Aug

10

“Herdt: Our legislative districts just too big”

Filed Under California | Leave a Comment

Timm Herdt, at Ventura County Star, writes about the need to increase the size of the state legislature:

It is likely not possible to propose an idea that would be more universally condemned, certainly at first blush, but hear me out:

What California needs is more legislators.

As unwelcome as that idea may seem, the conclusion is inescapable to anyone who listened to the pleas of Californians who testified this summer before the Citizens Redistricting Commission. Without fail, they said they did not want to be put in a district with other people with whom they had nothing in common and they wanted one of their own to represent them.

Under the system we’ve got, that isn’t possible.

The size of the Legislature — 80 Assembly members, 40 senators — was established in 1879. At the time, there were fewer than 1 million people living here.

Aug

6

For Over Five Years

Filed Under California, Political Participation | Leave a Comment

For over five years, the size of legislatures and representative democracy has been of interest. My fascination grew from a California Connected blog post published June 24, 2005: “Interactive: Two’s Company, 423,395 Is A Crowd.”

I blogged about the idea in mid-October 2005, wrote a paper on it in May 2006 for a public policy course at UC Merced, and posted a PowerPoint presentation in May 2008 that included all 50 states, amount of legislative committees and asked about trust.

Two years later this week I read an article in the National Conference of State Legislatures magazine titled “What Legislatures Need Now.” The article again peaked my interest.

I sent an email to Karl Kurtz (one of the authors of the article) and he referred me to his follow up blog post on the article. Kurtz reflects on the recommendations from “The Sometimes Government” and the ideas suggested, such as a full-time legislators and professional staff, and remarks:

Other standards in “The Sometime Governments” seem quaint: In an age when population growth has caused the ratio between citizens and legislators to soar—and therefore place pressure on the ability of legislators to serve such large constituencies—”The Sometime Governments” recommendation to reduce the number of members in the legislature to improve efficiency seems questionable at best. As many people are talking about growing the size of legislatures today as shrinking them.

And the conversation continues and reading through Kurtz’s blog posts and the comments, a thought comes to mind.

I think the we believe that a representative democracy should be representative of the democracy. In California, there are 38 million of us and most of us care about ourselves, our family, friends, and the future.

We want our representative democracy’s government (the executive, legislative and judicial branches) to promote tranquility, provide basic services and ensure equal opportunity, among other values. Of the three branches, we expect the legislative branch to be most representative of the public, of us.

A lot of folks point to term limits, the overwhelming influence of corporations, and the 2/3 vote requirement to pass a budget and raise taxes as fundamental problems that must be addressed, and they should.

However, a dimension that has been crowded out of the conversation is that of the legislative branch of our representative democracy. I believe the man or woman we elect to represent us in the legislative branch is our go to person. The person who is responsible for listening to our questions, comments, concerns, suggestions and complaints and translating it into legislation that may become the law of the land. This is the person who I look to for leadership on the floor of the Assembly of Senate on the issues I care about and want addressed.

In a world were the size of the California legislative branch is constitutionally limited to 120 (40 senators, 80 assembly members), elected representatives are trying their best to represent us: websites, online contact forms, taking our calls, reading our letters, hosting telephone and in-person town halls, and the like. But, for me, when you cannot meet eye-to-eye, face-to-face and shake the person’s hand and tell them what you think and how you feel about things, that physical connection, the visceral moment in which a bond is established, and where trust begins, something about our representative democracy is lost.

I still think, five years later, that increasing the size of the legislature, increasing the number of representatives, decreasing geographic size of legislative districts, establishing a unicameral legislative branch are means to an end and that end is ensuring our representative democracy is representative of the democracy, of us.

May

16

Losing Elections, Gaining Ground

Filed Under California, Cerritos College, Election 2010, Links, United States | Leave a Comment

The May Revise is an utter disaster for California’s future. This is no surprise. We lost the advantage in the fight for California’s future in 2006 when the Governor was re-elected and compounded in 2008 when state Democrats were unable to obtain a legislative two-thirds super-majority in 2008 (though this was never expected). Democrats have an opportunity this year to reclaim the Governor’s Office and obtain a two-thirds majority in at least one chamber.

On a federal level, all 435 U.S. House of Representatives seats and 33 U.S. Senate seats (including one in California) are up for re-election. (Go Democracy!)

