CA-Gov: No Antonio

Mayor Villaraigosa made it official by declining to jump into the narrowing field for the California Governor's race.

I'd been predicting this for months. He really shot himself in the foot with a first term that failed to live up to expectations. Some of that is bad timing with his re-election coinciding with a severe downturn, and some of that is simple overselling of what he would do.

But it was pretty clear that he had no interest in this for quite a while.

After a rumored cattle call that had upwards of a dozen candidates, it really looks like the Governor's race here will feature two - Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown. This sets up that future vs. past battle Newsom certainly wants, but Brown probably benefits from a narrower field and the lack of a Hispanic candidate taking a bloc of votes.

There, it's a horse race post, am I a real live journalist now?

CDP Convention - On The Way

Headed out the door for a nice, leisurely six-hour drive through the Central Valley to Sacramento for another California Democratic Party Convention. Calitics will have full coverage, of course - many of our writers will be on hand, both as delegates and as plain old media. There's a lot to cover, from party elections to endorsements on the May 19 election to the resolution to impeach Jay Bybee from the 9th Circuit to the unofficial opening of the 2010 election.

The early pre-convention news is that Antonio Villaraigosa won't be making the trip with me (although there's still room in the car, so you never know). It's a confusing development, considering all the high-profile events other gubernatorial hopefuls Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown are holding (Jerry's got a kegger at the old Governor's Mansion, while Gavin is part of an outdoor block party featuring Wyclef Jean). But that may be the reason, as Villaraigosa wasn't able to compete.

Villaraigosa’s press office sent out a release announcing: “Mayor Villaraigosa today announced that he will convene emergency weekend meetings with union leaders to tackle the city's budget crisis.

“Talks will focus on ways to close a $530 million budget deficit through shared sacrifice and shared responsibility. The Mayor will begin meetings in City Hall with labor leaders on Friday evening and will continue through the weekend.” [...]

Calbuzz asked Tony V spokesman Sean Clegg if the emergency budget session was "just a lame, bullshit excuse" to skip the convention. “It’s exactly the opposite of that," Clegg said. "The city of Los Angeles and most cities across California are facing an unprecedented economic crisis and jobs come first.”

Clegg said Villaraigosa is putting the needs of his city before his personal political fortunes by trying to pull together an agreement that would require labor unions to give back some hard-earned gains in order to save jobs and services in Los Angeles.

“This is a leadership moment. Antonio Villaraigosa is not going to Twitter while Rome burns,” Clegg said -- a clear shot at the other mayor who would be governor: San Francisco's Gavin Newsom.

At the same time, a Tulchin Research/Acosta|Salazar pre-convention poll (which is three weeks out, but released on convention eve) shows Villaraigosa slipping. The poll had Garamendi in the race at the time.

Tulchin Research/Acosta|Salazar +/- 4.5% (Mar. 31-Apr. 2)
Brown 31%
Newsom 16%
Villaraigosa 12%
Garamendi 11%
O'Connell 6%
Other 4%
Undecided 20%

Obviously, that top-line support is soft, with 1 in 5 undecided. But I'm frankly surprised how quickly this is turning into a two-horse race, which could actually open the door for a progressive movement candidate, if one existed. But alas...

Anyway, those are just a couple of the issues we'll see unfold. Stay with us throughout the weekend.

(I've teed up a few posts while I'm on the ride, but it'll be a light post day until late afternoon)

CA-Gov: A Look At Mayor Villaraigosa

We've had less than glowing reviews of the public comments of potential gubernatorial candidates Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom, but there has been somewhat less talk about the other leading potential candidate, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. His re-election performance was uninspired and listless, but that's not a description of his policies.

I have said in the past that the enduring image of Villaraigosa's leadership is a crane in front of a half-finished building. Now we are seeing him tested in a time of crisis. Los Angeles has a close to $1 billion dollar deficit, and he is trying to balance cuts with continued support for labor, and the results have not been pretty. While Villaraigosa led the effort to add a penny to the sales tax for public transit, he has vowed not to raise local taxes to cover the deficit, and as a result, the mayor will cut salaries for city workers almost across the board by 10%, and LA Unified will lay off 5,000 teachers this year.

Los Angeles school district officials moved forward Tuesday with plans to lay off more than 5,000 teachers, counselors, custodians, clerks and other employees, but the battle over funding will rage on for weeks -- affecting who goes, who stays and what schools and classrooms will look like for students next year.

The Board of Education's 4-3 vote, after more than four hours of pleading and debate, closed most of a $596.1-million deficit for next year in the nation's second-largest school system.

"Anger is appropriate and outrage is appropriate," said school board President Monica Garcia, who voted with the majority. "Nobody wants to do these layoffs."

While the board, which Villaraigosa effectively bought after a series of election cycles, did spare 1,900 elementary school teachers, the layoffs will be deeply felt, particularly in those ten schools the Mayor personally controls.

In his State of the City speech last week, Villaraigosa denounced Sacramento lawmakers, yet he supports the same failed propositions that will not address the structural problems with state government, and he did nothing, of course, to move forward on any of those while Speaker of the Assembly. However, he did spend a lot of time in his speech talking about his innovative environmental policies in Los Angeles, which have had an impact.

Villaraigosa denounced the "politics of no" as he called for a green technology hub along the west side of the Los Angeles River to attract new jobs and start-up companies.

"We need to build a future in which clean technology is as synonymous with Los Angeles as motion pictures or aerospace," said the mayor, appearing at the Harbor City factory of Balqon Corp., which manufactures electric big-rigs for use at the city's ports [...]

As a centerpiece of his speech, Villaraigosa reintroduced his plan for a "green" industry corridor just east of downtown that would serve as a spawning ground for environmentally conscious businesses. The speech echoed Villaraigosa's message during his recent reelection campaign, when he promised to make Los Angeles "the greenest big city in America."

