From the U-T about Sanders taking a salary and not telling anyone:
Sanders said he's not apologetic at all for taking the full pay, especially when he's putting a daughter through college.
“I'm not wealthy,” Sanders said. “I'm just like everybody else. I've got to make ends meet.”
Sanders did not announce his salary change. His spokesman, Darren Pudgil, revealed it in response to questions by The San Diego Union-Tribune about raises that were considered Monday for the mayor and City Council. The council rejected the increases.
Asked why he didn't inform the public, Sanders said he didn't know how to address it because it didn't feel appropriate to hold a news conference or issue a
news release.
Judie Italiano, a spokeswoman for the white-collar Municipal Employees Association, the city's largest union with almost 4,700 members, said she neveragreed with Sanders' decision to take less money. She said he did it to get attention during a heated campaign.
“I think he realized what a thankless job it is and he should get paid for it,” Italiano said.
Lani Lutar, president of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, said Sanders has a responsibility to keep the public informed. “If he changed his mind, the public deserves to know what led to the change in position,” she said. “It also raises credibility questions about what else might not be shared with the public.”
I’m with Lutar on this one. In not telling the taxpayers that pay him that he was receiving a salary because he didn’t know how doesn’t absolve him from the responsibility of informing the public. That’s like cheating on your mate and, when presented with the evidence, saying you wanted to tell them the truth but didn’t know how.
Instead, the press broke the story for him. This is not the way an elected official wants news about themselves to emerge but, in this case, he only has himself to blame.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Leadership, San Diego Style
In today’s Voice of San Diego piece about the San Diego’s water conservation “plan”, these is an interesting bit about why we’re going to punish those who have been conserving water:
Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers’ Action Network, a utility watchdog, said San Diego’s resistance to the Irvine Ranch approach is likely political.
Mayor Sanders and Water Department officials likely fear that inefficient customers who fall into more expensive billing tiers "could be used to fan some political fires against the proposal," Shames said in an e-mail. "I believe it is more of a political calculation than a legal or ratemaking justification."
Ruiz rejected that criticism and said the city "did not take into account any political ramifications of how this would impact particular market segments. We’re looking at how best to achieve the reduction targets. We came up with a model that I think is fair. We didn’t look at whether there’s some backlash from high-end users to modify our process. That would not be true."
I think that Ruiz is correct from a bureaucratic perspective but I have no doubt the Mayor took the political landscape into account. If there is one consistent thread in the Sanders Administration it is an aversion to direct confrontation that could yield meaningful results.
Aguirre was clamoring about the water issue two years ago and nothing was done. The messenger was the problem but the issue has only grown. The stadium, the pensions, the backlog of city services; all of these issues, and more, can be addressed by a strong mayor who wants to govern.
I can’t help but think that Sanders is just biding time, his staff looking for scapegoats to pin things on, so he can vault away from San Diego for a higher position. Politically, he is the highest- ranking Republican mayor in California although his timidity in the face of challenges makes him politically weaker than most other candidates.
However, it should be noted that his lack of leadership makes him a great candidate for the Board of Supervisors.
Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers’ Action Network, a utility watchdog, said San Diego’s resistance to the Irvine Ranch approach is likely political.
Mayor Sanders and Water Department officials likely fear that inefficient customers who fall into more expensive billing tiers "could be used to fan some political fires against the proposal," Shames said in an e-mail. "I believe it is more of a political calculation than a legal or ratemaking justification."
Ruiz rejected that criticism and said the city "did not take into account any political ramifications of how this would impact particular market segments. We’re looking at how best to achieve the reduction targets. We came up with a model that I think is fair. We didn’t look at whether there’s some backlash from high-end users to modify our process. That would not be true."
I think that Ruiz is correct from a bureaucratic perspective but I have no doubt the Mayor took the political landscape into account. If there is one consistent thread in the Sanders Administration it is an aversion to direct confrontation that could yield meaningful results.
Aguirre was clamoring about the water issue two years ago and nothing was done. The messenger was the problem but the issue has only grown. The stadium, the pensions, the backlog of city services; all of these issues, and more, can be addressed by a strong mayor who wants to govern.
I can’t help but think that Sanders is just biding time, his staff looking for scapegoats to pin things on, so he can vault away from San Diego for a higher position. Politically, he is the highest- ranking Republican mayor in California although his timidity in the face of challenges makes him politically weaker than most other candidates.
However, it should be noted that his lack of leadership makes him a great candidate for the Board of Supervisors.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Meet n Greet n Say Goodbye
SAVE THE DATE!
Progressive San Diego & Empower San Diego
invite you to
Meet n Greet n Say Goodbye
“TOMMIE’S FAREWELL PARTY”
Tommie Watson
Outgoing Executive Director, Progressive San Diego & Empower San Diego
Annie Lorrie Anderson-Lazo, Ph.D.
Incoming Executive Director, Empower San Diego
An applied anthropologist, educator, and organizer who has worked in San Diego, as well as throughout California and Central America over the last fifteen years, Annie Lorrie will take up her post on April 1, 2009.
Emily Serafy Cox
Incoming Development Director, Empower San Diego
Former PSD Board Member and Chair of the Fundraising Committee, joins Empower as a staff member on April 15, 2009.
Thursday April 16th
6pm @ the home of Linda and Carlos LeGerrette
1359 Grove St.
San Diego, CA 92102
Thanks to you, our many progressive allies, who have contributed to our grassroots organizing, GOtV efforts, listening campaigns, and public forums on progressive principles, Progressive San Diego has grown and blossomed!
Last summer, we formed Empower San Diego, a new non-profit 501(c)(3) education organization, which will continue to support the efforts of residents and communities coming together to build an equitable, just and sustainable society here in San Diego. As Empower, we will develop new programs and projects to amplify our most successful strategies in the areas of grassroots organizing, policy-development, voter education, and coalition building. We envision a vibrant San Diego where civically-engaged individuals and families work with their elected and appointed officials to create communities that are livable and accessible, with a transparent, accountable government, and a flourishing independent media.
Goodbye…
We will miss greatly the talents and efforts of Tommie Watson, who plans to return to his home in Boston, where he will continue the good work of nurturing and building progressive community. We especially recognize his leadership in campaigning for progressive candidates, advocating for the living wage campaign, and garnering the Reeds Award for the Best GOtV Plan, with his stellar execution of the Trick or Vote Campaign.