The minority House Republicans are itching to get back into the majority after maintaining a choke hold on government from 2000 to 2006. Congressional Republicans cite a January victory in Massachusetts to replace the late Edward Kennedy, over a dozen retirements of Democratic representatives since then, and the nearing conclusion of a Hawaiian and Pennsylvanian congressional special election to replace retired Neil Abercrombie and the late John Murtha as positive signs that Republicans will take back the House come November. Their spirits are high, the wind is at their sails and they are coasting forward.

I don’t want to sink the Republican boat, just poke it hard enough to start a leak.

Strategically, it’s to the Democrats’ advantage to allow Republicans’ perceptions to be their reality. When you feel like you are winning, you’ll elevate all the reasons you can win and diminish all the reasons you can lose. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. The special elections where Republicans won since January 2010 allowed them to concentrate their firing power. Every Republican or conservative leaning organization has weighed in with bussing in volunteers, sending checks and paying for television ads.

Political market saturation works, especially in areas were the Democratic infrastructure has eroded over the decades. It’s kind of hard for voters to get excited about electing someone for the nth time, don’t you think?

But what happens when 435+33 elections come to head? This is where the real fun starts.

Republicans have been outraised and out-organized up to this point, and right now they are playing catch up by trying to take over the Tea Party movement (good luck with that, those anti-government types aren’t all too excited to listen to Republican leaders say “Put us in power and we’ll fix it.�? These guys are incumbents and the epitome of the establishment).

Republicans continue begging their uber-rich conservative donors for money (by flying them on privately chartered jets and sending them to bondage clubs in West Los Angeles; you have just got to love LA), incessantly pandering to Big Oil (uh, let’s keep drilling even though the South’s conservatives are about to become environmentalists, except these environmentalists are the mussel-hugging, calm-coddling, shrimp-squeezing type; welcome to the club!), coddling Corrupt Wall Street (no, I am a Senate Republican and I will not vote to move forward debate on financial reform so corrupt financial institutions and banks can screw Main Street, again, and ask for another bailout, again), and finally egging on the anti-immigrant zealots by saying it’s OK to pull people over in Arizona because they think they are undocumented (not, illegal, as some put it).

This last one, this last one is a doozey for me. How does a political party, that is trying to maintain relevance (especially in California), in their right mind think that flicking The Bird to the fastest growing minority in the United States by saying the Arizona law is good is of any benefit? Seriously?! Anyone who supports the Arizona law will NOT have a political future certainly in California and, in the long-term, the United States. Keep a tally of all the idiots who are out their talking to anti-immigrant zealots, egging them on and attacking hard working people and families and making them feel like second-class citizens. I am all worked up; time for some organic strawberry-kiwi juice, ah.

California 2010 is a show down between the Attorney General Jerry Brown (yeah, that dude our parents first voted for in 1970-whatever) and whoever manages to survive the bloody, and amusing-to-Democrats, Republican primary between “Her Highness�? Meg “Please Bailout Goldman Sachs So I Get My Own�? Whitman and Steve “I Hate Immigrants, But At Least I Tell Them With Millions of Dollars in Television Ads To Their Face�? Poizner.

Democrats will inch closer to obtaining a super-majority in at least one chamber and hopefully re-capture the Governor’s office. 2010 will set the ground for the 2012 Presidential election. (I think it’s best not to have an incumbent Republican Governor of California helping get media attention for the eventual Republican Presidential nominee and millions in contributions from some the sleaziest conservative corporate backers in California. Let’s just not have that this time around, ok? Bush 2, Round 2 and McCain, Round 1 was certainly too much.)

2012 is the key. I anticipate a lot of Generation Obama types will look at their face, degrees, and biological clocks and be like “no time like the present�? to run for city, county, state and federal elected office. We have already seen the first wave of young America engaging in the political parties, processes and institutions that form the backbone of American democracy and some are even running for office. Organizations like the New Leaders Council and the Young Elected Officials network have been cultivating the under 40, progressive crowd for several years now with great success. Presidents Obama’s re-election will be supported by the emerging generation making the case to the current generation that the proverbial torch must be passed, albeit to a more progressive generation that is willing to spit in the face of the status quo.