Over the last four years, Villaraigosa has pushed the Port of Los Angeles to replace up to 17,000 diesel trucks with cleaner-burning models. And at the Department of Water and Power, he has pressed officials to expand the utility's reliance on renewable sources of energy -- primarily wind, solar and geothermal power.

And that agenda could be scaled up to offer a new economic future for California. Villaraigosa selected longtime green activist David Freeman as his environmental deputy, and as a result you'll probably see some form of solar initiative along the lines of Measure B, which was defeated in March, come into law.

So there are glimmers here. But I will personally never forget Villaraigosa leaving town in 2006 for an 18-day Asian trip in the middle of the Schwarzenegger-Angelides race, and neglecting to even endorse Angelides until late in the campaign (and even then, not in Los Angeles). The Mayor has a few good ideas, has been less successful with the follow-through, and on the big structural issues has offered no vision of reform.

We still have no movement candidate in this race.

Special Election Fight Becoming Establishment v. Grassroots

The establishment in both parties continue to close ranks around the May 19 special election, even as the grassroots continues to reject it. Today Antonio Villaraigosa endorsed all six ballot measures, asserting that they will "bring stability back to California's budget system," like any artificial spending cap that forces spending $16-$20 billion dollars below initial baseline estimates during an economic crisis where state spending is needed urgently tends to do. Without question, Villaraigosa, a potential candidate for Governor, sees that giant pot of CTA money being tossed around in support of the measures and figures one of the candidates could draft off of that nicely in the primaries.

At the local level, more and more Democratic clubs are opposing the ballot measures, because unlike the establishment, they have read them and calculated that they would put the state in an objectively worse situation, and they are unmoved by the idle threats of Armageddon casually tossed out by the Governor and his minions. The dichotomy is both interesting and revealing.

Meanwhile, in maybe the lamest online initiative effort since the invention of Compuserve, Abel Maldonado's tears have created "Reform For Change," a site dedicated to the petty, self-righteous, useless Prop. 1F measure that would eliminate raises for lawmakers and staff during an economic downturn. In the silly video accompanying the site, Maldonado's tears tell us that "we can fundamentally reform California and change it forever," through apparently passing a .0001% change in funding for state lawmakers that is dealt with through an independent commission and not "the legislators themselves" (one of many lies on this site).

Sigh.

CA-Gov: Way-Too-Early-Field-Isn't-Even-Set Poll Coverage!

Two polls were actually released today on the 2010 California Governor's race. The Field Poll did an extensive poll of the race, including favorability ratings, and Lake Research, a Democratic firm, did their own poll which included some head-to-head matchups.

Field's poll included Dianne Feinstein and I don't think the results were all that great for her. In the primary she polls well under 50%, compared to earlier polls which had her closer to that number.

Dianne Feinstein: 38%
Jerry Brown: 16%
Antonio Villaraigosa: 16%
Gavin Newsom: 10%
John Garamendi: 4%
Steve Westly: 2%
Bill Lockyer: 1%
Jack O’Connell: 1%
Undecided: 12%

Considering she's the most well-known figure in California politics, and that there won't be that many competitors in the final field, that's not a runaway at all. Plus, her net favorables with the electorate (+23) are less than Jerry Brown's (+25), despite her being more well-known (Among just Democrats, her unfavs are slightly higher than Brown's but so are her faves). If anything, this shows that she would have a tough race, maybe too tough for her to want to try it rather than luxuriate in her position whitewashing Bush's war crimes on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Without DiFi in the race, it's a packed field. Here's Field's poll:

Jerry Brown: 26%
Antonio Villaraigosa: 22%
Gavin Newsom: 16%
John Garamendi: 8%
Steve Westly: 2%
Bill Lockyer: 2%
Jack O’Connell: 2%
Undecided: 22%

DiFi's votes are, then, basically evenly distributed. Lake's primary poll (they didn't poll with DiFi) was similar:

Jerry Brown: 27%
Antonio Villaraigosa: 20%
Gavin Newsom: 14%
John Garamendi: 8%
Steve Westly: 3%
Jack O’Connell: 1%
Undecided: 27%

Big undecideds there, and obviously Villaraigosa is benefiting from being the only SoCal candidate in the field, although given his re-election performance he may have some work to do with his southern base. As for everyone else, there's time, but they're all pretty far back.

The Republican primary? Nobody's heard of any of the candidates, and the undecideds are off the charts, but it's early.

Meg Whitman: 21%
Tom Campbell: 18%
Steve Poizner: 7%
Undecided: 54%

Surprised to see Campbell that close, but it's probably just name ID; he's run statewide before. At least 63% of all voters, and at least 67% of Republicans, have no impression whatsoever of any of these candidates. Their favorables are miniscule. Given that, Poizner and Whitman will have to spend a lot of their millions just to introduce themselves to the public.

Finally, Lake Research did some (selected) head-to-heads.

Brown: 41%
Poizner: 30%
Undecided: 29%

Brown: 43%
Whitman: 27%
Undecided: 30%

Newsom: 38%
Poizner: 29%
Undecided: 33%

Newsom: 40%
Whitman: 25%
Undecided: 35%

Long story short, DiFi wouldn't have a cakewalk, Villaraigosa appears to have strength based on geographic isolation, Brown looks well-positioned, nobody knows the Republicans, and any Democrat can win.

LA City Election Wrap-Up

First of all, the turnout was indeed 15%, down from 28% for the primary just four years ago. That's mainly due to the top of the ticket, which was competitive last time around and featured just Antonio Villaraigosa and a bunch of tomato cans this time. But I don't think Villaraigosa should be celebrating about his performance. Despite 4 years of work as the Mayor, despite a field of underfunded nobodies, he actually got LESS votes in 2009 than he did in 2005. His support has diminished and not increased. And the seas are about to get a lot choppier.

Flanked onstage by Weiss, sometime-rival City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo and labor leader Maria Elena Durazo, Villaraigosa turned to the mounting challenges ahead from the city's looming $1 billion deficit to the possibility of widespread layoffs.