Progressive San Diego & Empower San Diego
invite you to
Meet n Greet n Say Goodbye
“TOMMIE’S FAREWELL PARTY”
Tommie Watson
Outgoing Executive Director, Progressive San Diego & Empower San Diego
Annie Lorrie Anderson-Lazo, Ph.D.
Incoming Executive Director, Empower San Diego
An applied anthropologist, educator, and organizer who has worked in San Diego, as well as throughout California and Central America over the last fifteen years, Annie Lorrie will take up her post on April 1, 2009.
Emily Serafy Cox
Incoming Development Director, Empower San Diego
Former PSD Board Member and Chair of the Fundraising Committee, joins Empower as a staff member on April 15, 2009.
Thursday April 16th
6pm @ the home of Linda and Carlos LeGerrette
1359 Grove St.
San Diego, CA 92102
Thanks to you, our many progressive allies, who have contributed to our grassroots organizing, GOtV efforts, listening campaigns, and public forums on progressive principles, Progressive San Diego has grown and blossomed!
Last summer, we formed Empower San Diego, a new non-profit 501(c)(3) education organization, which will continue to support the efforts of residents and communities coming together to build an equitable, just and sustainable society here in San Diego. As Empower, we will develop new programs and projects to amplify our most successful strategies in the areas of grassroots organizing, policy-development, voter education, and coalition building. We envision a vibrant San Diego where civically-engaged individuals and families work with their elected and appointed officials to create communities that are livable and accessible, with a transparent, accountable government, and a flourishing independent media.
Goodbye…
We will miss greatly the talents and efforts of Tommie Watson, who plans to return to his home in Boston, where he will continue the good work of nurturing and building progressive community. We especially recognize his leadership in campaigning for progressive candidates, advocating for the living wage campaign, and garnering the Reeds Award for the Best GOtV Plan, with his stellar execution of the Trick or Vote Campaign.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Use UPS
From commercialappeal.com:
$10 billion threat: FedEx warns lawmakers over union legislation
FedEx could cancel contracts for $10 billion in American-made planes if Congress makes it easier for unions to organize the delivery giant's workers.
In a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, the Memphis-based company disclosed that purchases of Boeing 777s are contingent on FedEx Express' continued coverage by the National Railway Labor Act.
The disclosure serves as a warning shot to lawmakers seeking to put FedEx Express workers under the National Labor Relations Act, a move seen as helping the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
"It's FedEx political hardball at its finest," said analyst Donald Broughton with Avondale Partners. In a research note Monday, he wrote: "We see FedEx's action as a deft political move that aligns the interests of Boeing and GE with FedEx, and pits the interests of the Teamsters against the interests of the machinist and several other trade unions."
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/mar/24/10-billion-threat-fedex-warns-lawmakers-over-union/
$10 billion threat: FedEx warns lawmakers over union legislation
FedEx could cancel contracts for $10 billion in American-made planes if Congress makes it easier for unions to organize the delivery giant's workers.
In a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, the Memphis-based company disclosed that purchases of Boeing 777s are contingent on FedEx Express' continued coverage by the National Railway Labor Act.
The disclosure serves as a warning shot to lawmakers seeking to put FedEx Express workers under the National Labor Relations Act, a move seen as helping the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
"It's FedEx political hardball at its finest," said analyst Donald Broughton with Avondale Partners. In a research note Monday, he wrote: "We see FedEx's action as a deft political move that aligns the interests of Boeing and GE with FedEx, and pits the interests of the Teamsters against the interests of the machinist and several other trade unions."
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/mar/24/10-billion-threat-fedex-warns-lawmakers-over-union/
Friday, March 20, 2009
San Diego City Council District 8
We announce the arrival of spring with a review of potential candidates. Even though we are months away from anything official the 8th has always offered up more than 5 candidates for office. Given the disinterest of politics in the district it is no wonder that so many seek the City Council position. The vote totals are low and, with enough money, you can flood the mailboxes of the residents, bludgeoning them to support your candidate in order to stop the paper onslaught. Unless it’s a Remer campaign, in which case the mail will keep coming days after the election.
Here is what the rumor mill hath spilled forth:
Alonso Gonzalez
Currently Hueso’s Deputy Chief of Staff. He is known for his policy acumen and, rumor has it, is Ben’s choice. If he is the anointed one, Ben has a strange way of showing it. Most people in the district don’t know who Alonso is and, as of this writing, Hueso has not come out for his guy.
David Alvarez
Currently a staffer for State Senator Denise Ducheny. He has community roots and a profile, albeit low, in the district. He has connections but it remains to be seen if he can exploit them and emerge from Ducheny’s shadow.
Nick Inzunza Sr
Speaking of shadows, this name is one that weary voters may have hoped never to see again. Truth is, the family has been around for a long time, the name is recognized, and the machine still exists in a skeletal form.
BD Howard
Issues with law enforcement notwithstanding, this is not going to be easy. He knows the district having run the field campaign for Hueso and has donors and volunteers he can tap from the Whitburn campaign. However, he doesn’t have a community profile and there are not assurances that the Whitburn supporters will place their bets in the 8th.
Christian Ramirez
A community activist who runs the local American Friends Service Committee office. He can produce bodies but it remains to be seen if he can raise the money.
Raquel Marquez
San Ysidro School Board. She would be a formidable candidate, but family comes first and she is expecting. She’s going to run for higher office at some point. Keep your eyes on her.
Dan Coffey
San Ysidro resident and activist. Having been active in taking down Aguirre he knows his way around City Hall. However, he hasn’t raised his community profile beyond his neighborhood.
Alberto Velasquez
Local Democratic officer, activist and SEIU employee. He has some campaign potential with those two organizations but is unknown in the district.
Remy Bermudez
Don’t count Remy out. She may do it just to spite Ben.
Here is what the rumor mill hath spilled forth:
Alonso Gonzalez
Currently Hueso’s Deputy Chief of Staff. He is known for his policy acumen and, rumor has it, is Ben’s choice. If he is the anointed one, Ben has a strange way of showing it. Most people in the district don’t know who Alonso is and, as of this writing, Hueso has not come out for his guy.
David Alvarez
Currently a staffer for State Senator Denise Ducheny. He has community roots and a profile, albeit low, in the district. He has connections but it remains to be seen if he can exploit them and emerge from Ducheny’s shadow.
