CA-10: An Interview With Sen. Mark DeSaulnier

Mark DeSaulnier has had a rapid ascent through the state legislature and now, potentially, into Congress. Within three years, this former restaurant owner won elections to the State Assembly (in 2006) and the State Senate (in 2008), with a Congressional primary scheduled for September 1. Prior to that, he was a 3-time member of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and the California Air Resources Board. A former liberal Republican in the mold of Edward Brooke, DeSaulnier switched parties several years ago and compiled a liberal voting record in the State Legislature. His first ad of the campaign covered the topic of health care, and I asked him about this and several other issues in an interview conducted last week. Having taken place before the crucial budget vote, I spent a good deal of time asking DeSaulnier about that, and you can see his responses here. Depending on your perspective, he either did or did not fulfill the promise to vote against "most" of the budget, by the way, voting no on 11 of 26 bills, including all of the more controversial ones.

I'll pick up with a paraphrased transcript of the rest of the interview below:

DD: So, other than the budget, how's it going with your campaign?

Mark DeSaulnier: Well, this is a tough campaign, with a big field and a lot of good candidates. The polls we've done show us winning. We've got 70% of the money that we need to compete, and a lot of great endorsements. I would say we have the most local endorsements inside the district. And we're going to be able to put together a great ground campaign, with people I've worked with for 20 years in the district. I think we're going to be concentrated in Contra Costa County, where we can post a big number. I think we're putting ourselves out there as the local candidate, who has represented the district for a long time. And we have people out there walking and phoning, putting forward that message.

DD: As long as we're on California, obviously you've seen the dysfunction at the local level. What do you think you can do at the federal level to remedy this situation?

MD: You know, I read a lot of Paul Krugman, and I agree with him that we're going to need a second stimulus package. And I think we need it sooner and not later. I think we can take what's been learned from the stimulus package that we're doing now. I think the problem is that the banks like Citi and Bank of America aren't lending, and so we need to require the banks to lend, with relief for the credit worthy who are falling behind on their payments, and more money out to the credit unions who have done a better job handling this crisis. Next, I think we have to do some sort of fiscal stabilization. I see it in this state, people who need to access the safety net go up when the economy goes down. And so we have to break that cycle, and I think we can by providing some relief. Finally, we should say that we can do things more efficiently. There shouldn't be this silo mentality. I'll give you an example. We put together these "one-stops," places where you can go for unemployment and job training. And people tell me that you have to get out of one line and pick up a phone in the office to get your unemployment benefits. That just doesn't seem like good government to me. And I think we have an opportunity to make government work better.

DD: Let's move on to health care. Seems to be a big issue for you. What are the principles you carry in this debate?

MD: To me, the gold standard is single payer. We have the problem of getting health care to those who need it, and also how we get control of costs. I think the public option is the first step, and if we do it right, it could be, and really I think it should be, single payer. The question is what are the Democrats willing to give up to get moderates on board, and I think there have to be some lines we cannot cross there. In the end, it has to be about flexibility and more choice. That's the way you're going to sell this thing. It's telling that the moderates want firewalls in their plan, they don't want the people to have more choice, they want to preserve something for the insurance companies.

DD: Will you commit to not vote for anything that doesn't have a quality public plan available on day one, not a trigger, open to everyone, and with the kind of rates necessary to force the insurance companies to compete?

MD: Yes. I think as liberals, as progressives, something we don't do a lot but which we can learn from Republicans, sometimes we've just got to say no.

DD: Congress has started to debate the regulatory reform ideas put forward by the Obama Administration, and they're getting a ton of pushback from the banking industry, particularly on the concept of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. It's the same way on a lot of these issues, the banks just won't relent. How do we solve this problem?

MD: Honestly, the politics will never get totally fixed without a public finance system in this country. And then people say, "why should we pay for elections?" The truth is that the average American is paying disproportionately already, when the giveaways to businesses and corporations are factored in. They buy elections fairly cheaply, and they get the rewards. So that's something we have to pursue. As far as your question, yes, I think we need a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, in fact I think it should be cabinet-level. A Secretary of Consumer Protection. The point to all of this is that if middle income people don't have wealth, democracy ends. That's just the bottom line. And one way to ensure that is by protecting consumers, so you don't see all their wealth go into someone else's pockets. Inequality is just killing us right now. Kevin Phillips wrote about this years ago, in Bad Money, and he was very prophetic. I also think that you can't reform the financial system without holding people accountable. And so I would involve the Department of Justice right at the beginning. That's the only way to really ensure it doesn't happen again.

DD: You mention inequality, it's something Democrats don't talk about enough. A recent Wall Street Journal story talked about the top 1% earning 35% of all the compensation in the country.