"I know these are troubled times for many of our families -- you see I've traveled around the city for the past few months and I witnessed the anxiety rising," Villaraigosa said. "I have a simple message for Los Angeles tonight, we're going to rebound out of this economic crisis and we will emerge stronger than ever."

The guy who is less likely to emerge stronger than ever is Villaraigosa. He ended up with just 56% of the vote after running a dismissive non-campaign where he refused to debate and spent almost no time in the city. One of his top lieutenants, Jack Weiss, is now in a runoff for city attorney despite spending millions on his campaign. And Measure B, the solar power initiative which the mayor backed, is too close to call at this hour, as provisionals and late absentees are tabulated.

That's an objectively terrible performance. And it should stop the Mayor from thinking about his next campaign so quickly. The enduring image of the Villaraigosa tenure is a crane alongside a half-built skyscraper. He is full of good ideas that never get the follow-through they deserve. That's what this election was like - he was already thinking about the Governor's race before finishing his re-election campaign. This may now be a fatal blow, but it doesn't look good for him. The Mayor of Los Angeles is a challenging, maddeningly complex position. It would be nice if the current occupant paid more attention to it.

LA City Elections: Promise, Pitfalls, Potential For Change

Today is Election Day in LA City, and given the turnouts we've seen in other off-year elections, as well as the fact that the mayoral race, the biggest ticket on the ballot, is basically a coronation, turnout is likely to be very small, save for the wide-open 5th District City Council race, which is really anybody's to win (very unusual in LA politics). The expectation is about 15%. Despite the fact that Los Angeles actually has a fairly rich culture of political activism, from the Latino student sit-ins to recent Prop. 8 actions and hundreds more, the recent history is that city elections do not draw much of a crowd. That's a shame in a city that's larger than the total populations of many states, and it reduces accountability on the elected officials.

I don't live in Los Angeles, but I work here, and I have a conflicted view about the way the city runs. I think if every resident were forced to watch The Garden, the Oscar-nominated documentary about South Los Angeles residents being forcibly evicted from a community garden, nobody would vote for anyone currently on the City Council, least of all Mayor Villaraigosa. The film, almost a real-life version of The Wire, revealed a city government of backroom deals and power-brokers able to make their voices heard well beyond the needs of the community. You can add to that the rare bit of journalism from the LA Weekly about the City Council, and you could be convinced that the lack of accountability from the electoral process has bred a toxic atmosphere at City Hall. The likely consolidation of power that would result from Villaraigosa allies in the city attorney and city controller offices would lead you even closer to that conclusion.

Yet among the morass, there are some very earnest public servants trying to manage a very unwieldy city, with a host of unique problems and challenges that would vex any lawmaking body on Earth. Set aside this year's $1 billion dollar budget; the problems of immigration, gang violence, income inequality, traffic, health care, air pollution, education, and much, much more all converge in this city. From 10,000 feet these problems look intractable, and yet there are gradual, slow steps toward mitigation, and even areas where Los Angeles is a national model. The sales tax receipts from Measure R may finally bring sustainable transit infrastructure to fruition for more than a handful of the city's residents. The Green Trucks Program is an innovative, first-in-the-nation effort to bring labor and environmental groups together to reduce pollution, create living wage jobs and help save the planet. And the city's Green Jobs Training program is seen as so potentially game-changing that it was used as a model in a White House staff report from their Middle Class Task Force:

The City of Los Angeles has undertaken or is in the midst of undertaking several initiatives that, together, begin to constitute a model for how cities can maximize the benefits of “going green” for working families. As is often the case, necessity was the mother of policy innovation. A few years ago, the city faced a number of stark challenges including: a state renewable energy mandate (a statewide “portfolio standard” requiring 20% renewable energy by 2017) and a state cap on greenhouse gas emissions; an impending shortage of skilled construction workers; entrenched poverty and joblessness in many low-income neighborhoods; and toxic levels of diesel pollution that were imposing huge health costs and blocking the growth of the nation’s largest port complex.

In the past year, Los Angeles has adopted a comprehensive approach to redevelopment which will ensure that city-subsidized development projects are built green and serve as vehicles for moving low-income residents into middle-class construction careers. The Port of Los Angeles has also begun to implement a comprehensive solution to freight-related air pollution that will increase efficiency, enhance security, and improve work conditions and living standards for port truck drivers. Most important is the fact that these initiatives are being undertaken on a large scale: the city’s construction policy is expected to impact 15,000 jobs over five years while the Clean Trucks Program (discussed below) could affect as many as 16,000 port truck drivers.

In 2008, the City of Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) adopted a landmark policy designed to protect the environment, safeguard the interests of taxpayers, and ensure that city-supported projects create good construction jobs and career pathways for city residents. The Construction Careers and Project Stabilization Policy establishes minimum labor standards and a process for avoiding labor disruptions by means of a master agreement between the CRA and local building trades unions. The policy requires participating contractors and unions to make construction job opportunities available to local residents, including individuals who face barriers to employment such as a criminal record or a limited education.

The policy is being implemented alongside a requirement that large subsidized projects meet the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards. In this way, city leaders have begun to lay the foundations for building a green-collar construction workforce in Los Angeles. The UCLA Center for Labor Research and Education
projects that the policy will make at least 5,000 apprentice-level construction jobs available to residents of neighborhoods with high levels of unemployment over the next five years. At least 1,500 jobs are expected to go to individuals who might otherwise remain homeless, unemployed, dependent on welfare programs, or caught up in the criminal justice system. But the most important result of the Construction Careers policy will be to leverage public investments in economic development to turn short-term jobs into long-term careers in the construction industry.

I wish there was more structural accountability in Los Angeles, from the Mayor on down. I wish the city wasn't so dominated by big-city machine politics and red-letter projects that often fail to follow through on their promise. And where criticism is warranted, I'm sure to be first in line. But Los Angeles is a very complex and hard-to-pigeonhole place, and that is true of its politics as well.