Nick Inzunza Sr
Speaking of shadows, this name is one that weary voters may have hoped never to see again. Truth is, the family has been around for a long time, the name is recognized, and the machine still exists in a skeletal form.
BD Howard
Issues with law enforcement notwithstanding, this is not going to be easy. He knows the district having run the field campaign for Hueso and has donors and volunteers he can tap from the Whitburn campaign. However, he doesn’t have a community profile and there are not assurances that the Whitburn supporters will place their bets in the 8th.
Christian Ramirez
A community activist who runs the local American Friends Service Committee office. He can produce bodies but it remains to be seen if he can raise the money.
Raquel Marquez
San Ysidro School Board. She would be a formidable candidate, but family comes first and she is expecting. She’s going to run for higher office at some point. Keep your eyes on her.
Dan Coffey
San Ysidro resident and activist. Having been active in taking down Aguirre he knows his way around City Hall. However, he hasn’t raised his community profile beyond his neighborhood.
Alberto Velasquez
Local Democratic officer, activist and SEIU employee. He has some campaign potential with those two organizations but is unknown in the district.
Remy Bermudez
Don’t count Remy out. She may do it just to spite Ben.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
SDCDP Endorsements for CDP Positions
At last night’s Central Committee meeting, the SDCDP took positions on the offices for the California Democratic Party.
As Chair Jess Durfee noted, this is the first time this many candidates have come to San Diego seeking the support of the local party
Chair: John Burton
No surprise here. Once he announced (and Nancy and Barbara began applying muscle) his opposition scattered for the Vice Chair positions. Toni Atkins spoke for him and the Central Committee politely endured the prepared remarks.
Vice Chair Male: Eric Bauman v Evan Low
Bauman easily got it. He has just about the entire party behind him. As LACDP chair, that puts him in a solid position to take this in Sacramento. Evan is 25 yrs old, a city councilmember from Northern California, and someone to watch. He received kudos for showing up.
Vice Chair Female: Alex Rooker and Alicia Wang
Rooker gets the nod. Both had moments when they didn’t answer the questions presented and Wang had a few moments of silence in a response, but her personal stories were a hit. Rooker, through filling in the SDCDP on her background, has the direct experience necessary to act as an auxiliary to the Chair.
Controller: Eric Bradley and Hillary Crosby
This has become a battleground for all the wrong reasons. There are significant groups within the CDP who are justified in their frustration at the Torres regime but throwing all that anger at the Controller is going after the wrong target. It is unfortunate for Bradley because his presentation was the better of the two. He has the experience and the relationships necessary to keep the CDP afloat but he, being the incumbent, has been tarred with everything wrong with the party even thought the Controller does not have the power to direct funds (the Chairs do). Crosby seems like an honest progressive trying to make a difference but doesn’t appear to have much experience in big time fundraising.
With significant help from her sister, who resides in San Diego County and works for Cong. Bob Filner, Hillary was able to get the SDCDP endorsement on the second ballot. The first ballot yielded no endorsement but the SDCDP Bylaws state that, in such a case, that the top vote getter runs against “No endorsement.” With the body in a state of mild confusion as to what was happening, Crosby got it.
If nothing else, the Female Vice Chair and Controller races should make up for the predictable Chair and Male Vice Chair races in Sacramento.
As Chair Jess Durfee noted, this is the first time this many candidates have come to San Diego seeking the support of the local party
Chair: John Burton
No surprise here. Once he announced (and Nancy and Barbara began applying muscle) his opposition scattered for the Vice Chair positions. Toni Atkins spoke for him and the Central Committee politely endured the prepared remarks.
Vice Chair Male: Eric Bauman v Evan Low
Bauman easily got it. He has just about the entire party behind him. As LACDP chair, that puts him in a solid position to take this in Sacramento. Evan is 25 yrs old, a city councilmember from Northern California, and someone to watch. He received kudos for showing up.
Vice Chair Female: Alex Rooker and Alicia Wang
Rooker gets the nod. Both had moments when they didn’t answer the questions presented and Wang had a few moments of silence in a response, but her personal stories were a hit. Rooker, through filling in the SDCDP on her background, has the direct experience necessary to act as an auxiliary to the Chair.
Controller: Eric Bradley and Hillary Crosby
This has become a battleground for all the wrong reasons. There are significant groups within the CDP who are justified in their frustration at the Torres regime but throwing all that anger at the Controller is going after the wrong target. It is unfortunate for Bradley because his presentation was the better of the two. He has the experience and the relationships necessary to keep the CDP afloat but he, being the incumbent, has been tarred with everything wrong with the party even thought the Controller does not have the power to direct funds (the Chairs do). Crosby seems like an honest progressive trying to make a difference but doesn’t appear to have much experience in big time fundraising.
With significant help from her sister, who resides in San Diego County and works for Cong. Bob Filner, Hillary was able to get the SDCDP endorsement on the second ballot. The first ballot yielded no endorsement but the SDCDP Bylaws state that, in such a case, that the top vote getter runs against “No endorsement.” With the body in a state of mild confusion as to what was happening, Crosby got it.
If nothing else, the Female Vice Chair and Controller races should make up for the predictable Chair and Male Vice Chair races in Sacramento.
Monday, March 16, 2009
PAVs – A Democratic Party Success Story
I picked this up from the CDP:
The California Journal of Politics & Policy (UC Berkeley) just put out an Abstract from Field Poll’s Mark DiCamillo about Mail Ballot Voting.
It is a good summary, available at: http://www.bepress.com/cjpp/vol1/iss1/10/
Both Governors George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson vetoed the PAV (Permanent Absentee Vote) bills, which gave the option to voters to sign up for a permanent mail ballot. Governor Gray Davis signed a PAV bill, as well as a Speaker Bob Hertzberg bill moving the voter registration deadline from 29 days to 15 days.
Both of these opened up the voting process to more voters and subsequently helped Democrats. Everyone knew why the Republicans were against expanding access to U.S. citizens to voting and thus the two Governor vetoes.
Republicans in California feared more Californian voters. We welcomed them.
As DiCamillo reports, 5.7 million Californians voted by mail.