However, there are concerns afoot. The OMG, Republicans-Are-Going-To-Win elements of the Democratic movement should be heard. Their concerns are legitimate because the prospect of losing too many elections this November (and possibly the majority of the House, the more progressive and legislatively active of the two chambers) is certainly cause for pause and will feel like a setback. But in my opinion it is a shiny distraction to the greater challenge ahead, and that is how Democrats, especially progressive ones, gain ground for the long-term especially with President Obama’s re-election battle in 2012?

There are five issues the progressive movement must own: equality for all, inclusiveness of immigrants, national security, progressive taxation and investment, and fiscal transparency.

Let’s start where we are strong. It’s clear that progressive Democrats own equality for all: we have done more to advance gay rights, further expand women’s rights and minority’s rights and develop essential civil rights in a post-9/11 era of overly invasive government in the private lives of citizens (Can anyone say PATRIOT Act?). The work will always continue on this issue, but when we end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, overturn Proposition 8 in California and ensure the same federal benefits and rights to homosexual couples that heterosexual couples currently enjoy, we can put the proverbial feather in the cap and continue forward, happily, merrily and gay. Take that Ultra-Conservative Right!

Inclusiveness of immigrants is a growing issue among progressive Democratic circles, but we need to do more. Most intuitively understand the need for “comprehensive immigration reform�? and also fostering and promoting an environment of a society that is fair, open and welcoming of people of diverse cultures, socioeconomic backgrounds, opinions, beliefs and religions. We live in a global world, and while we compete with each other academically, economically and financially, the need to cooperate is growing ever more apparent as we become more interconnected.

Further, we will have to confront some wicked matters like nuclear proliferation, depressed-educated populations that are growing up in politically extremists controlled environments and the emerging socio-economies of the East and South. Being fair, open, welcoming in the United States will go a long way towards advancing the attitude aboard.

National security kind of comes from right field, I know, but we got to own it. Almost all Americans believe the government must do whatever it takes to protect the people of the United States from enemies foreign and domestic. To be strong on national security, we must change the definition of what “strong�? actually is. Strong isn’t just how ridiculously big the defense budget is or what kind of fighter jets and anti-whatever defense systems we deploy, but also about how we engage other governments and the people of other nations.

We get dinged all the time as being contradictory, hypocritical or worse because of how the government treats people here and around the world. Eight years of President George W. Bush didn’t help us at all and thankfully President Obama is working our way back to the world. Things like the Peace Corps, Doctors Without Borders, regular anti-war protests (to symbolize the dissent that exists) and being a leader on reducing greenhouse gas emissions (like a self-imposed cap-and-trade) will go a long way in building a greater, stronger understanding of the United States and appreciation of its leadership on issues of vital international significance.

Now, tax and fiscal policy are not sexy (or even mildly attractive, at night, in a crowded club, after a few drinks). It is few and far between when I am traversing progressive political circles that I find myself engaged in thoughtful conversations about on our nation’s tax structure and fiscal policies. If we truly want to increase investment in pre-school to PhD (P2P) education, green and clean technology and research, international and humanitarian assistance, public transportation (maintaining highways, bridges, roads and expanding commuter, light and heavy rail and building high speed rail), conserving and recycling water and just a overall great place to live, we will need a progressive taxation system.

In California, the emerging generation already sees Proposition 13 (that famous initiative of the 1970s which reduced property taxes to ridiculously low levels and strangled funding to schools, cities and counties) as needing to be overhauled, we view the 2/3^rd voter requirement to pass budgets or raise taxes as utterly undemocratic, and we see corporate tax breaks and loopholes as needing to be eliminated or closed so instead of protecting the fat cats, we ensure upward mobility for everyone.

To advance our presence in this arena, we need to quantify the need to invest and advance the argument and every turn. The conservative movement has made the debate: government is wasteful and must be cut. It’s easy to find one bad apple in the bunch and claim it’s indicative of the entire system. (OMG, ACORN is teaching people how to skirt laws, let’s ban them from receiving federal monies.)