An Evening With Some Community Organizers

Last night I had the pleasure of attending the 15th Anniversary Awards Dinner for LAANE (The Los Angeles Alliance For A New Economy), which brought 1,000 people to the Beverly Hilton (including Mayor Villaraigosa, Sean Penn, and more) and raised $500,000 for their cause. I know I get depressed reading about endless budget fights and cutbacks to schools and health care, so it's important to take comfort (and some valuable lessons) in those doing important work - and fighting some of the most powerful and entrenched interests in the city and the country - and winning.

LAANE is a group dedicated to fighting for economic and environmental justice by building coalitions and waging campaigns to improve the lives of people in underserved and at-risk communities. Their success stories include some of the most astonishing victories of the last decade - the living-wage campaign in Los Angeles, the (eventually) successful grocery worker's strike, the campaign to keep Wal-Mart out of Inglewood in 2004, the fight for justice for hotel workers near LAX. More recently, they achieved success with a landmark blue-green alliance of nearly 40 environmental groups, community organizers and labor organizations like the Teamsters, to clean up the Port of Los Angeles, which resulted in a huge victory for clean air and clean water which will also provide good-paying sustainable jobs for truck drivers. The Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports is a model for the nation, to combine economic security and respect for the environment at the ports, and Chuck Mack & Jim Santangelo from the Teamsters were honored last night (sporting leis flown in by a Teamster rep from Hawaii).

Another of their campaigns is the "Construction Career Policy," dedicated to providing local residents in low-income communities the opportunity to get middle-class, union construction jobs on projects happening in their area. This has resulted in thousands of jobs for at-risk and underserved communities of color, and the goal is for 15,000 jobs over the next 5 years. Mayor Villaraigosa presented Cora Davis, a construction business owner and leading advocate for the program, with an award.

Finally, in the wake of the movie "Milk," many are remembering the work of Cleve Jones, an activist in San Francisco during the era and the leader of the AIDS Quilt Project. Today, Jones is a community organizer working for UNITE HERE, and he has worked with LAANE on their campaigns to create living-wage jobs and improve working conditions for the 3,500 hotel workers around LAX Airport. Sean Penn, who became friendly with Jones over the last year working on "Milk," presented him with an award for his service. In his speech, Jones talked about these noble working-class people, many of them immigrants, "the ones who are serving you dinner tonight," and he paid tribute to their struggle and dignity. He also had a few words to say about the passage of Prop. 8, which left him heartbroken and drew eerie parallels to the Prop. 6 campaign he worked on with Harvey Milk in 1978. But, Jones said, the real parallel moment is 1964, a time when civil rights for African-Americans in the Deep South appeared remote. "Now is the time for Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to sign a new Civil Rights Act restoring fundamental rights for every American in this country." It's not the tactic you hear from the leading gay rights organizations, but Cleve doesn't hold much of a brief for them either:

The new (gay rights) activists have impressed some gay rights veterans.

“They’ve shown a clear ability to turn out large numbers of people,” said Cleve Jones, a longtime gay rights advocate and labor organizer. “It’s also clear that they are skeptical of the established L.G.B.T. organizations. And I would say they have reason to be.”

Overall, it was inspiring to see a community-based organization so dedicated to restoring fairness, justice, dignity and respect to a part of a population that frequently doesn't have a voice in political affairs, and more important, to see them get results. LAANE is doing some great work.

Looking Beyond Funding In Education Reform

The fairly spectacular flameout of LAUSD superintendent Adm. David Brewer, hailed as a savior for the district just two years ago and now on the verge of being fired by the school board, could perhaps provide a valuable lesson to progressives about education policy. Too often the focus is solely on finances - protecting education funding, fighting fee hikes at colleges and universities, spending X amount per classroom. These are noble and important goals, with far-reaching effects; a report today shows that college may become unaffordable for the vast majority of incoming students, which is totally unacceptable and would cause a virtual caste system in this country. But Brewer's tenure shows the pitfalls of this focus at the expense of proper management and development, which is simply a disaster in Los Angeles, the state's largest school district and one of the largest in the nation. A lot of it has to do with internal politics. Antonio Villaraigosa spent millions to put his acolytes on the school board, and Brewer was seen as a legacy of the past. There was a Solomonic gesture to make everyone happy, and it made things worse.

Eventually, Brewer's accumulated missteps -- and his dismaying lack of prowess -- led to an arrangement in which he ceded much of his authority while preserving the illusion of his leadership, a revision of his job description that avoided roiling the city's ever-tenuous racial politics. Senior Deputy Supt. Ramon C. Cortines was hired in April to oversee academic matters for the district, while Brewer continued to preside over administrative matters such as payroll and construction; Brewer also acts as a public figurehead and attends the protracted board meetings. This is classic Los Angeles politics: Administrative and racial comity is achieved by paying two superintendent-level salaries for one complete superintendent-level package. It also typifies all that is wrong with L.A. Unified. The district protects administrators who fail rather than students whose futures depend on a solid education.

For his part, Brewer was overconfident about his ability to navigate the political shoals that lay ahead. Shortly after starting his job, he was confronted with an enormous payroll snafu, as a new computer system put in place by his predecessor repeatedly spat out inaccurate checks -- for months, some teachers were overpaid, some paid not at all. Though Brewer tackled the problem competently, he also compounded it, first by trying to blame district employees for the mess and then by hiring expensive and ineffectual public relations consultants to spin a new image for the district.

On Which Way, LA last night, one guest reported that the Administrative newsletter had to be scaled back to a 10th-grade reading level because it was causing difficulties for the TEACHERS. And there were a lot of horror stories about the composition of the district political architecture itself. These are not all questions of finance, and many positive steps could be achieved for students without an appreciable amount of funding, or cutting back on needless public relations spending. This CAP report about teacher tenure and high-poverty schools might be a good place to start.