We just ran the voter file of those who voted on November 4, 2008. Not every voter is coded on the voter file correctly by the counties - precinct or mail, so the voter file numbers are not 100%, but here they are:
Total PAV - 5,891,435
Total PAV Voted - 5,176,755 (87.9%)
Democratic PAV - 2,221,614 (88.6%)
Republican PAV -1,927,966 (89.4%)
Thus, Democrats beat the Republicans in the PAV “actually voting” category by 293,648 ballots.
Under the previous Registrar of Voters, LA County did not emphasize PAV so that’s why LA County has a lower percent of PAVs, but that will change and give Democrats an even bigger margin.
The California Journal of Politics & Policy (UC Berkeley) just put out an Abstract from Field Poll’s Mark DiCamillo about Mail Ballot Voting.
It is a good summary, available at: http://www.bepress.com/cjpp/vol1/iss1/10/
Both Governors George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson vetoed the PAV (Permanent Absentee Vote) bills, which gave the option to voters to sign up for a permanent mail ballot. Governor Gray Davis signed a PAV bill, as well as a Speaker Bob Hertzberg bill moving the voter registration deadline from 29 days to 15 days.
Both of these opened up the voting process to more voters and subsequently helped Democrats. Everyone knew why the Republicans were against expanding access to U.S. citizens to voting and thus the two Governor vetoes.
Republicans in California feared more Californian voters. We welcomed them.
As DiCamillo reports, 5.7 million Californians voted by mail.
We just ran the voter file of those who voted on November 4, 2008. Not every voter is coded on the voter file correctly by the counties - precinct or mail, so the voter file numbers are not 100%, but here they are:
Total PAV - 5,891,435
Total PAV Voted - 5,176,755 (87.9%)
Democratic PAV - 2,221,614 (88.6%)
Republican PAV -1,927,966 (89.4%)
Thus, Democrats beat the Republicans in the PAV “actually voting” category by 293,648 ballots.
Under the previous Registrar of Voters, LA County did not emphasize PAV so that’s why LA County has a lower percent of PAVs, but that will change and give Democrats an even bigger margin.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Nationalize them Already
Headline form today New York Times:
A.I.G. Planning Huge Bonuses After $170 Billion Bailout
Contractual obligations such as these provide an even greater incentive to just do it. We already own 80%. Let’s put an end to this madness.
A.I.G. Planning Huge Bonuses After $170 Billion Bailout
Contractual obligations such as these provide an even greater incentive to just do it. We already own 80%. Let’s put an end to this madness.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Torres parachutes away
I'm not a fan of our current CDP chairman, but if Migden can score a cush position than anybody can. This came from the CDP:
Please join me in congratulating our Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres on his selection as statutory vice chair with the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the state’s stem cell agency created through Proposition 71. I had the privilege of attending the official confirmation hearing today in Sacramento and I was pleased to see the unanimous vote in his favor.
Needless to say, Art’s record of leadership and service is one of admiration. Throughout Art’s career in public service he has been a respected voice for the people of our state. Art dutifully served in the California legislature for 20 years, as both an Assembly member and Senator.
In his current role as chairman, Art continues to be an outspoken advocate for our Democratic Party. Throughout the years, he has continually stood up for our principles, and his leadership and guidance as chairman has undoubtedly strengthened our state party and set a precedent for the future.
I have no doubt that Art will continue his record of leadership and integrity with the stem cell agency.
Sincerely,
Senator Dean Florez
Please join me in congratulating our Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres on his selection as statutory vice chair with the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the state’s stem cell agency created through Proposition 71. I had the privilege of attending the official confirmation hearing today in Sacramento and I was pleased to see the unanimous vote in his favor.
Needless to say, Art’s record of leadership and service is one of admiration. Throughout Art’s career in public service he has been a respected voice for the people of our state. Art dutifully served in the California legislature for 20 years, as both an Assembly member and Senator.
In his current role as chairman, Art continues to be an outspoken advocate for our Democratic Party. Throughout the years, he has continually stood up for our principles, and his leadership and guidance as chairman has undoubtedly strengthened our state party and set a precedent for the future.
I have no doubt that Art will continue his record of leadership and integrity with the stem cell agency.
Sincerely,
Senator Dean Florez
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Mayor Newsom will be in San Diego on March 18th
We’ve got a couple of events for you during his visit:
Folks can also come see Mayor Newsom speak at a town hall in City Heights:
RSVP’s are encouraged at RSVP1@GavinNewsom.com.
Happy Hour Fundraiser with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom
When: Wednesday, March 18, 4:30 – 6:00 p.m.
Where: Magnet Lounge, W Hotel, 421 B St., Downtown San Diego
Cost: $35 to attend, $250 to host (by contributing or by bringing 8 of your friends at $35)
Info: Cash bar, with happy hour specials, ample street parking available
RSVP: Email colin.parent@dlapiper.com. Online payment available at ActBlue
This will be one of the first times San Diegans can mingle in an intimate setting with Mayor Newsom at such an affordable price. This is a great opportunity for people to learn more about Newsom, as they decide who to support for Governor in 2010.
I’ve already posted a series about why I support Newsom here on this site. Newsom created a universal healthcare system in San Francisco, is a lion for fair and green economic development, and famously defended the true meaning of the constitution to protect equality for all Californians.
To RSVP, either email Colin Parent (colin.parent@dlapiper.com) or contribute online (http://www.actblue.com/page/youngprofessionalssd).
Please invite your friends! This will be a fun happy hour with a professional crowd in a swank downtown hotel bar.
Folks can also come see Mayor Newsom speak at a town hall in City Heights:
Town Hall Meeting with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom
Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Time: 7:00pm - 9:00pm
Location: Monroe Clark Middle School, Auditorium, 4388 Thorn Street, San Diego, CA.
Share your thoughts, ideas and hopes for California's future with Gavin Newsom. Everyone in your family is welcome to attend, and light refreshments will be provided.
RSVP’s are encouraged at RSVP1@GavinNewsom.com.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Why I Support Newsom: The Future of the Democratic Party in California
Mayor Newsom is the best candidate in the Democratic Party to transform the enthusiasm for Barack Obama’s presidency, and the drive to overturn Proposition 8, into a lasting political force for progressive politics in California.I prefer Newsom for governor for a lot of reasons. For the most part, my general view is that Newsom’s imaginative approach to policy will allow him to succeed in solving problems facing California, even where the politics of the past have consistently failed.