MD: It's stunning. And our tax structure, by the way, rewards the accumulation of wealth, not work. This happens when you get a financial services economy, which is completely not sustainable. We don't have manufacturing, we just have this financial services giant, and it trades in bubbles. So one way to reduce that inequality is to retool the financial services sector, make it smaller, make it more boring.

DD: OK, last question. I wanted to ask you about SB375, the smart growth measure that you played a big part in passing last year. This bill doesn't get a lot of attention, but it really offers a blueprint to how to achieve smart growth policies with the statewide authority working in concert with local communities. Do you plan to scale that up if you make it to Congress?

MD: Oh, absolutely, and this is where I think my background really suits me to replace Ellen Tauscher. I chaired the Transportation Committee in the Assembly as a freshman, I think the first person to do that. I spent ten years on the California Air Resources Board, and I co-authored SB375. I'm pretty sure there's a companion bill in Congress right now. Doris Matsui (CA-05) is carrying it right now. I have honed in throughout my career on the changing transportation and mobility side of the energy issue. We accomplish this, in part by reducing miles, and also finding new energy sources for transportation. We need more transit, and a move away from single-occupancy vehicles and long commutes. It's about bringing the work space closer to the living space, and creating livable communities. So I think I'm naturally suited for such a task. I'd like to get on the Transportation Committee if I get to Congress.

DD: Thanks for your time today.

MD: No problem, thank you.

CA-10 Impressions

The CDP Convention didn't only kick off the start of the 2010 Governor's race, but the start of the various Congressional campaigns throughout California as well. I'm going to have a full cattle call tomorrow, with my opening rankings for the races, both the potential primaries and the races with Republican incumbents. But I wanted to give the special elections some attention in a separate post. In CA-32, we have an election in just a few weeks on May 19, and Judy Chu has racked up a lot of local endorsements, while Gil Cedillo has made the worst kind of headlines over campaign spending and personal gifts. Given the demographics of the district, I think it'll be a close race either way.

But I wanted to hone in on the upcoming special election in CA-10, because I had the chance to talk with three of the five announced Democratic candidates while up in Sacramento. We don't know when Ellen Tauscher will be confirmed as a State Department undersecretary, and thus when the seat will open up and when the election will be scheduled. What we do know is that there are several good candidates in the race, all of whom offered interesting perspectives at the convention.

Mark DeSaulnier was anointed the successor to Tauscher inside the district by the local establishment, but since other candidates have jumped into the race, he's going to have to work for his victory. And that's absolutely as it should be. But though you would expect someone who appeared to be riding endorsement coattails to Congress to be some kind of creature of the establishment, I and some of my colleagues did not get that impression when we cornered DeSaulnier at the Netroots Nation Party last Friday night. DeSaulnier is an ex-Republican who joined the party as a youth in Massachusetts to vote for Edward Brooke, the first African-American Senator elected by popular vote in the United States. DeSaulnier was a liberal Republican then and grew far more progressive as he went on, eventually leaving Massachusetts to get out of politics (he was the son of a political family whose name was besmirched by corruption charges). But the bug caught him and he returned. DeSaulnier talked to us about revitalizing the public square, about reversing the trends found in Robert Putnam's book Bowling Alone, and about how the Internet and blogs can go a long way toward doing that. He talked about how his first instinct with the special election was to tell the Republicans to go hang on their crappy deal. He talked about the importance of transportation in his district, which includes several bedroom communities, and how that can connect to solving our energy problem. He seemed like a serious and earnest public servant who was committed to using public policy as a lever to make progressive change.

On that score, he has a formidable opponent in Lt. Governor John Garamendi, who has been in the policy game for over 30 years. At a late-afternoon meeting, Garamendi reminded bloggers that he created the first tax credits for solar and wind energy in 1978, leading to the windmills in the Altamont Pass that stand to this day. He first looked at cap and trade in the early 1990s when he helped write some of the Clinton Administration briefs (while working in the Interior Department) for the Kyoto Protocols. He recalled his international peace efforts in Ethiopia and the Congo. He threw out dates from 15, 20 and 30 years ago talking about all the legislation with which he has been intimately involved, from energy to health care to the insurance industry to regulatory reform to the environment. He brings a unique and diverse skill set and a deep knowledge of the issues. And he can drill down to particulars. On health care, while he supports a single payer plan as the most efficient and effective policy, he can see a role for private insurance to play, as an add-on or a fiscal intermediary (but "we won't allow them to rip the system off"). However, he wants to make sure that whatever comes out of Congress, which is more likely to be a lesser reform, cannot be gamed by the insurance companies. "ERISA has become a great way for insurers to avoid the rules. A real guaranteed issue (where companies cannot deny coverage based on a pre-existing condition) would be fine, but a sham guaranteed issue would just be ERISA II, which the states wouldn't be able to fix. So the states can help, they can do things, but they cannot get there without real federal action."