I think we need to have a broader conversation about education policy than "protect our school money," is all I'm saying.

Post-Election Comings And Goings For LA-Area Lawmakers

A couple weeks ago I wrote about three looming battles that we had to think about after the election. Two of them have already fizzled. The open primary ballot initiative filed with the state has been withdrawn. That's probably because the Governor wanted to present it himself, so we'll see where that goes, and a lot of it might have to do with whether or not Prop. 11 actually passes. Second, Bush Republican and rich developer Rick Caruso decided against running for Mayor of Los Angeles against Antonio Villaraigosa. There is now no credible candidate running against the incumbent. Caruso may figure that Villaraigosa is primed for bigger and better things (he's in Washington today with President-Elect Obama's council of economic advisers), and if Villaraigosa vacates the seat he'd have a better shot of capturing it.

However, there are a couple other looming battles that are out there. First, Jane Harman, Congresswoman from the 36th Congressional District, is in line for a top intelligence post with the Obama Administration, and the odds are extremely likely that she'd take it. Laura Rozen has a profile here. After a tough primary against Marcy Winograd in 2006, Harman has been a moderately better vote in Congress, but this represents a real opportunity to put a progressive in that seat. Winograd has recently moved into the district, and would certainly be my first choice if it comes open (or if it doesn't - Harman voted for the FISA bill this year).

The other major news is that Henry Waxman, my Congressman, is looking to oust John Dingell from his post atop the Energy and Commerce Committee. This is a long time coming, and I don't think Waxman would go for it without the support of the Speaker. The Dingellsaurus, while a decent liberal on most issues (and also a former representative of mine in Ann Arbor, MI), has blocked progress on climate change and modernizing the auto industry for years. We were finally able to get a modest increase in CAFE standards last year, but Waxman, who wrote the Clean Air Act of 1990, would obviously be a major step up. And with the auto industry on life support and asking for handouts as a result of the old ways of doing business, it's clearly time for a Democratic committee chair who isn't protecting their interests at the expense of the planet. Waxman's "Safe Climate Act" introduced last year would mandate a cut in greenhouse gases of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. That's exactly the right attitude from the committee chair, and with energy issues obviously so crucial in an Obama Administration, we need someone in that post who recognizes the scope of the problem. It should also be clear that the committee has likely jurisdiction over health care reform.

Grist has a lot more on this story.

Three Looming Battles in California

I know that we all have to be focused on the final eight days of this election, and I'm committed to bringing a great victory for Senator Obama, wins up and down our Congressional and legislative targets, and progressive values embodied in passing high speed rail and beating back the extremism of Props. 4, 6, 8, and 9. But there are some events on the near-term horizon that we all need to be aware of going forward. The challenge does not end on November 4. Eternal vigilance, price of liberty, etc.

• Rick Caruso, a right-wing Bush Republican developer who created the great eyesore that is The Grove in Los Angeles along with Americana at Brand in Glendale, is seriously considering a run for LA Mayor. Right now, there will either be a legitimate election between Caruso and Antonio Villaraigosa, or Villaraigosa will win in a walk. Caruso, a billionaire, says he will make the decision by the end of the week. Caruso would certainly self-fund and would have the ability to basically buy the seat if he were so inclined. Richard Riordan was able to win as a Republican and I have no doubt that Caruso could as well. He'd play it moderate on social issues over which the mayor has no jurisdiction, and mask his true colors as a right-wing plutocrat. As we head into an economic downturn, Caruso would be simply horrendous for the biggest city in the state.

• Not only has Arnold Schwarzenegger already tipped off his next move after redistricting reform (and he shouldn't be counting his chickens), but the ballot initiative has already been filed. A measure calling for open primaries has been handed in to the Secretary of State. Instead of a primary where the top vote-getter in each party would move to the general election, open primaries would move the top two regardless of party into the general. Candidates would also be allowed to remove their party affiliation from the ballot. The Governor's office is saying they have nothing to do with this filing, but color me skeptical. We've already beaten the open primary concept at the ballot box at least once in recent years. The political culture is already too diffuse to allow a candidate to hide their party affiliation at the ballot, and the success of this idea in providing competition to the political process is more than mixed.

• And then there's the Governor's race in 2010. That gadfly Willie Brown is telling anyone who will listen that Dianne Feinstein is a legitimate candidate and is seriously considering the race:

She didn't tell me outright that she's running. She talked a lot about how she wanted to make sure the Democrats have 60 seats in the Senate after Nov. 4 so they and Barack Obama will be filibuster-proof - assuming he's elected as well.

But she didn't talk about staying in the Senate, either.

She talked about how things are supposed to work between the Legislature and the governor, and she wondered why they aren't working these days - and did I have any formula for fixing it?

She even brought notes. I don't know who prepared them, but somebody had done what appeared to be a detailed briefing paper on the state of California, including its finances.

It was not the kind of information you'd be seeking unless you figured that dealing with that mess might soon be your job.

Good thing she's asking Willie Brown on how to fix Sacramento. I'm sure that appealing to the state's high Broderists would be the only way she would ever govern. God forbid she ask her constituents.

Let me be perfectly clear. Dianne Feinstein cannot be allowed to ever assume the Governor's mansion. She has stabbed Democrats in the back time and again in the US Senate and would only do the same as Governor. A perfect example of this is her cutting an ad for No on Prop. 5, putting her face out in front of a position DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to the consensus view of the state Democratic Party. It's not surprising; DiFi is the original "tough on crime" Democrat, and policies like the ones she advocates have caused a terrible crisis in our prisons where we are routinely violating the Constitutional rights of our citizens and bankrupting the state to pay for this warehousing. And yes, Jerry Brown's no good on this either; there's a political class of Democrats that think being tough on crime is the right thing to do, despite thirty years' worth of failure reflected in our current prison mess.