But I am also a Democrat. I want candidate, and a governor, who is best able to lead our party as a mechanism for advancing progressive values. Obama’s campaign inspired legions of new people to become interested in politics. And the passage of Proposition 8 has spurned a whole new generation of people to believe in the relevance, and necessity of political action.
The biggest challenge for any new leader of our party will be to channel excitement for Obama, and the drive to repeal Proposition 8, into productive political action for other progressive candidates and causes in California.
Obama inspired a huge number of people to get active in politics. Obama volunteers came out of the woodwork. People who were eager for change, got our there and worked very hard for his campaign. With our state as solid Obama territory, Californians traveled to Nevada, or worked phone banks, calling voters in battleground states.
The enthusiasm for Obama doesn’t necessarily equal an enthusiasm for the rest of the Democrats. Many of Obama’s acolytes are supporters of him, individually, and have no broader allegiance to his party, or his progressive ideology. This is a natural consequence of Obama’s broad, cross-party, and pragmatic appeal. To capitalize on the wave of support for Obama, Democrats will need to present their party as a part of Obama’s overall agenda for change in American politics.
Newsom is the best candidate to present to voters a vision of the Democratic Party in California as a natural extension of Obama’s promise for a new kind of politics. Newsom’s general approach is similar to the President’s. They both promise to try new things, to experiment and utilize the tools of government to improve the lives of the people they represent. They both are careful not to promise the moon, but candidly tell voters that sometimes their innovative plans may falter and even fail. But despite that real world pragmatism, they present a view of government as productive, as progressive. They promise to persevere and continue their creative policy agendas until they get things right.
Both men speak with a kind of hope and imagination that fits their politics. Obama talks about a promise for a better America. Newsom speaks about living up to our best ideals, and advancing a kind of politics for which we can all be proud. Their language is inspiring, their rhetoric soaring. It sends a message that politics isn’t just about the nuts and bolts of policy, and the promises of the campaign trial – it’s also about the aspirations we have for ourselves as a people.
It’s also no small thing that the Newsom’s campaign team has been adopting the internet-based grassroots approach that catapulted Obama past the more established Clinton primary operation. Obama’s candidacy was a revolution in the party. He led a generational insurgency that toppled an organization that had already won, and held the White House for eight successful years. Newsom’s campaign has 30,000 supporters on Facebook, more than any but two political figures in the nation. And he’ll need them to overcome the more established candidates in the field, who have been giants in California politics for decades.
Obama supporters use Facebook, Twitter, and the rest. They’re familiar with the internet as an organizing tool. The youthful energy of the Obama campaign will be most comfortable translating itself into support for other Democratic candidates who are similarly fluent in the modern vernacular of the internet. The celebrity of national politics is a strong attraction for engaging new political interest. But that interest can be channeled to more local concerns, especially when local operations model their themselves after familiar terrain from national campaigns.
Obama wasn’t the only catalyst for political involvement in California in 2008. Proposition 8 drew in unprecedented numbers of people into the political process, including LGBT people, their allies, and those committed to civil rights in all of their forms. To many, the vote to disenfranchise a minority of California’s citizenry is a clear statement that even fundamental rights require our constant vigilance.
With Proposition 8, people didn’t just become interested in politics; politics became a part of their lives. Politics came home, in the most fundamental of ways. The fight to defeat Proposition 8 drew in huge numbers of people. But its passage, and the ratification of discrimination under the law, has jolted people with a new kind of urgency. The civil rights movement isn’t over, and civil rights are not guaranteed to all in this country. Young people especially are responding with a new sense of commitment. “Stonewall 2.0” is fueled with a kind of disciplined political militarism to roll back the repeal of marriage rights.
The fight against Proposition 8 is separate from the Democratic Party. The Party is a coalition of interests and candidates, while Proposition 8 is a discrete issue. But the Party, by and large, is fundamentally opposed to discrimination in all of its forms, and it’s against Proposition 8. The challenge for leading the Democratic Party will be to not only repeal Proposition 8, but also to enfranchise the soldiers for marriage equality into the broader Democratic agenda.
Newsom is the candidate best positioned to show to voters and activists that the Democratic Party is the party for inclusion and for equal treatment under the law. Other candidates have also done very important things for the cause of equality under the Constitution - fortunately, it’s quickly becoming a shibboleth of progressive and Democratic politics to support marriage quality. But Newsom was there first, and in the most muscular of ways. He had the power to advance equality, and he did it. That kind of “cap over the wall” vigor is a testament to leadership, and it’s the kind of bold action that generates not just good will, but dedicated followers.
Whoever wins the Democratic nomination in 2010 will be the de facto leader of the California Democratic Party. Newsom is the best candidate to incorporate the new activists and voters who were inspired by Obama, and who organized to repeal Proposition 8.
The great Willie Brown basically said all of this in July of 2008. It took me a several hundred words here to make my point, but he did it in 50.
Jerry Brown called the other day. You know that both he and Gavin Newsom are running for governor.
Jerry asked me how Gavin saw the race.
I said Gavin sees it as a replay of Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama.
Jerry said, "Hell, as long as I'm Obama, I'm fine."
Monday, March 9, 2009
Why I Support Newsom: Civil Rights
Mayor Gavin Newsom is well-known for ordering San Francisco to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This sort of action was more than just a symbolic short-lived expression in support of equality. It was another example of Newsom’s willingness to use the power of his office, to make headway to solve a problem that had so far seemed unsolvable. Marriage is a fundamental right in this country, and under our Constitution. But the common wisdom had been that people weren’t ready for same-sex marriage, and that anyway, there were statutes on the books that defined a marriage as between a man and a woman. Newsom didn’t want to be a part of an injustice, and he issued licenses anyway.
This wasn’t a bald refutation of the law. Newsom explained that he had a duty as Mayor to independently interpret the state and federal constitutions, and he understood them to mean what they say – that people must be treated equally under the law, including with regard to marriage. Statutes can’t trump constitutions, and the Mayor was duty bound to uphold the Constitution.
It’s no counterargument that courts, not mayors, ought to be interpreting the Constitution. Courts may have the final say as to the meaning of written laws, but we don’t wait for a court to tell us that U.S. Presidents are sworn in on the 20th of January – we read the Constitution and interpret it for ourselves.
