Tell John Garamendi that you want him to run for Congress in the 3rd Congressional district against Dan Lungren in 2010.
http://www.draftgaramendi.com/
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Political Training
This is local:
CAMPUS CAMP WELLSTONE: DEANZA COLLEGE CAMPUS CAMP WELLSTONE
May 15-16, Oakland, CA
Campus Camp Wellstone is a 1.5 day training program held on college and university campuses around the country. Our program is non-partisan, and welcomes both seasoned activists and those who are completely new to progressive activism.
We focus on very concrete skills, like the nitty-gritty of campaign planning, coalition building, and message development. We also teach students how to successfully recruit and retain volunteers and develop new leadership.
Campus Camp Wellstone is both serious and exciting-serious because you'll walk away with skills and tools for real-world campaigns, and exciting because it's participatory, vibrant, and led by young trainers. Our trainers are leaders in community organizing, labor, and non-profit organizations.
http://www.wellstone.org/training-calendar/campus-camp-wellstone-deanza-college
These are not exactly local, but they are good programs:
Democracy For America is organizing a 2-day Campaign Training in Redding, CA on June 27-28. Let us know if you can make it!
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/events/31999-dfa-campaign-training-in-redding
Localize This! Action Camp
Join us July 13-18
on Vashon Island
Cost: $200-500 sliding scale
Open to ages 18 and up
Pre-registration and deposit required
http://backbonecampaign.org/page.cfm?id=151#
Ongoing:
DFA Night School: Citizen Lobbying
Event Date: May 26, 2009
Event Time: 8:30 PM EDT
on-line
CAMPUS CAMP WELLSTONE: DEANZA COLLEGE CAMPUS CAMP WELLSTONE
May 15-16, Oakland, CA
Campus Camp Wellstone is a 1.5 day training program held on college and university campuses around the country. Our program is non-partisan, and welcomes both seasoned activists and those who are completely new to progressive activism.
We focus on very concrete skills, like the nitty-gritty of campaign planning, coalition building, and message development. We also teach students how to successfully recruit and retain volunteers and develop new leadership.
Campus Camp Wellstone is both serious and exciting-serious because you'll walk away with skills and tools for real-world campaigns, and exciting because it's participatory, vibrant, and led by young trainers. Our trainers are leaders in community organizing, labor, and non-profit organizations.
http://www.wellstone.org/training-calendar/campus-camp-wellstone-deanza-college
These are not exactly local, but they are good programs:
Democracy For America is organizing a 2-day Campaign Training in Redding, CA on June 27-28. Let us know if you can make it!
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/events/31999-dfa-campaign-training-in-redding
Localize This! Action Camp
Join us July 13-18
on Vashon Island
Cost: $200-500 sliding scale
Open to ages 18 and up
Pre-registration and deposit required
http://backbonecampaign.org/page.cfm?id=151#
Ongoing:
DFA Night School: Citizen Lobbying
Event Date: May 26, 2009
Event Time: 8:30 PM EDT
on-line
U.S. Sen. Specter changing to run as a Democrat
click the title for the story...
Once Al Franken is seated as the junior Senator from Minnesota, Senator Spector will make the Democrats filibuster proof!!!
Once Al Franken is seated as the junior Senator from Minnesota, Senator Spector will make the Democrats filibuster proof!!!
TOP TWENTY REASONS WHY PROPOSITION 1A IS A BAD IDEA
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is for 1A
Tying the Legislature’s hands behind its back is the wrong way to do a budget - We’ve learned that with Props 13 and 98.
In times of recession, the need for State services increases.
Californians only receive 4 years of new taxes in exchange for a permanent spending cap. Permanent cap, temporary revenues = BAD DEAL.
Allows short-term legislators to defer a real budget solution until they are gone
Proposes to fix a symptom rather than the underlying problem
True budget reform must address the structural deficit – 1A does not do this.
Constitutionally removes essential flexibility to deal with the State’s fiscal needs – prevents the Legislature and Governor from setting priorities essential to a particular time.