Garamendi, as a knowledgeable figure, would be an asset in what he called "preparing the public to deal with" the realities of issues like climate change and rising sea levels. We have to adapt in California to an already-changing climate, and making the necessary changes will require leadership and authority, telling the public that they must "use the wealth of the nation to protect themselves." Garamendi projects a seriousness and a knowledge that would be crucial to this effort - you tend to believe him when he tells you "there are places in this state where we should not be building." On the question of CA-10 being a moderate district, his view is that the district has a set of issues, which you take into account, and then you try to conform those views with the facts and personal opinions, and "try to get the district to see your side - that's the essence of political leadership."

In addition to the establishment endorsee and the policy heavyweight, there's the fresh perspective of an Anthony Woods, who has this amazing bio (two tours in Iraq, biked cross-country for Habitat for Humanity, Harvard's Kennedy School, took a stand by coming out to protest the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy) and yet it new to the political scene. In my interview with Woods you saw that he has a head for public policy. I view him as a compelling story who can mature into becoming a compelling candidate. He has something of a low-key demeanor that will have to change for the stump. But I was definitely impressed with his leadership ability, his confidence, and his expressed desire to ride that wave of change sweeping the country and enter Washington without the baggage of the same old politicians pushing the same old ideas.

There's also Joan Buchanan and Adriel Hampton, and this should be an extremely interesting race throughout the summer, as we may even get a serious policy debate about where to best take the country.

SUPERTRAINS!

The President made some remarks about high speed rail today, and released a strategic plan for the development of high speed rail in America. Here, the President makes the case for rail:

But if we want to move from recovery to prosperity, then we have to do a little bit more. We also have to build a new foundation for our future growth. Today, our aging system of highways and byways, air routes and rail lines is hindering that growth. Our highways are clogged with traffic, costing us $80 billion a year in lost productivity and wasted fuel. Our airports are choked with increased loads. Some of you flew down here and you know what that was about. We're at the mercy of fluctuating gas prices all too often; we pump too many greenhouse gases into the air.

What we need, then, is a smart transportation system equal to the needs of the 21st century. A system that reduces travel times and increases mobility. A system that reduces congestion and boosts productivity. A system that reduces destructive emissions and creates jobs.

What we're talking about is a vision for high-speed rail in America. Imagine boarding a train in the center of a city. No racing to an airport and across a terminal, no delays, no sitting on the tarmac, no lost luggage, no taking off your shoes. (Laughter.) Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination. Imagine what a great project that would be to rebuild America.

Now, all of you know this is not some fanciful, pie-in-the-sky vision of the future. It is now. It is happening right now. It's been happening for decades. The problem is it's been happening elsewhere, not here.

The President clearly pushed for including HSR in the stimulus because he understands how important it is to bring some forward-looking infrastructure to America, a tangible show of what positive developments we can make with our tax dollars, a way to lower emissions, increase productivity, and improve quality of life.

It looks like there are two elements to the plan - improving existing infrastructure to increase speed on current rail lines, and building out new HSR lines throughout the country. And the President has committed $8 billion in the stimulus and an additional $1 billion per year to jump-start those efforts. If enough money can cover start-up costs, state governments and private investors would be more inclined to participate in the program, as their payoffs would potentially come quicker. Here's the map of the 10 major corridors that will be eligible for funding, along with the already-existent Northeast corridor:



I like that a key element of this in the strategic plan supports interconnected, livable communities. In a high-density area, a workable HSR system can bring new livable development in areas where it has not been, with new communities springing up around the rail line. This could happen anywhere along the 600 mile corridors seen as best for HSR.

Interconnected livable communities. Rail transport has generally been associated with “smart growth” because
it can foster higher-density development than has typically been associated with highways and airports. Rail is uniquely capable of providing both high-speed intercity transportation and its own efficient local access and egress system. For example, in the Boston region, Amtrak’s Acela serves two downtown stations connected to public transit – South Station and Back Bay – as well as a suburban station at Route 128. Yet just a few miles down the line to the west, Acela achieves speeds up to 130 miles per hour, and then 150 miles per hour.

Matthew Yglesias seems to think that upgrading the Northeast corridor would be the most promising use of the federal dollars, though as someone who's from that corridor, I can't see how upgrading what is already decent service can further these expansive goals more than bringing new corridors into play. Yes, these other lines will take time, but there is much that is already shovel-ready, at least in California, which is something that gets discounted a bit. Surveying and environmental studies employ people too, even without shovels.