Compare this to our other Senator from the state and how she's been busying herself this campaign season - raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for potential Senate colleagues, sending a mass email to her entire list urging a No vote on Prop. 8 (good for Sen. Boxer) and writing the Treasury Department to demand that the government backstop the bad deals of AIG that would absolutely cripple public transit across the state. That's what a Senator that has respect for her constituents would do, not the contempt that Sen. Feinstein shows.

So, those are the looming battles.

Same Old Parochial Politics Destroying Progress on LA Transit

Jenny Oropeza is a by all accounts a fairly good progressive Senator, but she's dead wrong on her threat to shut down the proposed ballot measure raising the LA city sales tax by a 1/2 cent to pay for transit projects, because her pet project won't get funded.

State Sen. Jenny Oropeza put it in no uncertain terms when I spoke to her late this Friday afternoon: she is prepared to kill the bill that would allow a half-cent sales tax increase to go on the November ballot in Los Angeles County to pay for road and transit projects.

“I said in order for the bill to pass the Senate, it is going to have to contain the Green Line extension,” Oropeza, (D-Long Beach), told me. “They” — Los Angeles County transportation officials — “understood that. They are playing a game of chicken and blaming the Legislature. I am praying to God they do the right thing. I don’t want to see this thing go down either.”

I asked her if she was prepared to try to kill the bill — and any chance of a vote in November. Oropeza firmly answered: “Yes I am.”

The most bizarre thing about this is that the Green Line extension is in the proposed ballot language. But she wants more of a guarantee. So she's prepared to undermine the entire set of transit projects - which would improve air quality, lower demand for gas, expand transit, enhance the reputation of transit as successful so that future projects can be built, reduce greenhouse gas emisssions, improve quality of life, etc. - because of silly parochialism.

I don't want to make it look like this is limited to Oropeza. Some of our favorite lawmakers - State Sen. Gil Cedillo, Rep. Hilda Solis - have expressed opposition to the project, for largely the same reasons - that not enough of the transit projects in the proposal go specifically to their districts. But on this one, I have to agree with Mayor Villaraigosa.

"The problem in Sacramento is that there are some who want to engage in the pork barrel politics of asking for even more money than has been distributed for their pet projects," Villaraigosa added later [...] using several maps and visuals, the mayor also said the sales tax revenues would be spent on an equitable basis when factors such as employment density and need are taken into consideration. "On the Westside, there are four times as many jobs than there are homes and people."

The traffic crisis in Southern California is not going to be solved overnight. There are specific need areas which are literally impossible to manage by car right now and are completely underserved by transit. A successful show of support for transit now will only improve prospects for better transit possibilities in the future. Which projects ought to be included or delayed is an important decision, but I frankly don't trust legislators with their own agendas to make it. And almost every one of them is playing this backwards-thinking, anti-progressive, reductionist parochial game where they judge the dollars their district will get against what another district will get and scream bloody murder if they come up a dollar short. That's maddening, especially considering that if the sales tax is dropped from the ballot, nobody gets any funding.

Oropeza responded to the Mayor dismissively, taking objection to the characterization of "porkbarrel politics" and leaving the outcome unclear on AB2321, the vote in the legislature that would allow the sales tax hike to go to the November ballot. The Senate Appropriations Committee vote is scheduled for today, and nobody really knows what the outcome will be. Labor, which appears to be on board with the increase (at least the building and construction portions of the coalition), will be watching Oropeza and Cedillo's votes very closely today.

Mayor Villaraigosa's Good Week

I consider Antonio Villaraigosa's term as mayor to be generally a disappointment. Brought into office with a lot of hope and even more hype, Villaraigosa has certainly made his way around the city, the nation and the world, appearing at every event from the biggest gala to random neighborhood picnics, but he hasn't gotten a whole lot done other than commandeering the school board. It's as hard to govern Los Angeles as it has California, but the energy and enthusiasm Villaraigosa has for the job seems to be an end in itself, and it certainly isn't channeled into an agenda that can be at all considered progressive.

However, this has been a pretty good week for him. He started by presiding over his first same-sex marriage, which may have been a political calculation but still reflects his abiding belief in equality, so I applaud it. Then, he announced his support of a half-cent sales tax hike to fund mass transit. Big-city mayors are obviously sensitive to transit issues, but Villaraigosa is making sure they are prioritized. This could be a reaction to a Metro Board study that showed on-time rates to be among the worst in the nation. The Metro Board has hired ten more supervisors in response to that, and yesterday they drafted the proposal for the sales tax increase for the November ballot as part of a 25-year plan. If Villaraigosa, who sits on the Metro Board and appoints three other members, can make himself the poster child for expanded transit, and transform LA from a car city to a more vibrant transit culture, he will have left a positive legacy.

Finally, Villaraigosa's LAPD successfully fought a court challenge over its policy banning officers from "initiating contact with people for the sole purpose of learning their immigration status." It's a resource question but also one about the kind of city we want to be, one that is humane and respects the dignity of our people or one like an Eastern Bloc nation constantly asking everyone for their papers and engages in ethnic profiling. The LAPD now has the legal right to continue their policy.

The Mayor certainly has higher aspirations, and with some more weeks like this, he may actually deserve them.

The California Report

I have a focus on California politics, as you may know. Here are some links that I've picked up along the way this week:

• Assemblymember and former Banking Committee Chair Ted Lieu had a good piece yesterday on the foreclosure crisis and how continuing a laissez-faire attitude toward a deregulated lending industry is a recipe for even more disaster. AB 1830 is the vehicle to crack down on irresponsible lenders and ban risky loans.

• Steve Wiegand writes about the circuitous route the Governor has taken this year, first toward fiscal austerity, then toward revenue enhancement, and everywhere in between. Schwarzenegger is completely squeezed, knowing his legacy and reputation is on the line and at his wit's end over how to bridge the chasm between Republican intransigence and a way forward for California.