However, is waste hiring a city resident to work at a community college as a secretary? Is waste employing a teacher at the nearby high school? Is waste paying an electrician to keep the city power plant operating? Is waste paying a senior citizen to re-stock the public library book shelves? Is waste making sure we have scientist testing our drinking water for chemicals that cause cancer? Is waste offering a grant to a low-income student to be the first in their family to go to the university? Is waste making sure children have free, preventative health, dental and vision check-ups? Is waste having the aged, blind and disabled receive in-home support services? Is waste living in an American that is free, open and welcoming to the world?

The answer to all these questions and more is “No, it’s not a waste. Actually, it is an investment in our community and our society.�?

What is a waste is that we let the Republican get away with the argument that everything government is wasteful and should be cut. We need to demolish the premise and build on the fact that government is a force of good and employs a lot of people directly and indirectly.

We lose the argument because we don’t have enough information. Example: I have asked by former community college in Southern California to produce two budgets, instead of one.

The first budget is called the sad face budget because it assumes decreased funding from Sacramento. The second budget is called the happy face budget because it assumes increased funding from Sacramento. Without an alternative, we lose because we can’t show what we want to invest in and why.

Right now, all we have is the budget. It’s hard to rally and cheer for less classes, less staff, less professors and a weakened learning environment (except, of course, if you are an anti-government fanatic that believes the budget doesn’t cut enough: we must cut more and more and more, ad infinitum).

But, if we had the budget, we change the ground of the debate from (cut, don’t cut) to (cut, don’t cut, invest). One day, I would love to argue, with a budget in hand, and turn the argument on anti-government ranting goon: “You say you want to cut? You say you don’t want to invest? Well, if we had the money, if we paid the taxes, we could hire X new staff, Y new teachers, serve Z more students and have the library open 24 hours during finals week.�? Oh, I can’t wait.

This leads me to the final issue, fiscal transparency. Conservatives are not the only ones who care about spending our money wisely, everyone cares. We all have check books to balance, bills to pay and money to spend. For some reason, fiscal transparency (accountability, responsibility) is somehow viewed as conservatives’ bread and butter. Well, it’s our bread and butter too!

Instead of ranting and raving that government is wasteful; maybe we should sit down, calm down and read the President’s or Governors Budget, line by line. I know it’s hard, but give it a try. Recovery.gov, that website which shows how the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money is being distributed and used is just great. It even let’s you download spreadsheets so you can work with the numbers. Unfortunately, at a state level, we are vague about how money is spent. I know you can visit www.ebudget.ca.gov and dig into the budget top-level and department/agency-level numbers, but some people want to know everything. I have been searching, and still cannot find, one giant spreadsheet of all revenues and expenditures for the State of California. Fiscal responsibility is everyone’s responsibility. Like the President said about the BP/Halliburton/Transocean finger-pointing, blame-game testimony this past week: “there’s enough to go around.�?

These five issues, equality for all, inclusiveness of immigrants, national security, progressive taxation and investment, and fiscal transparency, are important and some are more important to others. In a community of coalitions as diverse and colorful and outspoken as Democrats, our big tent philosophy is not just about making sure no one is left out in the rain (or blistering sun), but ensuring a forum for their thoughts, beliefs and concerns to be heard and made a part of the broader effort. This is the fundamental difference between the two parties, one is open, the other is not.

So what’s the bottom line: Democrats are losing (some) elections, but gaining (a lot of) ground. That’s American Democracy, that’s what the swinging pendulum of power does: it goes back and forth. As long as the pivot of the pendulum moves to the left, that’s what matters.

Feb

7

“But it can certainly influence the thinking of those who can.”

Filed Under California, Election 2010, Links, United States | Leave a Comment

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a 5-4 majority of the United States Supreme Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (decided 6-3 in 1990) and thus eliminated the “basis for allowing the Government to limit corporate independent expenditures.”

Moreover, the 5-4 majority justifies their overruling of Austin by claiming that “the First Amendment applies to corporations” and cites First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (decided 5-4 in 1978) and NAACP v. Button (decided 6-3 in 1963).

The Court’s opinion is being interpreted as providing a corporation the same right to free speech as a human being. In my opinion, the 5-4 majority is incorrect in overruling Austin and wrong in granting a corporation the right to free speech. It will take some time for the Court’s decision to be reversed.

It should be clear that corporations already exercise their right to free speech at a state level. The Court’s decision simply opens the proverbial gates of hell at a federal level.