Those who exercise public authority have a responsibility to ensure that they are operating in accordance with the law, the Constitution being the most supreme law of the land. Congress isn’t permitted to pass a law banning freedom of speech, not only because it would be overturned by the courts, but because Congress is required to examine its own authority, in the first instance, to determine whether or not it has the power to enact a law. If the California electorate passed an initiative saying that girls were not permitted to attend public schools, responsible school boards would undoubtedly still admit all comers. They could be confident that the law was unconstitutional, and that they had a superior constitutional duty to provide equal access to education for all students.
From the get-go, Newsom explained that he would recognize a court’s ruling if his actions were overturned. That is certainly what the rule of law requires. But it’s quite another thing to suggest that elected executives should sit on their hands and let an injustice persist, especially one of constitutional proportion.
Sometimes the only way to test a system, to see if it’s really working as it’s supposed to, is to shake it up a little. It’s not an easy thing to draw a line between when elected officials should, or should not defy statutes on the basis of their individual constitutional interpretations. But it’s a sophisticated and necessary view of constitutionalism to believe that all elected officials have an independent responsibility to conform their official acts to the dictates of our Constitution. Newsom’s actions for marriage equality took guts. He saw something that was unjust, put himself out there, and used the powers of his office to set things right. The future of marriage equality, at least in the short term, is still in doubt. The courts and even the voters may side with Newsom and adopt a view that marriage is something that cannot be taken away from people. But equality under the law is always worthy of a spirited defense. We need leaders who are willing to take a stand for their principles, and voters ought to reward those who make such efforts.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Why I Support Newsom: Compassion and Pragmatism to Address Urban Homelessness
Up until 2002, San Francisco had a long-standing program of providing direct cash payments to support its homeless population.
But cash can’t solve this problem. For many people, homelessness is only partially due to poverty. The homeless population struggles with mental disorder, addiction, lack of economic opportunity, and all sorts of other issues. These problems aren’t addressed by cash payments, and where addiction is an issue, cash payments may exacerbate problems. And then there’re the quality of life crimes. Chronic homelessness can result in aggressive panhandling, loitering, street crimes, and all sorts of other unpleasantness. These issues aren’t just unsightly, but they also hurt local businesses, deter tourism, and diminish the tax base.
San Francisco was stuck. The entrenched policy solution wasn’t working, and in some ways, it was hurting both the homeless and the rest of the City. But the voters were compassionate, and didn’t want to cut the homeless off from public assistance.
In one of his major initiatives as a Supervisor, Newsom lead an initiative campaign to reform the City’s approach to the homeless, and to provide “Care not Cash.” The idea was simple: dramatically reduce direct payments to the homeless, and use the savings to invest in comprehensive services and more stable housing. The results have meant thousands of homeless moving from a month-to-month government dole to having the shelter and services necessary to lead more dignified lives.
This is exactly the sort of innovative thinking we need for California. We have all manner of entrenched policies, practices and spending. California needs leadership that can look at these problems and see more than the unsolvable. We need someone who can be creative, who can show us how to trade up from what isn’t working, without abandoning our higher ideals.
But cash can’t solve this problem. For many people, homelessness is only partially due to poverty. The homeless population struggles with mental disorder, addiction, lack of economic opportunity, and all sorts of other issues. These problems aren’t addressed by cash payments, and where addiction is an issue, cash payments may exacerbate problems. And then there’re the quality of life crimes. Chronic homelessness can result in aggressive panhandling, loitering, street crimes, and all sorts of other unpleasantness. These issues aren’t just unsightly, but they also hurt local businesses, deter tourism, and diminish the tax base. San Francisco was stuck. The entrenched policy solution wasn’t working, and in some ways, it was hurting both the homeless and the rest of the City. But the voters were compassionate, and didn’t want to cut the homeless off from public assistance.
In one of his major initiatives as a Supervisor, Newsom lead an initiative campaign to reform the City’s approach to the homeless, and to provide “Care not Cash.” The idea was simple: dramatically reduce direct payments to the homeless, and use the savings to invest in comprehensive services and more stable housing. The results have meant thousands of homeless moving from a month-to-month government dole to having the shelter and services necessary to lead more dignified lives. This is exactly the sort of innovative thinking we need for California. We have all manner of entrenched policies, practices and spending. California needs leadership that can look at these problems and see more than the unsolvable. We need someone who can be creative, who can show us how to trade up from what isn’t working, without abandoning our higher ideals.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Marty Block Abstains
The resolutions passed on March 2nd opposing Proposition 8 as an illegal and unprecedented revision to the state Constitution passed both houses and, in the Assembly, with a 44-27 vote.
Of the 8 Absent, Abstaining or Not Voting, one of these was Marty Block.
Check it out:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/hr_5_vote_20090302_0312PM_asm_floor.html
It should be mentioned that this is a guy who the Gay and Lesbian Times called “a true ally on the most important issues in the GLBT community.”
http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=13361&from=rss
Other Democrats, such as Salas, Saldana, Buchanan and Perez, voted for it. I don’t know what was going through his head, but he should at least explain why he chose to be “not present.”
I derive no joy from writing this, but I feel that we who supported him deserve to know why.
Of the 8 Absent, Abstaining or Not Voting, one of these was Marty Block.
Check it out:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/hr_5_vote_20090302_0312PM_asm_floor.html
It should be mentioned that this is a guy who the Gay and Lesbian Times called “a true ally on the most important issues in the GLBT community.”
http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=13361&from=rss
Other Democrats, such as Salas, Saldana, Buchanan and Perez, voted for it. I don’t know what was going through his head, but he should at least explain why he chose to be “not present.”
I derive no joy from writing this, but I feel that we who supported him deserve to know why.
Why I’m supporting Gavin Newsom for Governor
A number of people have been asking me for an explanation for why I’m supporting San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom for governor of California in 2010. It made sense to write out my reasons, and I’m posting them here to share with you. I’m supporting Gavin Newsom for governor of California, because he has proven his ability to address old and lingering problems, with new and creative solutions.
In California, our budget system is gridlocked. Our primaries favor the uncompromising extremes from either party. Our initiative process allows for private interests to dominate policymaking. These are seemingly impossible problems to overcome. The prevailing wisdom in California is that we’re ungovernable, that our problems are too entrenched, to difficult to solve.
We need someone who can take a fresh look at our state. We need someone who doesn’t get bogged down in the politics of the past, and isn’t afraid to experiment with new ideas.