• The California Labor Fed has released its endorsements for legislative races. Not a lot of surprises here, nor a lot of variance from the CDP endorsements, although Carole Migden and Bob Blumenfield didn't see their endorsements vacated on the convention floor. The Labor Fed can endorse multiple candidates in one race, which allows them to wiggle out of some of the more contested primaries (in AD-14 they actually had a TRIPLE endorsement). The Labor Fed does bring member education, and in some cases money and volunteers, so it's not a little thing.

• Wired's Autopia looks at LA's future in mobility. In a word, I would call the report frustrating. It's basically going to take forever until the city truly has the transit system it deserves; right now, just 7% of the city uses mass transit.

• Mayor Villaraigosa takes a strong stand against ICE raids.

"I am concerned that ICE enforcement actions are creating an impression that this region is somehow less hospitable to these critical businesses than other regions," Villaraigosa wrote in a March 27 letter to Michael Chertoff, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security [...]

In his letter, Villaraigosa said ICE has targeted "established, responsible employers" in industries that have a "significant reliance on workforces that include undocumented immigrants."

"In these industries, including most areas of manufacturing, even the most scrupulous and responsible employers have no choice but to rely on workers whose documentation, while facially valid, may raise questions about their lawful presence," he wrote. He said ICE should spend its limited resources targeting employers who exploit wage and hour laws.

"At a time when we are facing an economic downturn and gang violence at epidemic levels, the federal government should focus its resources on deporting criminal gang members rather than targeting legitimate businesses," said Matt Szabo, the mayor's spokesman.

In general I agree with worksite rules enforcement, but the issue does seem to be out of proportion and balance. It's selective.

• This is a really interesting and refreshingly honest article by Brad Plumer on the SEIU/UHW situation.

The Green-Blue Alliance

This did not get the attention it deserved.

The Los Angeles Harbor Commission on Thursday unanimously approved a clean air plan requiring shipping companies to buy and maintain a modernized fleet of big rigs and employ thousands of independent truckers who currently operate under contract.

A spokesman for the American Trucking Assn. derided the plan as a "scheme to unionize port drivers" and vowed that his group would sue the port. Spokesman Curtis Whalen said the plan violates court rulings allowing the trucking industry unrestricted access to markets nationwide.

Nonetheless, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa told about 300 truckers at Banning's Landing Community Center in Wilmington, "It's a great day. In a few months from now, your children will begin to breathe easier, and so will your grandchildren.

"Today, Los Angeles has said enough is enough," he added. "When 1,200 lives are cut short every year by a barrage of diseases, ranging from emphysema to cancer of the mouth, we have a moral obligation to act fast."

It's a big deal that the labor-enviro alliance, under the Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports worked and was able to push this through. There's more at Matt Yglesias' blog.

Labor has been at the forefront of practically every progressive advance in the past century. The fact that they're jumping aboard the environmental issues, which you would have thought impossible, is extremely meaningful.

Villaraigosa's Response To A Budget Crisis

Antonio is still a favorite to be the next governor, so this is a unique opportunity to see how he'd respond to a budget crisis:

Faced with a budget shortfall that has doubled in three months, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa called Monday for paring city spending by suspending most hiring, asking thousands of workers to take unpaid furloughs and selling vacant fire stations [...]

Despite the troubling financial situation, Villaraigosa pledged to continue his 1,000-officer expansion of the Los Angeles Police Department -- an effort he called key to attracting business, even if it means cutting other services such as street paving and graffiti removal.

"My priority has got to be public safety," Villaraigosa said at a City Hall news conference. "Keeping the city safe is the answer to how we support revenues."

Villaraigosa outlined $35 million in cuts as he made a pitch for Proposition S, a telephone users utility tax that is expected to generate $243 million annually. Voters will decide the issue next Tuesday, and the mayor has been arguing that the city will have to slash public safety services if the measure fails.

So, fairly flat taxes to fund public safety (which is among the bigger expenditures for a mayor), a threat to cut public safety if it fails, and cuts across the board beyond that. It's not perfect to apply this to what he would do in the Governor's chair, because the state obviously has a far better opportunity to raise revenue. But it's food for thought.

LAPD: "Our Bad"

You don't see this kind of a report from a government agency every day.

In a scathing self-critique, the LAPD on Tuesday blamed the May 1 MacArthur Park melee involving officers, immigration protesters and journalists on a series of fateful decisions by police commanders that escalated hostilities and resulted in a widespread breakdown in discipline and behavior by officers.

The findings, contained in a long-awaited report by top police officials, come as Police Chief William J. Bratton announced that at least 26 officers participating in the incident are under internal investigation and could face discipline for using excessive force.

The report is the latest effort by Bratton and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to quell widespread outcry over the incident, in which TV news footage showed officers swinging batons and firing less-than-lethal rounds at journalists as well as immigration rights protesters gathered at the park for an afternoon rally.

The melee left 246 journalists and protesters as well as 18 officers with injuries, and more than 250 legal claims have been filed against the city. Los Angeles County prosecutors and the FBI are continuing to investigate the case.

The LAPD is far more given to whitewash than this. You actually have to hand it to both Bratton and Villaraigosa so far for talking this straight. Now comes the hard part. There has to be real disciplinary action taken against those who decided to take up arms against the protesters. Individual officers must be held accountable. Some of the higher-ups, like Deputy Chief Lee Carter, were demoted (he eventually resigned). And Bratton has accepted responsibility, saying "I, as chief of police, regret deeply that this occurred on my watch." But that statement has to have some force behind it.

George Skelton Sayin' What We All Been Thinkin'

George Skelton, pretty much the only state political columnist at the LA Times, is charitable toward Antonio Villaraigosa by using his recent marital troubles as a partial reason, but he really speaks the truth that he's wasted his time in the Mayor's office:

"Ultimately, Antonio will be judged by voters based on their perception of the job he is doing as mayor," says Democratic strategist Darry Sragow.

That's what many people have told reporters: They don't care what a politician does in private. What counts is what he does for them.

OK, a lot of Angelenos are waiting. The mayor better get crackin'.