In financially difficult years will hold State spending at a level that is too low to guarantee adequate services and in good years restricts State from increasing revenues
Undermines our system of checks and balances by allowing the Governor to unilaterally make mid-year cuts without consulting the Legislature
Hastily drafted, behind closed doors, in secret, in the dead of night, without a single hearing or independent analysis
Dictates a shift in spending that can’t be changed, regardless of future needs
Could require cuts to public education, health care, public safety and others in good times
Will not do what it promises and instead will lead to deep cuts in service
The League of Women Voters urges a NO vote
Most observers expect painful degradation of service
Mandates a permanent spending cap
Prohibits legislators from taking full advantage of additional revenues when California comes out of the recession
Shifts responsibility for future budget decisions away from the legislature and onto invisible state employees
Does not fix fundamental budget problem - California is one of only three states requiring a two-thirds legislative majority to pass a budget. Republicans continually hijack the process!
--from Kathy Neal, Dan Wood, and Mario Juarez
Tying the Legislature’s hands behind its back is the wrong way to do a budget - We’ve learned that with Props 13 and 98.
In times of recession, the need for State services increases.
Californians only receive 4 years of new taxes in exchange for a permanent spending cap. Permanent cap, temporary revenues = BAD DEAL.
Allows short-term legislators to defer a real budget solution until they are gone
Proposes to fix a symptom rather than the underlying problem
True budget reform must address the structural deficit – 1A does not do this.
Constitutionally removes essential flexibility to deal with the State’s fiscal needs – prevents the Legislature and Governor from setting priorities essential to a particular time.
In financially difficult years will hold State spending at a level that is too low to guarantee adequate services and in good years restricts State from increasing revenues
Undermines our system of checks and balances by allowing the Governor to unilaterally make mid-year cuts without consulting the Legislature
Hastily drafted, behind closed doors, in secret, in the dead of night, without a single hearing or independent analysis
Dictates a shift in spending that can’t be changed, regardless of future needs
Could require cuts to public education, health care, public safety and others in good times
Will not do what it promises and instead will lead to deep cuts in service
The League of Women Voters urges a NO vote
Most observers expect painful degradation of service
Mandates a permanent spending cap
Prohibits legislators from taking full advantage of additional revenues when California comes out of the recession
Shifts responsibility for future budget decisions away from the legislature and onto invisible state employees
Does not fix fundamental budget problem - California is one of only three states requiring a two-thirds legislative majority to pass a budget. Republicans continually hijack the process!
--from Kathy Neal, Dan Wood, and Mario Juarez
On April 26, 2009
The California Democratic Party Central Committee voted endorsements on the May 19 Special Election:
Prop. 1A--Neutral
Prop. 1B--Endorse
Prop. 1C--Endorse
Prop. 1D--Neutral
Prop. 1E--Neutral
Prop. 1F--Endorse
Prop. 1A--Neutral
Prop. 1B--Endorse
Prop. 1C--Endorse
Prop. 1D--Neutral
Prop. 1E--Neutral
Prop. 1F--Endorse
Just Say No!
Hi folks --
I just got back from a wonderful weekend at the California Democratic Convention, where I was a delegate. This was my fifth convention; this time I went as an appointee of our representative in the State Assembly, Sandré Swanson. (So even though I didn't make it in that election back in January, I still got to go -- whew!)
You can read my "report" about the convention on my local-political blog
My super-condensed recommendation: JUST SAY NO. *Please* vote, definitely, but I'd be just as happy if you voted NO on every one -- well, especially 1A.
But you probably want a bit more detail and perspective and nuance, especially because you are going to be seeing and reading impassioned arguments on both sides of the issue over the days and weeks to come.
First off, who is behind these propositions? It's our state legislators - a democratic majority held hostage by a republican minority to trying to reach 2/3 majority to pass a budget for the state. Year after year, they have a horrible time keeping the state running because, to paraphrase my state Senator (I think it was her), "It's hard to make a deal with somebody who doesn't care about the outcome." These propositions were their Faustian bargain in order to get a budget passed and prevent the state government from shutting down a few months ago. So there is immense pressure by most of the legislators, and Governor Schwarzenegger, to pass this. (I should note that our local representatives, Swanson and Senator Loni Hancock are, bravely, standing in opposition to most other Democrats on this issue.)
