The Sanford-ization of the Yacht Party

The federal stimulus package would offer two years' worth of money to cover expanded unemployment insurance for the states if they agree to change eligibility rules governing who can receive benefits. This is sound public policy to use federal money as a lever to make these changes, because America is a terrible place to lose your job under current law. Most people don't qualify for unemployment insurance, the benefit is stingy, and economic downturns become nightmares because of the lack of automatic stabilizers and a social safety net. So anything to encourage change to this system is positive. Not to mention the fact that giving money to people that will spend it has a high multiplier, making unemployment benefit expansion very good stimulus. Even extending the benefit by 20 weeks, which the Assembly proposed yesterday, is solid stimulus, and the money would come entirely from the federal government, making it essentially a free chance to boost the economy.

So of course, the Yacht Party wants to block it.

Republican lawmakers on Monday rejected the state's first federal stimulus-related bill to extend unemployment benefits by 20 weeks.

The bill, which fell short by one vote in the Assembly, would have pulled as much as $3 billion from the federal government. Lawmakers were expected to take up the bill again soon.

A second bill to ease eligibility was passed on a simple majority and will move along a slower legislative track.

Democrats accused Republicans of hampering California's economic recovery efforts by refusing to support a no-brainer bill to draw billions of dollars from the federal government.

"Talk about job killing," said Assemblywoman Mary Salas, D-Chula Vista. "Say no to this and you're really hurting the business community."

With respect to the "second bill," the Yacht Party argument is that expanding eligibility will eventually increase the tax burden on businesses to pay for the new eligibility expansion come 2012. But if no legislation passes by July 1, California will leave as much as $3.8 BILLION dollars on the table that could go to people who will jump-start consumer spending in their communities, saving jobs among small businesses in the retail sector. In other words, worrying about marginal tax increases in three years comes at the cost of losing jobs and destroying businesses right now.

This is what Governors throughout the South are doing, putting the interests of their ideology ahead of the public at large. It's the Sanford-ization of the Yacht Party. And sadly enough, they don't even have the courage of their convictions. The final vote on the bill was 53-9. 18 Yacht Party cowards took a walk rather than recording a vote against giving people an extension of unemployment benefits.

And to pick up a earlier argument, the reason this bill can be subject to a conservative veto, at least with expanding eligibility, is that it would raise business taxes eventually. This has nothing to do with any budget resolutions. So changing the two-thirds requirement on the budget without a concurrent repeal of two-thirds on taxes would leave you in the same position with respect to this bill. Furthermore, Yacht Party members will characterize a 2/3 change on the budget as a prelude to tax increases anyway.

Politicians in Sacramento have suggested watering down Proposition 13 by eliminating the two-thirds voting requirement for passing a budget bill. In fact, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said this even as they passed the largest tax increases in California’s history.

Make no mistake about it: if we had weakened Prop 13 and made it easier to raise taxes this most recent budget would have hiked taxes higher on all Californians while preserving even more wasteful government spending.

This is gobbledygook logic, which combines Prop. 13 provisions on taxes with the 2/3 rule on the budget. But that would be the argument from the opposition. You can either point out that "no, we don't want to change the tax rule," adopting a purely defensive position, or you can argue "Yes, California is worth paying for, and denying poor people food or health care is abhorrent and we have to find solutions without putting the least of society at risk," adopting an offensive position.

The consequences of the former can be seen in this debate - leaving free money on the table because of the conservative veto.

Campaign Update: CA-11, AD-80, SD-19, AD-15, AD-30, LA Board of Supes

Here's what's happening on the campaign trail.

• CA-11: Apparently trying to win some kind of award for the worst attack website in history, Jon Fleischman of the Flash Report (a terribly designed website in its own right) has put together One Term Is Enough, in all of its way-too-large masthead, ridiculously-spare with no action items or columns, design out of Quark X-Press glory. Man, that's ugly. And I think the focus on Jerry McNerney's earmarks, given the summer of scandal that Dean Andal has lived through which is entirely about a construction contract with a community college (if he was in Congress, that would be, basically, an earmark), is kind of silly. Meanwhile, McNerney is up with his first ad of the cycle, focusing on his work on behalf of troops and veterans.

• AD-80: As soyinkafan noted, Manuel Perez and Gary Jeandron had a debate where Jeandron stated his support for a tax increase in Imperial County. That's not likely to help him with the conservative base, but clearly Jeandron understands that he has to move to left if he has any chance to win this seat. The Palm Springs Desert Sun has a debate report here.

• SD-19: Tony Strickland's latest endorsement is Erin Brockovich, of all people. However, this could be less of a reach across the aisle as it appears.

Ventura County Star columnist Timm Herdt got Strickland's Democratic opponent Hannah-Beth Jackson on the phone, who said she was "a little surprised" by Brockovich backing her opponent.

While Brockovich says she is a Democrat in the ad, she writes on her blog that she's ready to leave the party and become an independent.

"I am ready to turn because both parties are acting foolish and judgmental and attacking," she writes.