What I’m going to do here, is to present a series of posts explaining why I support Newsom for governor of California. I’ll update this page with links, as I publish the follow-up posts. I have a number of reasons for preferring Newsom, and I think readers will find them easier to digest in smaller, subject-specific posts.
Before I go on, I also want to point out that San Diego Politico is not, as a blog, endorsing a particular candidate for governor. My endorsement of Newsom is one that I make individually. This is a group blog, and other bloggers on this site might have different preferences. I encourage them to explain why they support other candidates. Also, after this series, I will not be posting on “all-Newsom all the time.” But my allegiance may come out from time to time, and I think it’s best that I’m up front about them, so you know where I’m coming from. So, without further ado…
Why I Support San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom for Governor of California:
Why I Support Newsom: Innovative Approach to Health Care
Mayor Gavin Newsom took a very creative approach to health care in San Francisco.
One of the biggest barriers to state and local healthcare reform is a federal statute called ERISA. The statute precludes state or local governments from mandating that employers offer particular benefits, including health care, to their employees. The rationale for this policy was to prevent a patch-work system of local requirements. Without local regulations to worry about, employers would only have to establish a single healthcare program to cover all of their workers nationwide.
But ERISA doesn’t require employers to provide healthcare, and it preempts states or local governments from doing so. The unfortunate result is stagnation. Localities haven’t served as the laboratories of democracy and haven’t explored new ways of providing health care. In the marketplace, health insurance is given only to those who can demand it. It’s given to the white collar, the skilled workers, and those represented by unions who can bargain on their behalf. The transitory workers, the restaurant employees, and the unorganized have to brave life without health insurance. Local governments have been enfeebled and were prevented from taking meaningful steps to require employers to act responsibly toward their employees.
Instead of throwing up his hands in defeat, and letting ERISA be an excuse for the persistence of uninsured San Francicans, Newsom took a creative approach to the problem. San Francisco couldn’t mandate that employers provide specific types of health insurance, so a new program, Healthy San Francisco, was structured to require employers to pay a “minimum wage” for health care.
The requirements are pretty minor - employers must pay between $1.17 to $1.85 for health care for each employee, for every hour worked. Larger companies have to pay on the higher end of the scale, and small employers are exempt. Most employers that previously provided health insurance already met this minimum expenditure requirement. Those that didn’t spend sufficient amounts for employee health care paid the difference to the City, which used those fees to provide subsidized health care for San Franciscans who didn’t receive health care from their employers.
A panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Healthy San Francisco against a challenge that argued the health care minimum wage violated ERISA. Healthy San Francisco survived ERISA’s ban on local mandates because, as the court explained, the program was “only concerned with the dollar amount of the payments an employer makes toward the provision of such benefits,” instead of mandating specific types of employer-sponsored health care plans. The court described as series of options for employers to satisfy their obligations including only paying for only preventive care, or providing health care only through an on-site clinic.
It has yet to be decided whether the full Ninth Circuit will review the panel’s decision. And the plaintiffs, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, has vowed to make an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if they are denied again by the Court of Appeals. Healthy San Francisco isn’t a perfect solution. Some employers don’t provide health insurance at levels that a lot of us would consider adequate. But in the context of ERISA, where mandates on employer health benefits are prohibited, there are limited policy options. It was Newsom who was willing to experiment with a new health care policy that creatively fit within those limits.
The City of San Francisco, and all localities, shoulders the costs of its uninsured when people use emergency rooms as their primary health providers. It’s a more efficient use of city resources to provide real health care, instead of only reactionary, emergency care when conditions turn from chronic to catastrophic. Even if the healthcare minimum wage financing program is invalidated by the courts, Healthy San Francisco will not be left by the wayside, and the City will employ other alternatives. “It may set us back,” Newsom has told the New York Times, “but it’s not going to end this program.”
One of the biggest barriers to state and local healthcare reform is a federal statute called ERISA. The statute precludes state or local governments from mandating that employers offer particular benefits, including health care, to their employees. The rationale for this policy was to prevent a patch-work system of local requirements. Without local regulations to worry about, employers would only have to establish a single healthcare program to cover all of their workers nationwide.
But ERISA doesn’t require employers to provide healthcare, and it preempts states or local governments from doing so. The unfortunate result is stagnation. Localities haven’t served as the laboratories of democracy and haven’t explored new ways of providing health care. In the marketplace, health insurance is given only to those who can demand it. It’s given to the white collar, the skilled workers, and those represented by unions who can bargain on their behalf. The transitory workers, the restaurant employees, and the unorganized have to brave life without health insurance. Local governments have been enfeebled and were prevented from taking meaningful steps to require employers to act responsibly toward their employees.Instead of throwing up his hands in defeat, and letting ERISA be an excuse for the persistence of uninsured San Francicans, Newsom took a creative approach to the problem. San Francisco couldn’t mandate that employers provide specific types of health insurance, so a new program, Healthy San Francisco, was structured to require employers to pay a “minimum wage” for health care.
The requirements are pretty minor - employers must pay between $1.17 to $1.85 for health care for each employee, for every hour worked. Larger companies have to pay on the higher end of the scale, and small employers are exempt. Most employers that previously provided health insurance already met this minimum expenditure requirement. Those that didn’t spend sufficient amounts for employee health care paid the difference to the City, which used those fees to provide subsidized health care for San Franciscans who didn’t receive health care from their employers.
A panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Healthy San Francisco against a challenge that argued the health care minimum wage violated ERISA. Healthy San Francisco survived ERISA’s ban on local mandates because, as the court explained, the program was “only concerned with the dollar amount of the payments an employer makes toward the provision of such benefits,” instead of mandating specific types of employer-sponsored health care plans. The court described as series of options for employers to satisfy their obligations including only paying for only preventive care, or providing health care only through an on-site clinic. It has yet to be decided whether the full Ninth Circuit will review the panel’s decision. And the plaintiffs, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, has vowed to make an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if they are denied again by the Court of Appeals. Healthy San Francisco isn’t a perfect solution. Some employers don’t provide health insurance at levels that a lot of us would consider adequate. But in the context of ERISA, where mandates on employer health benefits are prohibited, there are limited policy options. It was Newsom who was willing to experiment with a new health care policy that creatively fit within those limits.