Get that subway-to-the-sea moving.

Really bust up some gangs, not just stage photo-ops.

That failed school takeover fiasco was a waste of time and political clout. Why would a new mayor allow himself to make so many enemies in his first major endeavor?

I'm beginning to understand. He was distracted.

The mayor has a list of accomplishments about as long as the average Quick Hit. Literally, the list that the Mayor's office was going to put out included his hosting American Indian Heritage Month.

Not that Indian heritage isn't noble, but it gives one the sense of grasping at straws.

This affair of Villaraigosa's may damage him nationally, but locally, the damage is being done every day he fails to deliver on his promises.

Fare Increases on Those Who Can Least Afford It

After a raucous meeting in downtown LA, where FIFTEEN HUNDRED bus riders converged to protest, the Metropolitan Transit Authority nevertheless approved sweeping fare increases for bus and rail riders, though not as high as their initial plans. But it's a significant increase, with rates going up around 50% for most riders over the next two years. The meeting included fiery exchanges, not only between the citizens giving testimony, but between the LA County Board of Supervisors and the Mayor (all of whom sit on the MTA Board of Directors).

The decision by the MTA's Board of Directors marks a stinging defeat for Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who had tried to broker a compromise that would have raised most fares only 5% a year. But the board roundly rejected the mayor's proposal, saying it would leave the agency with a deep operating deficit and would delay future rail projects [...]

Villaraigosa was hoping to bring the board together on a compromise that would soften the blow for riders. Instead, he drew strong criticism from Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who called the mayor's stance disingenuous.

During a heated exchange, Yaroslavsky said Villaraigosa had indicated that he would support a fare increase in a closed session last summer after the MTA board agreed to a new contract with bus drivers and mechanics.

A visibly angry Villaraigosa shot back, accusing Yaroslavsky of mischaracterizing private conversations and then lashing out at the supervisor for sitting in his office while the mayor was in Sacramento on Wednesday trying to get more transportation funding.

Villaraigosa then said Yaroslavsky didn't have the courage to propose his own fare increases, calling him a "sheep who walks in wolf's clothing."

For the record, the Mayor's final proposal would have included lots of borrowing to deal with the MTA's major operating deficit (sounds like Schwarzonomics to me).

The problem is that state and federal funding for mass transit continue to stagnate while California continues to build more roads. And it's evident why this happens when you hear the median income for Los Angeles' bus and rail riders:

An MTA survey showed that the median household income of rail riders is $22,000 a year, compared with $12,000 for bus riders.

That's well below the poverty line for bus riders. Those people don't have lobbyists in Sacramento or Washington. They don't throw fundraisers in their homes for Presidential candidates. They have their own voice, and they used it in force yesterday (1,500 people at a municipal meeting is astounding), but in the end it didn't matter.

As I've said before, a budget is a moral document. What you prioritize for spending suggests what you value in society. In a time freighted with the threat of global warming, we should be prioritizing mass transit and smart growth extremely, not making it harder for the people already using mass transit to afford it.

Steve Lopez has a great column about this rate hike, a compromise that will do nothing in the long term.

I shouldn't pin all the blame on the MTA, even though it's tempting after the defeat of Villaraigosa's proposal had him sniping with fellow board member Zev Yaroslavsky to the benefit of no one. State and federal officials are culprits in the collective failure to support transit, despite the growing social and economic cost of congestion and pollution-related illness. Where's bold, creative leadership when you need it?

Would the option of a few high-speed toll lanes for Los Angeles motorists raise enough money to buy the buses the MTA needs?

Is it time to mandate that large companies offer transit vouchers to employees and eliminate free parking?

Does the efficiency of smaller transit systems in Santa Monica, Culver City and the foothill cities suggest that the MTA should be broken into smaller regional agencies?

Is it time to increase the 18-cent federal gas tax or use more of it to fund transit?

Should developers get bigger incentives for building near transit centers? [...]

It's time for the MTA board and the Southern California Assn. of Governments to lead a discussion on these kinds of solutions and fight for their support here, in Sacramento and Washington. As it is, they're on a slow bus to nowhere.

Bus fares is an issue that typically has very little impact on politicians whose voters aren't typically riding them. But it should. Urban planning is one of the most important issues of the 21st century, and how we go about it will affect the very health of this planet. There will be resistance, and when nobody speaks for the bus rider, not just by borrowing to keep fares down but by prioritizing a sea change in how we transport ourselves, the resisters will win. And the working poor will lose.

LA May Day Rally Update

The FBI will investigate the LAPD's conduct in firing rubber bullets to disperse the crowd at the end of Tuesday's immigration rally, and everybody is doing their best to distance themselves from the incident and show that they're doing something about it.

Authorities have launched several investigations into the Police Department's actions at Tuesday's rally at MacArthur Park, where police fired 240 rubber bullets. Video images of the incident were broadcast worldwide.

"I was very disturbed by what I saw," (LA Mayor Antonio) Villaraigosa told reporters in Mexico City on Thursday.

The FBI said Thursday it would open an inquiry into whether the officers' conduct violated citizens' civil rights.

Prior to the FBI announcement, Police Chief William J. Bratton had said he would inquire whether an FBI probe was possible.

"I have no issues with the FBI coming in ... and taking a look at it," he said.

The FBI probe is the fourth official investigation of the incident. The Police Department opened two investigations almost immediately after the violence, one to create an "after-action report" that evaluates planning and operations, and another by internal affairs to probe complaints against officers.

The mayor even left Mexico early to deal with the public relations fallout. See, he means business!

The LAPD doesn't exactly have a sterling record with regard to police brutality, and the tensions inherent in that kind of scenario, with a few agitators on one side and an armed force on the other, with the addition of the emotional nature of the immigration debate, made this more possible. Investigations are nice, but this kind of thing happens because of training and rules of engagement. I guarantee you that the police officers didn't do anything wrong in the eyes of their superiors, and that's the problem.