The reason these propositions -- especially Proposition 1A, the main one -- are a bad idea is that they are a SHORT-TERM FIX with LONG-TERM DAMAGE to our constitution.
You will probably be getting a lot of pleas to pass these propositions from advocacy groups, especially education groups, saying that we must pass these or terrible things will happen. (I should point out that educators are actually quite split on the issue -- the California Teachers Association (CTA) is for 1A; the California Federation of Teachers and the California Faculty Association are against it.) We are indeed at a precipice but unfortunately with these temporary revenues (starting in two years!) comes a permanent spending cap on state services.
The League of Women Voters says that "this measure would only make things worse." I couldn't agree more. These ballot measures only fix a symptom rather than the fundamental underlying problem. Colorado implemented something like this in 1992 and has suffered greatly because of it.
In the weeks up to the Democratic Convention last week, the state legislators put tremendous pressure on delegates to get the Democratic Party to endorse these measures. Delegates have been deluged with emails, letters and circulars, and personal or robo-phone calls from our party leadership, begging us to endorse their compromise. But it didn't work. The grassroots know better. The party couldn't reach the required number of votes to show a party consensus on Proposition 1A and several others.
I am hoping that with the Republican party (except for Schwarzenegger) in opposition to 1A, and the Democratic Party not taking a position, that this measure and most of the other ones can be defeated, which just means that our representatives in Sacramento will have to continue to fight for a long-term solution. There will still be a lot of money spent on both sides, with most of the Pro-1A funding coming from the aforementioned CTA along with Schwarzenegger's PAC, the billionaire owner of Univision TV, and Chevron, for example. (Hmmm....)
So here is the breakdown on the propositions:
1A - A state spending cap. This is the poison pill that has to go along with 1B. If this passes we are in deep, deep trouble.
1B - Education funding. Looks good but here's the trick - it only goes into effect if Proposition 1A passes. So the Democratic Party came out in support of 1B, but as a symbolic gesture only. Some people are voting "yes" strategically so that if, worst-case, Proposition 1A were to pass, at least we'd get the short-term benefit. I'm inclined to "just say no" to the whole process.
1C - Sells bonds for education backed by lottery revenues. This one did get the nod from the Democratic Party though just barely, which I think is a shame. I agree with one opponent of this who said "balancing the budget on the backs of those who play the lottery is despicable and shameful."
1D, 1E - diverting funding for childhood services and mental health services. This has been described as robbing Peter to pay Paul. The amount of revenue this would save is trivial in any case.
1F - a time-waster initiative that will probably pass because it sounds like a good idea. This blocks pay raises for state officials if the budget is showing a deficit. Sounds like an OK idea on the surface, which is probably why it's doing so well in the polls. I really don't care one way or another if it passes. The Democratic party came out strongly in favor of it despite its many flaws for (as I see it) public relations purposes.
If you are interested in more, check out Calitics, a respected California political blog, which has a really good run-down of these measures, with much more analysis than I can muster.
http://tinyurl.com/calitics-1a
And here are the LWV's positions:
http://ca.lwv.org/action/prop0905/flyer.html
But feel free to reply here or talk to me on the phone if you have any thoughts or questions. I'm by no means the expert on this whole thing, but I talked to a lot of people on both sides of these ballot measures, so maybe I can help you come to a decision for your vote.
And as always, feel free to forward this missive along to your friends and neighbors.
-- Dan
I just got back from a wonderful weekend at the California Democratic Convention, where I was a delegate. This was my fifth convention; this time I went as an appointee of our representative in the State Assembly, Sandré Swanson. (So even though I didn't make it in that election back in January, I still got to go -- whew!)