The City of San Francisco, and all localities, shoulders the costs of its uninsured when people use emergency rooms as their primary health providers. It’s a more efficient use of city resources to provide real health care, instead of only reactionary, emergency care when conditions turn from chronic to catastrophic. Even if the healthcare minimum wage financing program is invalidated by the courts, Healthy San Francisco will not be left by the wayside, and the City will employ other alternatives. “It may set us back,” Newsom has told the New York Times, “but it’s not going to end this program.”
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Truth Hurts
Today's Sac Bee Article:
On Sunday, Republican Party delegates passed a resolution to deny funding for campaign mailers for the six lawmakers who voted with the Democrats on the budget package.
Asked to respond to the resolution, Schwarzenegger said: "First of all, I would not be too concerned about that if I would be those candidates because the Republican Party has no money anyway..."
On Sunday, Republican Party delegates passed a resolution to deny funding for campaign mailers for the six lawmakers who voted with the Democrats on the budget package.
Asked to respond to the resolution, Schwarzenegger said: "First of all, I would not be too concerned about that if I would be those candidates because the Republican Party has no money anyway..."
Friday, February 20, 2009
The Noblest Motive is the Public Good
Or so it says on seal of our County. However I wish the Board of Supervisors would follow more regularly. I'm speaking of course of the Board's failure to allow services to twist in the wind and not have foresight to think of new solutions for the county budget. Apparently the Board didn't get the memo that it's now the 21st Century and looking to the old tired solutions of contracting out and asking our lowest paid social workers, elder care nurses and abused child councilors to get even less pay may not be the best way for County to serve the public good. I mean if this is how they treat their workers how do you think they'll treat us? Oh and by the way they still won't give up their perks like this and they gave their Chief Administrative Officer a 4% raise when the county began to talk up their budget woes. Where's the public good in that?
Thoughts about the Budget Troubles
Sen. Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria) has done something quite remarkable. He was able to roll his party, the Governor, and the opposition majority party to give him three constitutional amendments for his vote to pass the California budget.
The fact that this charade in democracy was allowed to drag on as long as it did is conclusive evidence that governing the Golden State has now become politically impossible.
Let’s look at the facts:
Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) was able to blackmail the state into giving Orange County $35 million by threatening to withhold his vote. Had Willie been Speaker, Correa would have been told to go frack himself. He would be a dead man to the caucus until the next round of elections when he certainly would have faced a challenger that could take him out. Even SEIU agreed to cuts and this wasn’t enough for Correa.
So much for intra-party discipline. Honestly, if you can’t keep you own members in check then what is it exactly that you are leading? With Bass looking at her next job, it is no wonder that the Assembly Dems are looking more like a shell than a body.
Speaking of shells, Arnold is not looking so hot these days. As the Republican Candidate for Boxer’s seat, he’s got to lead something more substantial than his own party which won’t even give him the time of day. It must be frustrating being a Republican these days; the candidates that are the most likely to head the tickets are the least faithful to the grassroots.
And the Republicans deserve what’s coming. I hope their No-Tax God has been satisfied with this sacrifice. They’ve caped a leader in one house for trying to (gasp) compromise and show no signs of doing anything to dig themselves out of their 20th Century ideological pit.
Well, there’s no better way to remain a minority party than by constantly looking back to the glory years of the past. And, in looking forward, if the price to pass a budget are constitutional amendments then that is too high a price to pay.
If there was ever a reason to get rid of the 2/3rds requirement, now is the time. But we’ve seen how responsive the State has been to addressing real issues once the heat dies down. But this stalemate has permeated into the public consciousness. Let us hope that it is not as quickly forgotten because we have to do this again next year.
The fact that this charade in democracy was allowed to drag on as long as it did is conclusive evidence that governing the Golden State has now become politically impossible.
Let’s look at the facts:
Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) was able to blackmail the state into giving Orange County $35 million by threatening to withhold his vote. Had Willie been Speaker, Correa would have been told to go frack himself. He would be a dead man to the caucus until the next round of elections when he certainly would have faced a challenger that could take him out. Even SEIU agreed to cuts and this wasn’t enough for Correa.
So much for intra-party discipline. Honestly, if you can’t keep you own members in check then what is it exactly that you are leading? With Bass looking at her next job, it is no wonder that the Assembly Dems are looking more like a shell than a body.
Speaking of shells, Arnold is not looking so hot these days. As the Republican Candidate for Boxer’s seat, he’s got to lead something more substantial than his own party which won’t even give him the time of day. It must be frustrating being a Republican these days; the candidates that are the most likely to head the tickets are the least faithful to the grassroots.
And the Republicans deserve what’s coming. I hope their No-Tax God has been satisfied with this sacrifice. They’ve caped a leader in one house for trying to (gasp) compromise and show no signs of doing anything to dig themselves out of their 20th Century ideological pit.
Well, there’s no better way to remain a minority party than by constantly looking back to the glory years of the past. And, in looking forward, if the price to pass a budget are constitutional amendments then that is too high a price to pay.
If there was ever a reason to get rid of the 2/3rds requirement, now is the time. But we’ve seen how responsive the State has been to addressing real issues once the heat dies down. But this stalemate has permeated into the public consciousness. Let us hope that it is not as quickly forgotten because we have to do this again next year.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Message from John Burton: Majority Vote Budget Now
Dear Friends,
If the last 48 hours has proven nothing else, we can no longer allow Republicans to hold the people of California hostage and therefore dictate to the Democratic majority the terms under which the budget is passed.
California should join the 47 other states who don't require a supermajority to pass the budget.
If I am elected as the next Chair of the California Democratic Party, I will make majority vote budget a top priority.
We must also decide our approach to the budget trailer measure sponsored by Republicans known as "the open primary rule", that would allow Republicans to vote in Democratic primary elections - therefore influencing who the Democratic nominee would be.
It's not just for our party - but for the future of California.
John
If the last 48 hours has proven nothing else, we can no longer allow Republicans to hold the people of California hostage and therefore dictate to the Democratic majority the terms under which the budget is passed.
California should join the 47 other states who don't require a supermajority to pass the budget.
If I am elected as the next Chair of the California Democratic Party, I will make majority vote budget a top priority.
We must also decide our approach to the budget trailer measure sponsored by Republicans known as "the open primary rule", that would allow Republicans to vote in Democratic primary elections - therefore influencing who the Democratic nominee would be.
It's not just for our party - but for the future of California.
John
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)