With efforts already underway across the country and in Congress to mitigate the affect of the Court’s decision, the question is what can we do to inoculate ourselves from the onslaught of corporations exercising their right to free speech?

…

First and foremost, I believe each election matters, plain and simple, whether it’s your local school board or President of the United States.

Let’s think about the impact of elections on a local school board level:

A local school board decides what classes your children will be able to take.
Do you want your kid to become a doctor? Great! Then they will need to take advanced biology.
Do you know that some schools do not offer advanced biology?
If the school your child goes to does not offer advanced biology, what are you going to do about it? Petition the board and/or find a candidate for school board who will champion advanced biology. Board does not care and/or you can’t find a candidate, then run for school board and do it yourself.

Now, let’s think about the impact of elections on a state level.

On Tuesday, June 8, 2010, Californians will vote for 80 state assembly, 20 state senate, 53 congressional, 1 senatorial, 8 statewide offices and 5 statewide propositions.

People will start voting-by-mail as early as Monday, May 10, 2010, nearly a month before election day.

On June 8, and as early as May 10, Californians will vote for or against the following 5 statewide propositions:

Proposition 13, Constitutional Amendment, Property tax: new construction exclusion: seismic retrofitting.
Proposition 14, Constitutional Amendment, Elections: open primaries.
Proposition 15, Statute, Political Reform Act of 1974: California Fair Elections Act of 2008.
Proposition 16, Initiative Constitutional Amendment, New Two-Thirds Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers.
Proposition 17, Initiative Statute, Allows Auto Insurance Companies to Base Their Prices in Part on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage.

Now, what do we know about these propositions? #13 is bad luck; #14 reminds me of my brother’s favorite soccer jersey number; #15 can only be divided by prime numbers; #16 would have been sweet, but I am not a girl; #17 is how old I was when I graduated high school (I turned 18 a week later). So to answer the question, at this point, not much.

From right… now, until… June 8, 7:59pm, we will be under the influence (and no, I am not talking about that), but the influence of our family, friends, local leaders, elected officials, political parties, labor unions and corporations to vote for or against these propositions.

Let’s look at who is officially for or against these propositions as of now:

Click Image for Larger View

According to the chart above, a couple of things:

Proposition 13, Constitutional Amendment, Property tax: new construction exclusion: seismic retrofitting.

There is no support or opposition yet. This would imply it’s non-controversial at the moment or of less importance to organized interests.

Proposition 14, Constitutional Amendment, Elections: open primaries.

There is both support and opposition.
The support side has plenty of money to hire a consultant, build a website and air some radio advertisements in smaller media markets.
The opposition side has not reported its funding levels. I expect this to change soon.

Proposition 15, Statute, Political Reform Act of 1974: California Fair Elections Act of 2008.

There is support, but no opposition yet.
The support side has enough resources to hire a consultant, build a website and air some radio advertisements in smaller media markets.
I expect the opposition side to form late in April or mid-May and spend a ton of money on television and radio advertisements. There is no benefit to organizing early. If internal polling shows its winning, expect an infusion of resources from the opposition side who expect to lose from this proposition.

Proposition 16, Initiative Constitutional Amendment, New Two-Thirds Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers.

There is both support and opposition.
The support side is extremely well-funded and has expended over $3 million dollars in 2009 to build support for its position. Click here to see who has contributed to the $3 million pool of money, you’ll be intrigued.
The opposition side has virtually no resources. Barely enough to setup a rudimentary website.

Proposition 17, Initiative Statute, Allows Auto Insurance Companies to Base Their Prices in Part on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage.

There is opposition, but no support yet.
The opposition has enough resources to hire a consultant, build a website and air some radio advertisements in smaller media markets.
I expect the support side to come in late April/early May. Again, if internal polling shows its losing, expect an infusion of resources from the support side who expect to win from this proposition.

Proposition 16 attracts my attention and highlights my earlier statement that corporations already exercise their right to free speech at a state level.

If you clicked “Click here to see who…” link above, you’ll find that Pacific Gas & Electric donated $750,000, another $750,000, a whopping $1.5 million and another mere $500,000 for a grand total, $3.5 million dollars.

Take this example and imagine it replicated across the country, in 50 states, over 435 congressional seats and 100 senate seats.