You can read my "report" about the convention on my local-political blog
My super-condensed recommendation: JUST SAY NO. *Please* vote, definitely, but I'd be just as happy if you voted NO on every one -- well, especially 1A.
But you probably want a bit more detail and perspective and nuance, especially because you are going to be seeing and reading impassioned arguments on both sides of the issue over the days and weeks to come.
First off, who is behind these propositions? It's our state legislators - a democratic majority held hostage by a republican minority to trying to reach 2/3 majority to pass a budget for the state. Year after year, they have a horrible time keeping the state running because, to paraphrase my state Senator (I think it was her), "It's hard to make a deal with somebody who doesn't care about the outcome." These propositions were their Faustian bargain in order to get a budget passed and prevent the state government from shutting down a few months ago. So there is immense pressure by most of the legislators, and Governor Schwarzenegger, to pass this. (I should note that our local representatives, Swanson and Senator Loni Hancock are, bravely, standing in opposition to most other Democrats on this issue.)
The reason these propositions -- especially Proposition 1A, the main one -- are a bad idea is that they are a SHORT-TERM FIX with LONG-TERM DAMAGE to our constitution.
You will probably be getting a lot of pleas to pass these propositions from advocacy groups, especially education groups, saying that we must pass these or terrible things will happen. (I should point out that educators are actually quite split on the issue -- the California Teachers Association (CTA) is for 1A; the California Federation of Teachers and the California Faculty Association are against it.) We are indeed at a precipice but unfortunately with these temporary revenues (starting in two years!) comes a permanent spending cap on state services.
The League of Women Voters says that "this measure would only make things worse." I couldn't agree more. These ballot measures only fix a symptom rather than the fundamental underlying problem. Colorado implemented something like this in 1992 and has suffered greatly because of it.
In the weeks up to the Democratic Convention last week, the state legislators put tremendous pressure on delegates to get the Democratic Party to endorse these measures. Delegates have been deluged with emails, letters and circulars, and personal or robo-phone calls from our party leadership, begging us to endorse their compromise. But it didn't work. The grassroots know better. The party couldn't reach the required number of votes to show a party consensus on Proposition 1A and several others.
I am hoping that with the Republican party (except for Schwarzenegger) in opposition to 1A, and the Democratic Party not taking a position, that this measure and most of the other ones can be defeated, which just means that our representatives in Sacramento will have to continue to fight for a long-term solution. There will still be a lot of money spent on both sides, with most of the Pro-1A funding coming from the aforementioned CTA along with Schwarzenegger's PAC, the billionaire owner of Univision TV, and Chevron, for example. (Hmmm....)
So here is the breakdown on the propositions:
1A - A state spending cap. This is the poison pill that has to go along with 1B. If this passes we are in deep, deep trouble.
1B - Education funding. Looks good but here's the trick - it only goes into effect if Proposition 1A passes. So the Democratic Party came out in support of 1B, but as a symbolic gesture only. Some people are voting "yes" strategically so that if, worst-case, Proposition 1A were to pass, at least we'd get the short-term benefit. I'm inclined to "just say no" to the whole process.
1C - Sells bonds for education backed by lottery revenues. This one did get the nod from the Democratic Party though just barely, which I think is a shame. I agree with one opponent of this who said "balancing the budget on the backs of those who play the lottery is despicable and shameful."
1D, 1E - diverting funding for childhood services and mental health services. This has been described as robbing Peter to pay Paul. The amount of revenue this would save is trivial in any case.
1F - a time-waster initiative that will probably pass because it sounds like a good idea. This blocks pay raises for state officials if the budget is showing a deficit. Sounds like an OK idea on the surface, which is probably why it's doing so well in the polls. I really don't care one way or another if it passes. The Democratic party came out strongly in favor of it despite its many flaws for (as I see it) public relations purposes.
If you are interested in more, check out Calitics, a respected California political blog, which has a really good run-down of these measures, with much more analysis than I can muster.
http://tinyurl.com/calitics-1a
And here are the LWV's positions:
http://ca.lwv.org/action/prop0905/flyer.html
But feel free to reply here or talk to me on the phone if you have any thoughts or questions. I'm by no means the expert on this whole thing, but I talked to a lot of people on both sides of these ballot measures, so maybe I can help you come to a decision for your vote.
