and I'm writing to ask you to stand up with him.

Unfortunately, in the midst of a looming multi-billion dollar budget crisis and a protracted budget battle, Gov. Schwarzenegger has decided that the best thing he could do was put the screws on our state workers by attempting to withhold all but $6.55 an hour of their pay until a budget is signed.

Despite withering criticism from almost every corner of California since he announced this scheme last week, Gov. Schwarzenegger just signed an Executive Order mandating it.

Not only is it extremely unfair and mean-spirited to force state workers to involuntarily loan the state money during a time when everyone is feeling the pain of our struggling economy, it's also not even Arnold's call to make.

According the non-partisan Legislative Counsel, it's our Controller not our Governor who has the authority to decide these types of things.

Fortunately we have a fighter in our Controller John Chiang, who has declared that he will stand up to Arnold's unfair and unproductive gimmicks and pay our state workers what we owe them.

Please stand up to Arnold and stand with Controller Chiang by writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper today.

www.cadem.org/standuptoArnold

Over the last few days, over seven thousand of you have signed our petition supporting John Chiang in his courageous stand against Arnold Schwarzenegger's irresponsible and unwarranted plan to slash the pay of state workers.

Now we need to step it up.

Today we're asking you to take your support for Controller Chiang to the next level. Please send a letter to the editor of your local paper explaining why you support John Chiang and oppose Arnold Schwarzenegger's harebrained scheme to use state employees as pawns in the budget impasse.

There will almost certainly be lawsuits filed about this, but right now the fight is in the court of public opinion. The Letters to the Editor section is one of the most widely-read sections of any newspaper, and politicians take what appears in that section very seriously.

The California Democratic Party has set up a web page that makes it easy to write a letter to the editor on this topic. Just go to www.cadem.org/standuptoArnold. We have sample letters, talking points, and some pointers to help you get started.

This fight is not only about the wages of our state workers. It's about the differences between Democrats and Republicans. It's about leaders like John Chiang who are trying to be productive and politicos like Arnold who only engage in stunts. It's about who we are as Californians and whether we are going to allow our state to act as though a civil servant who puts in an honest day's work doesn't deserve an honest wage.

Please take a moment and send a letter to your newspaper today.

Sincerely,

Sen. Art Torres (Ret.)
Chairman

Tony Young Recall effort

According to today’s UT,



San Diego City Councilman Tony Young has become the target of a recall effort in part because he supported the ouster of Carolyn Smith, president of the Southeastern Economic Development Corp.


The Fourth City Council District has always been a fractious place. You’re either loved or not. Mediocre popularity is not tolerated. Tony Young has been in this zone of “not exactly loved but above tolerable” for a while. I was only a matter of time before someone tried this. All that was lacking was a pretext.

I personally don’t think this recall has the legs to work but the Fourth is anything but predictable and I wouldn’t be very surprised if it did pick up steam from the dissatisfied.

The question isn’t if there are enough names out there; it’s about getting them. Besides, I think the scare of a recall will help keep the office focused on their task at hand.

First Teachers, Now State Employees...Governor Likes Playing Budget Games with Other People's Pay Checks

While we have always known that Governor Schwarzenegger does not think too highly of worker's rights, he recently announced a plan that would make the state's 200,000 employees the lowest paid workers in all of California.

Under the Governor's proposed executive order, which could be signed at any minute, state workers' pay would be slashed to the federal minimum wage of $6.55 an hour until a state budget is passed.

Luckily, State Controller John Chiang has stood up for all of the state's workers by openly defying the Governor's plan. While the Governor states he must do this to bridge the gap until a budget is approved, the Controller contends that the state has enough money on hand to cover bills through September.

In the meantime, state workers are asking for help from all Californians. Members of SEIU Local 1000 will be holding informational picket lines at DMV offices tomorrow starting at 7:30 a.m. If you have time, stop by to support all state workers. The offices are located at:

Chula Vista
30 N. Glover St., Chula Vista
(near N. 4th Ave. & Hwy. 54)

El Cajon
1450 Graves Ave., El Cajon
(near Hwy 67 & Bradley Ave.)

San Diego -- Clairemont
4375 Derrick Dr.
(off Genesee Ave. N. of Balboa Ave.)

San Diego -- Otay Mesa
6111 Business Center Ct.,
(off Hwy. 905 & Corporate Center Dr., 2 ½ miles E. of I-805)

U-T R.I.P.?

Because the Union-Tribune isn’t exactly coving it’s own sale, the Voice of San Diego had this bit from Randy Dotinga’s article:
http://voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2008/07/28/news/01ut072808.txt


"Given the devastation and uncertainty in the industry, it is unlikely that a public company would make a large purchase right now, as they would have their head handed to them," said Lauren Rich Fine, a retired Merrill Lynch newspaper analyst who teaches at Kent State University.

Instead, analysts think the most likely buyer would be a private company or a group of investors. But even that's a long shot considering that the few newspapers on the block aren't attracting offers.

At this point, everything is speculation, of course. Details about the U-T's financial condition are hard to come by since it is privately owned and not required to release data publicly.

One thing is clear, however: Battered by sharp falls in subscribers and advertising, the nation's 21st-largest newspaper is not in a position of strength. Its bid for buyers seems to be a sign of desperation.

"It defies all reason to want to sell the newspaper now, unless they believe that things are only going to get worse from here," said Alan Mutter, a media analyst and former newspaper executive.


What I find interesting is that even though San Diego is the 6th or 7th largest city in America, the U-T has the 22nd largest circulation of the country’s major dailies.

Huh?

Maybe the free-marketers on the editorial board should do a piece on how their own newspaper’s inability to compete, especially in a monopolistic situation, is a sure sign that they shouldn’t be in this business in the first place.

The Voice the San Diego is regularly scooping them with one-tenth of the resources and nowhere near the same size of staff, although with layoffs at the U-T there may now be parity.

Diversification of portfolios, especially when it comes to revenue streams, is a basic lesson in business. I guess the management at the U-T thought it better not to try to improve their product beyond the superficial.

Well, the market has spoken.