…

Returning to the question that I asked earlier, so what can we do to inoculate ourselves from the onslaught of corporations exercising their right to free speech?

You just did it by reading this post. You armed yourself with information. But there is more to know and at the very least, when you start to hearing and reading about Proposition 13, 14, 15, 16, or 17, you have a better sense of who really is supporting or opposing it.

But the onslaught has just begun and a corporation now has the same right to free speech that you do. The ultimate difference between a person and a corporation is that a corporation cannot vote, but it can certainly influence the thinking of those who can.

	Name	Total Contributions in 2009	Cash on Hand at end of 2009
13	Support	n/a	n/a	n/a
13	Oppose	n/a	n/a	n/a
14	Support	CALIFORNIANS FOR AN OPEN PRIMARY	$138,000.00	$137,794.12
14	Oppose	PROTECT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY – SAY NO TO THE OPEN PRIMARY	n/a	n/a
15	Support	CALIFORNIA COMMON CAUSE FAIR ELECTIONS COMMITTEE	n/a	n/a
15	Support	CALIFORNIANS FOR FAIR ELECTIONS SPONSORED BY CALIFORNIA CLEAN MONEY ACTION FUND	$221,990.62	$78,801.29
15	Support	CALIFORNIA CLEAN MONEY ACTION FUND	n/a	n/a
16	Support	CALIFORNIANS TO PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO VOTE MAJOR FUNDING FROM PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY A COALITION OF TAXPAYERS, ENVIRONMENTALISTS, RENEWABLE ENERGY, BUSINESS AND LABOR	$3,500,000.00	$27,800.82
16	Oppose	TAXPAYERS AGAINST THE PG&E POWERGRAB, SPONSORED BY LOCAL POWER INC. & THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK	$5,525.00	$98.17
17	Support	n/a	n/a	n/a
17	Oppose	CALIFORNIANS FOR REAL INSURANCE REFORM: SPONSORED BY CAMPAIGN FOR CONSUMER RIGHTS	$117,451.84	$96,500.86

Jan

24

“But by the choice of those before us”

Filed Under California, CCC, CSU, Education, Human Development, Links, UC | Leave a Comment

A half-century ago, the leaders of California made a commitment to the future. That commitment was based on the belief in a free public higher education; that commitment was named the Master Plan for Higher Education.

The Master Plan created the three-tiered system for public higher education. It formed the California Community Colleges system, a network of 110 campuses, where any individual over the age of 18 and a desire to learn could go to obtain an Associate’s degree, a certificate or prepare to transfer to a 4-year institution.

It formed the California State University system, a web of 23 campuses, where any individuals who met certain qualifications could pursue a Bachelor’s, Master’s and selected Doctoral degrees. Many of California’s teachers, nurses and engineers got their start at a state university.

Lastly, it established the University of California, a research hub of 10 campuses, where any individuals who met certain qualifications could pursue degrees on par with those offered at the State University in addition to study law, dentistry and medicine. Moreover, it was the de facto research arm of the state, discovering and creating new knowledge.

Together, the three systems form the pipeline of California’s future entrepreneurs, teachers, public servants, doctors and leaders. With the power of one belief, to the power of 3 systems, to the power of 143 campuses, to the power of millions of students, there lies a promise to the future of California and the world.

Since then, the Master Plan and the belief it was based on has been under assault.

This assault began in 1978, when a majority of voters fundamentally, and unknowingly, changed our society from majority democracy to minority tyranny. Proposition 13 amended the state constitution to require two-thirds of the legislature to approve budgets or raise taxes, instead of a democratic majority.

In 1978, an individual had to pay $0 to attend community college, $212 to attend a California State University and $720 to attend a University of California. Thirty years later, in 2009, an individual has to pay $600 to attend community college, $3,797 to attend a California State University and $8,020 to attend a University of California.

Five years after Proposition 13 passed, in 1983, the belief in a free public higher education died when students had to pay $100 to attend community college.

Our representative government is controlled by a minority tyranny because of Proposition 13 and has maintained a public policy of imposing fees on individuals who seek higher education and knowledge.

For all allowance, for all the financial aid, for all the scholarships, for all the jobs, that a student can get, receive, obtain and work, this very poisonous notion that it cost to access a higher education is detrimental at the least and damning at the most.