She also has kind words for GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

"I am proud to be a member of the same Strong Woman's Club that Sarah Palin is in." Brockovich writes.

• AD-15: As has been noted, Joan Buchanan released her first campaign ad of the cycle. Her opponent Abram Wilson responded with his own ad, also biographical in nature, and his campaign has questioned the Buchanan spot and her commitment to fiscal responsibility. I suppose signing a "no-tax" pledge is the height of responsibility, then.

• AD-30: We were all expecting it, and now Nicole Parra has officially endorsed Republican Danny Gilmore in the election to replace her. This is a family fight moved into the political sphere - the Parra-Florez feud is well-known.

Parra's support of Danny Gilmore angered Democratic Party leaders, but comes as no surprise because she has been praising Gilmore for months.

"I will endorse Danny Gilmore in the near future and I will campaign for him and do commercials," Parra said in an interview. Gilmore, a retired California Highway Patrol officer from Hanford, is running against Democrat Fran Florez, mother of state Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, a longtime Parra rival.

• LA Board of Supes: Turns out that not only is Bernard Parks turning to Republicans to help him get elected over progressive State Sen. Mark Ridley-Thomas, but for ten years he was a member of the American Independent Party (!).

According to voter registration forms certified by the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder:

Bernard Parks left the Democratic Party and registered as an American Independent on February 12, 1992 – just in time to miss the opportunity to vote for President Bill Clinton.

He registered again as an American Independent on August 9, 1996.

President George Bush was elected in November 2000 – but Parks still wouldn’t become a Democrat for nearly a year and a half.

Parks was fired as Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department on April 9, 2002. Shortly thereafter, he began to prepare to run for Los Angeles City Council, and re-registered as a Democrat on May 30, 2002. Less than a year later, he was elected to the City Council.

That is very strange, especially for an African-American to sign up with a party which is the legacy of George Wallace.

SD-19: Progressive Movement And Enviros Team Up To Fight Greenwashing

The most hotly anticipated State Senate election this year is in the 19th District covering Santa Barbara and Ventura County, between Democrat Hannah-Beth Jackson and Republican Tony Strickland. Though the two are almost polar opposites, the chunk of the district in Santa Barbara, where residents have long memories about the 1969 oil spill, makes it impossible for Republicans to win with their "Drill Now" message on energy. So Tony Strickland opted to run some ads that Al Gore might have run were he to be contesting in the district, highlighting renewable energy through wind, solar, algae, tidal and other forms. This is completely at odds with Strickland's doctrinaire Republican record, with votes against green building standards, minimum renewable energy standards, and even fuel-efficient tires. Strickland has taken money from Big Oil and stood with global warming denialists in the recent past. It's incongruous for him to carry a pro-environment message.

So I hooked up with the Courage Campaign and the California League of Conservation Voters to put together a little video highlighting this incongruity.



What's interesting is that the Courage Campaign's Web tool invited those supporters who received their email blast to spread the word, and they were so successful, both online political reporters at the Ventura County Star, the region's biggest newspaper, covered the video. More important, the Jackson campaign has been energized to fight back against some of Strickland allies' misleading ads on taxes, and in doing so buttresses the outside groups' take about Strickland's terrible environmental record.



So progressive groups are ensuring that Strickland gets away with nothing in this race, and in turn the Jackson campaign is fighting back as well and counter-punching swiftly and effectively. This is a growing success story in the 19th.

SD-19: Dantona Drops Out

In what I can only describe as a shocking development, Jim Dantona, the moderate Democrat looking to notch a pickup in the Thousand Oaks/Simi Valley/Santa Barbara Senate seat held currently by Tom McClintock, has dropped out of the race, clearing the field for Hannah Beth-Jackson. This will allow Jackson to go up against Tony Strickland, in all likelihood, in this Senate seat which is rapidly becoming a bluer district. Here's his statement:

“Our polling shows I could defeat Strickland by as much as 10% and I would certainly do well against Jackson here in east Ventura County where polling indicates she is a relative unknown. But my intention was never to run against a fellow Democrat for this seat. I was running to bring leadership to this district that represented the will of the people, instead of the continual fringes of partisanship.”

“Even with solid polling numbers, Jackson and I would have to spend a fortune against each other and that was never my intention. Tony has already put together a healthy war chest with no primary battle. The reality is that if we fight each other, we may as well hand him the Senate. I am a team player and I wish Hannah Beth only best in her race.”

“As for me, business is very good and I am sure to be back and forth between Sacramento, Washington D.C. and Simi Valley. I am in negotiations with several companies in Italy and I’ve been asked to get involved in the Presidential elections, which I am very much looking forward to.” (Dantona previously consulted for Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter)

“I will continue to work for the causes I believe in and I will always reach across the political aisle to garner support for our community.”

I did not see this one coming, but I wish Hannah-Beth Jackson great luck in turning this seat blue and getting us closer to a 2/3 majority in the Senate. Hopefully Dantona will assist in that effort.

The Drive For 2/3: Democratic Values On The Ronald Reagan Freeway

(The second in an occasional series of articles highlighting California legislative districts and candidates that could provide Democrats with a vital 2/3 majority.)