And as always, feel free to forward this missive along to your friends and neighbors.
-- Dan
On April 15, 2009
The City of Alameda Democratic Club voted Endorsements for the May 19 Special Election:
NO on Prop. 1A
NO on Prop. 1C
NO on Prop. 1D
NO on Prop. 1E
Neutral on Props. 1B and 1F
NO on Prop. 1A
NO on Prop. 1C
NO on Prop. 1D
NO on Prop. 1E
Neutral on Props. 1B and 1F
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Need Information?
League of Women Voters of Alameda — Special Election Pros and Cons, 7 p.m. April 14. The League's Voter Education Team will present the pros and cons of the measures on the May 19 ballot. Retired city financial officer Juelle Ann Boyer will also speak. All welcome. Alameda Free Library, 1550 Oak St. http://www.alameda.ca.lwvnet.org.
The Other Party's Answer to the Budget
From the article: "In the past century, there have been 145 recall attempts on California state officials, said Nicole Winger, spokesperson for California Secretary of State Debra Bowen. Just nine have qualified for a ballot and five have been successful in removing an official."
Assemblyman Adams defends vote after being served recall notice
Mediha Fejzagic DiMartino and Joe Nelson, Staff Writers
Posted: 04/09/2009 07:32:26 PM PDT
Assemblyman Adams defends vote after being served recall notice
Mediha Fejzagic DiMartino and Joe Nelson, Staff Writers
Posted: 04/09/2009 07:32:26 PM PDT
Some Union Views On The Special Election
AFSCME mixed on May ballot propositions
By John Howard | 04/09/09 12:00 AM PST
By John Howard | 04/09/09 12:00 AM PST
Special Election Funding Takes Shape
Here's an article discussing who is spending what to support or oppose the initiatives.
Teachers are biggest backers of budget measures
John Wildermuth, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Teachers are biggest backers of budget measures
John Wildermuth, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Who's For & Against Prop. 1A, et al
This is a link to an article at today's SF Gate discussing what groups are lining up for and against Prop. 1A.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/06/MN4R16RSRO.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/06/MN4R16RSRO.DTL
Sunday, April 5, 2009
More Chair Swapping Politics
It seems Ellen Taucher (CD10) has been nominated to be the undersecretary for arms control and nonproliferation. This will open up yet another series of elected offices as various candidates seek to move up one rung.
State GOP hoping to recapture Assembly seat
By Steven Harmon
MediaNews Sacramento Bureau
Posted: 04/03/2009 02:53:17 PM PDT
State GOP hoping to recapture Assembly seat
By Steven Harmon
MediaNews Sacramento Bureau
Posted: 04/03/2009 02:53:17 PM PDT
Special Election News
A good read on the special election, proponents, opponents, and why disparate groups may vote the same way for different reasons.
Schwarzenegger returns to voters with ballot sequel to fix California's budget
By Mike Zapler
Mercury News Sacramento Bureau
Posted: 04/04/2009 04:02:00 PM PDT
Polling shows lukewarm voter support.
Poll: Special election measures a tough sell
Matthew Yi, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Schwarzenegger returns to voters with ballot sequel to fix California's budget
By Mike Zapler
Mercury News Sacramento Bureau
Posted: 04/04/2009 04:02:00 PM PDT
Polling shows lukewarm voter support.
Poll: Special election measures a tough sell
Matthew Yi, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Race to Replace Rep. Solis
This is an interesting read on the process to replace Rep. Solis who was drafted by the Obama administration to be Labor Secretary. Judy Chu, vice-chair of the board of equalization and long time democratic activist, seems to be a likely choice to me.
Multiple House Candidates File for California Special Election
By Rachel Kapochunas | April 1, 2009 12:29 PM
Multiple House Candidates File for California Special Election
By Rachel Kapochunas | April 1, 2009 12:29 PM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)