It is this very poisonous notion that leads individuals, families and communities to perceive that they cannot afford college; that they will not be able to pursue higher education; that education is not and isn’t supposed to be free and that the knowledge obtained through such education is limited only to those who can pay.

What bothers me most about this very poisonous notion is not the immediate cost it had on me and my family, but the affect it has to limit our communities’ ability to experience a world of new knowledge.

When people cannot obtain higher education, they cannot readily formulate new scientific theories, express new thoughts about culture and society, find new cures to cancers and diseases, envision new ways of harnessing the power of the sun, earth and water, implement new ways to perform life saving medical procedures, discover new life forms in the depths of our oceans and beyond the galaxies we can see, and produce a foundation of knowledge for the next generation to build upon.

Our generation understands this; that is why we are fighting, with tooth and nail and sweat and blood.

We must continue to do whatever it takes to wipe away this very poisonous notion and restore belief in a free public higher education. This must eventually be achieved by restoring majority democracy and enacting public policy that invests in higher education. It is only by doing so that the next generation will have the means to access a world of new knowledge left undiscovered by our generation, not by our own choice, but by the choice of those before us.

Jul

29

Train Wreck Ahead

Filed Under California, Doodles, Political Participation | 4 Comments

Beware: Train Wreck Ahead

On Wednesday, July 29th, Governor FAIL signed Executive Order S-15-09 that claims:

“the Commission on the 21st Century Economy (Commission), and the Commission has made excellent progress in its review of the existing tax structure and has identified reforms to make California’s tax structure more aligned with the modern California economy”

“the complexity and far-reaching nature of tax reform necessitates time for thoughtful deliberation, careful analysis and public comment”

“in consultation with the Legislative leaders, I will call a special session in September 2009 to consider the recommendations made by the Commission to improve California’s state tax system.”

The Commission is controlled by Gerald Parsky, a stauch Republican conservative and former Chair of the UC Board of Regents.

The work of the Commission is already in question.

Now, consider the following.

The Commission lacks several strong progressive tax system thinkers and advocates and therefore a strong alternative perspective is not being forcefully articulated or given significant discussion. Party-based commissions that split 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans are inherently flawed on a representational level because the California electorate is not split 50-50. (44% Democrat, 31% Republican, and 20% Decline to State)

The Commission’s report will serve as the foundation of a Special Session of the Legislature in the fall. Expected near or around the same time, revenue projections/estimates will be released by the Department of Finance that will most certainly show a shortfall and gap that needs to be filled. The media will report “Revenues Fall Short Again” – “Another Crisis” – “More Cuts Needed?” – “Gov Calls for Major Reform” or what have you.

There will be cries for more devastating cuts from Republicans, then the Governor will come sweeping in with this Special Session saying “We Need Reform” and the Legislature’s deliberations will be based on the Parsky Commission’s work.

No, this cannot happen.

The Legislature, and particularly the Revenue and Taxation Committees in the Assembly and the Senate, need to start NOW in a) conducting hearing after hearing on what the Parsky Commission has already put together, b) bring in experts on tax policy from around the country to provide testimony and c) produce a final report (with or without Republican committee member votes) and publish it the same day the Parsky Commission’s report is released to offer at the very least a stark, progressive alternative.

Without such action, the principal policy making body of the largest state in the Union is going to base their discussions on the work of a Commission that had 7, err I mean 6 meetings, starting at 9am (with the exception of one meeting at 1pm) and is too biased, skewed in the favor of the few.

Jul

10

UC Merced Here, Now, Forever!

Filed Under California, Central Valley, Education, UC Merced | Leave a Comment

I am furious. I think I am beyond furious by a recent article in the Merced Sun-Star reporting that 23 UC San Diego professors suggested we shut down UC Merced.

The people of the Central Valley worked long and hard to advance the argument over several decades on why the region needed a public research university.

Influenced the leadership of the Board of Regents throughout the years to usher the dream into a reality.

Persuaded state and federal public policy makers on the merits of investing in public higher education.

Hired a top-notch staff, led by Chancellor Carol Tomlinson-Keasey, to make certain the soil would be tilled, the floors plans would be drawn up and construction would begin and continue.