On the drive out from Santa Monica to Simi Valley, there's a moment when you know that you've left Los Angeles County and ventured into Ventura. Suddenly, the greenery recedes away, the canyon walls rise, and the scene becomes positively dramatic. If you let your mind wander, you could picture yourself in the middle of a John Ford movie backdrop or a national monument somewhere in Utah, despite being just 35 miles from downtown LA.

I was headed out to a fundraiser, driving along the 118 Freeway, which area transportation poohbahs see fit to remind you is named the "Ronald Reagan Freeway" about every 8/10th of a mile. Astonishingly enough, this was a Democratic fundraiser. For a candidate seeking a seat held by Tom McClintock, arguably the most rock-ribbed conservative in the entire state. And it's a seat Democrats can win. Things are changing along the Ronald Reagan Freeway.

If you want to look at it statistically, there's no better resource than ortcutt's fantastic rundown. The raw numbers are pretty clear. Over the last 5 years, Senate District 19, serving Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties, along with a sliver of LA County at Santa Clarita, has gone from a 7-point Republican registration advantage to just over a 4-point one, one of the larger moves in the whole state. The state's districts were designed not to have any variability, and yet that's what's happening. And this is not just about registration. Feinstein and Boxer both carried this district, and in 2004 Bush carried it by a mere two points. And that was before his disastrous second term. For this and other reasons, the demographics are changing here.

SD-19 (here's a map) covers major areas like Santa Clarita in LA County, Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley, Camarillo (hello outlet malls) and San Buenavento in Ventura, and large sections of Santa Barbara County like the city of Santa Barbara. Far more of the district is located in Ventura County, however, and the area has seen a migration of sorts, as residents priced out of the wealthier Santa Barbara housing market have moved in. And Ventura County Democrats have been relentless. I have seen their work up close; my region as an AD delegate stretches up through this district, and I have seen presentations of the innovative efforts that were instrumental in closing the registration gap. These shifts did not happen by accident. Sure, the different socioeconomic shifts played a part, as well as the failed leadership of the President and an incumbent State Senator who values budget numbers in a ledger far more than constituent services. But more than that, they were the work of aggressive new tactics. One of these programs is Vote Blue Committee Central Coast, designed to register and bring to the polls 13,900 new Democrats in 2008. The group is targeting new residents, building a reliable, locally-based voter file, and encouraging vote-by-mail. This is the kind of new tactics we need to see replicated throughout California to realize the goals of a true 58-county strategy.

This is why I'm excited about SD-19, regardless of who ultimately runs in the general election. On the Republican side, Tom McClintock is a termed-out incumbent who is already raising money for yet another statewide run, this time for the Board of Equalization. I'd be absolutely shocked if this committed conservative would go back on core ideology and decide to run a third term, should the ballot initiative pass and allow him to do so. Anyway, there's already a candidate, last year's State Controller nominee Tony Strickland. He has the signed endorsement of every member of the Republican Caucus. He's looking to join his wife, an Assemblywoman, back in Sacramento. But he's really just looking for something to do until Elton Gallegly retires from the Congress. There's no burning desire to serve the public here, just a resume-builder until Strickland graduates to the seat he thinks he's entitled to.

Which is why I think it's healthy to have two excellent candidates in a primary, raising the profile of Democratic values, fighting for the right to take down Strickland next November. We all know about Hannah-Beth Jackson from her incredible work at Speak Out California and her tireless advocacy of progressive ideals. Let me tell you a little bit about Jim Dantona, who's been in the race about four months and who you may not know as much about. First of all, Ventura County Democratic activists in the area pushed very hard for him to run. I usually give latitude to the locals on the ground for determining who is their best candidate to serve their district. In this case, Dantona has a resume that is undeniably impressive. After a brief baseball career with the Chicago Cubs in 1969, he taught elementary school before spending 10 years as chief of staff to longtime Senate President Pro Tem David Roberti. Later, he founded an organization called "Baseballers Against Drugs" to teach kids the importance of staying clean and addiction-free. And he's a single parent of three grown children.

I attended a fundraiser for Dantona last Thursday, featuring longtime friend and former Maryland Lt. Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. The blogger Mark Gage at Conejo Valley Democrat, who I met at the event, has an excellent writeup. Dantona likes to style himself a "centrist," and I have no illusions that he'll be with the most progressive elements of the party on every issue. But I will say this. The three main points in his stump speech were jobs, health care for every Californian, and scrapping No Child Left Behind. As centrism goes, I'd say he's more Tip O'Neill than Joe Lieberman. And he didn't have a bad word to say about Hannah-Beth Jackson, which to me is crucial.

I'm agnostic about the primary, other than thinking it's very good for the Democratic Party in this area to have two Democrats discussing important issues that people in this district haven't heard about for 8 years. The locals clearly see this as a terrific opportunity to change the seat and get halfway to that elusive 2/3 majority in the Senate. And it would obviously set Republicans spinning in their McMansions to see a Democrat representing the towns along the Ronald Reagan Freeway.