The very idea of shutting down a university is outrageous but my full fury is not directed at 23 misguided professors, rather its focused on the Governor and less-so on the Legislature because I believe the elected leader of our state is ultimately responsible for whatever happens.

The Governor has shaped the discussion by claiming the May 19, 2009 election results were the people saying “no more.” No more taxes, no more borrowing.

He successfully shaped the debate which has limited an entire range of options because people assume what he says as political reality then debate within whatever political reality is remaining.

The budget deadlock and fiscal crisis has undermined our ability to invest in what matters most. We are forced to look at options which are detrimental at best and disastrous at worst. This is the direct result of the Governor unable to view, discuss, debate and decide within the maximum range of options. Eliminating debate at such a critical time in California’s history is unacceptable.

But no matter. Our university in the Great Central Valley will withstand adversity and flourish here, now and forever in the cradle of California, the bread basket of the world. Unequivocally, UC Merced is Here, Now, and Forever!

Jul

6

Governor FAIL

Filed Under California, Political Participation | 2 Comments

California is in shambles because of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

He wants to blame the legislature, the Democrats, the Republicans and everyone else for the collapse of our state and the destruction of our future.

Every day that goes by, we see inaction, we see deadlock, we see our Golden State and its people suffer from all the aliments of a recession.

But the greatest problem Governor FAIL has created and is perpetuating each and every day is that of uncertainty.

The uncertainty of not having a state budget, of not having the resources to prepare for the year ahead and of not being able to provide for our long-term success is debilitating and destructive.

While people are unemployed, families are losing their homes, youth and students are being packed in K12 and shut out of higher education, Governor FAIL wants to sit in his jacuzzi, smoke a cigar and laugh like this is all a good joke.

How does cutting funding to education solve anything? How does attacking working people and working families solve anything? How does allowing California’s Future to burn at the stake solve anything?

He has failed; he is the new definition of fail.

May

26

“In summary, we conclude that Proposition 8…”

Filed Under California | Leave a Comment

Simply unacceptable.

VII

In summary, we conclude that Proposition 8 constitutes a permissible constitutional amendment (rather than an impermissible constitutional revision), does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, and is not invalid under the “inalienable rights�? theory proffered by the Attorney General. We further conclude that Proposition 8 does not apply retroactively and therefore that the marriages of same-sex couples performed prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid.

Having determined that none of the constitutional challenges to the adoption of Proposition 8 have merit, we observe that if there is to be a change to the state constitutional rule embodied in that measure, it must “find its expression at the ballot box.�? (In re Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757, 884 (conc. & dis. opn. of Corrigan, J.); see also id. at pp. 861, 878 (conc. & dis. opn. of Baxter, J.).)

In each of the three cases before us, the request for a peremptory writ of mandate is denied. Each party shall bear its own costs.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/ to download and read 184-page opinion.

Oct

1

85 Days Late: The 2008 Budget Impasse

Filed Under California, Links | Leave a Comment

The 2008-2009 budget was signed last week. After nearly 90 days, the schools, clinics and workers who rely on state funding to teach kids, treat patients and make a living were paid.

The uncertainty the budget impasse created caused a lot of stress across the state. If you were reading articles and watching reports over the 85 days, then you gathered the increasing anxiety folks were experiencing.

Personally, I was strapped for cash. I figured the impasse would last 30 days at the latest, so I didn’t take out a loan from the bank; “I can weather the storm,” I said to myself. Once 45 days passed, I became increasingly frustrated. Bills were overdue, my gas tank was near “E” most of the time and the overall feeling generated from not knowing how I was going to pay for things came over me. (Note my string of “Doodles” on the impasse.)

In retrospect, the whole situation is utterly ridiculous and the principle cause is the lack of communication between legislators, party leadership, and the governor. Without sufficient communication, the necessary information to achieve an agreement is not exchanged and therefore an agreement is never attained. Moreover, the resulting “information vacuum” that is created becomes filled with rumors, hearsay, B.S., what have you, that leads to a weakened environment for sufficient communication to occur.

In other words, people don’t talk to each because they don’t want to or feel like they can.

I commented to a friend, if I were in the state legislature and a state budget wasn’t passed by July 1st, then I’d setup camp on the floor, order pizza and soda, call colleagues, write letters to my family and friends, and blog about the entire experience.