We have spent a pitiful amount on rail over the last century, while Europe and Asia have built up their rail lines to the benefit of travelers, residents, businesses, and overall productivity. This is a green, clean solution to traffic and transportation that would really revolutionalize the way we get from point A to point B in America. I agree with President Obama's closing words:

"Make no little plans." That's what Daniel Burnham said in Chicago. I believe that about America: Make no little plans. So let's get to work. Thank you, everybody.

Going Electric

I'm tired of even thinking about the lunatic political leaders in this state, so I'm going to take a short break and focus on the innovators, those who have the ability to drag us out of recession and toward a new economic future.

For starters, Tesla Motors, which last year was thought to be in a fair bit of trouble, has come out of that and has begun to receive orders for their new $50,000 sedan model.

San Carlos, California-based Tesla Motors said it has received 711 reservations for its new Model S, an all-electric family sedan that carries up to seven people and can travel up to 300 miles per charge.

Tesla said reservations - which include a refundable $5,000 fee - started coming in after the car was formally unveiled on March 26. Mass production of the Model S is expected to begin in late 2011.

The company said the Model S will go from zero to 60 miles per hour in 5.6 seconds, with an electronically limited top speed of 130 mph. Three battery pack choices will offer a range of 160, 230 or 300 miles per charge. The company has not released pricing options on the higher-mileage battery packs.

The anticipated base price of the Model S is $49,900, after a federal tax credit of $7,500.

One high-profile buyer is Governor Schwarzenegger himself, who will turn in the Tesla roadster he had previously purchased in exchange for the sedan. The goal of Tesla is to bring a model into the $35,000 and under market, essentially on par with a Lexus, within the next couple years, and with the federal tax credits and complete lack of gas costs, that would be an attractive option for a pretty broad section of the upper and upper-middle class. Tesla reminds me of the Wild West early days of the auto industry, when lots of small manufacturers competed for business and the competition drove innovation.

Outside of the auto realm, the California high speed rail Authority hopes for up to $4 billion in federal dollars to jump-start production.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act approved by Congress in February contains $8 billion to be doled out to states for development of high-speed rail service and passenger rail service among cities.

California wants half.

"As of now, we have close to $4 billion worth of things we can show can be done within the time limit" of the act, said Mehdi Morshed, executive director of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the agency charged with building a speedy rail line connecting Northern and Southern California through the Central Valley.

Morshed and other California boosters are trying to make the case with federal transportation officials that when it comes to high-speed rail in the United States, the Golden State is king.

"All factors considered, we are at the top," Morshed said. "We are the only ones with a real high-speed rail project. Everyone else is just improving their current (conventional) rail service."

While the $10 billion in bonds authorized by last November's Prop. 1A (the good one) have yet to be sold on the open market, federal stimulus dollars would really help get HSR off the ground. And such an investment would get some of the preliminary work out of the way and spur private investment, which would be looking toward a shorter lead time for their payoff. Our friends at the CA HSR blog, including some guy named Robert, have more. You can quibble with the strength of the SacBee article, but you cannot deny that the President has made high speed rail a priority and California's entity is clearly the furthest along, suggesting that we will be in line for a good portion of those stimulus dollars.

Despite political dysfunction, innovators will allow California to move to a new economy based on clean energy and efficiency. Hopefully the political leaders will follow, having failed to lead.

Electric, Not Ethanol

Via Matt Yglesias, here's a CBO report on ethanol showing that increased production of ethanol using corn has dramatically increased global food prices, and in both the short run and the long run could increase carbon emissions through more clear-cut forests coverted into cropland and the emissions use for producing corn. We pay tens of billions of dollars in subsidies for the pleasure of this, as well. All of this points to the need to create electric cars and transportation if we really want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, not alternative fuels that deplete additional resources. This especially makes sense if we robustly ramp up renewable energy production. Carbon capture and sequestration may be a priority for the Obama Administration, but spending decades looking for the magic bullet to keep coal production going seems less likely than just making solar and wind profitable. The Administration strategy is to sell CCS technology to China and India, and I get that, but renewables already work in this context and we don't have the time, frankly, to wait for the technology to mature when there's already a paradigm-shifting solution on the table.

Meanwhile, China's electric cars strategy includes payouts to consumers to buy the cars instead of production subsidies, which makes sense to me. We have large subsidies for electric car purchases in this country, as well.

Um. Nobody's Driving To Work

I think the biggest, er, driver of Americans driving less is the impact of taking a few million-odd people out of the workforce. I'd like to believe that increased consciousness of greenhouse gases or love of mass transit is a factor, but let's get real.

However, now would be the perfect time to increase gas taxes to more properly price the externalities of gasoline use, when it would affect less consumers and prices are relatively low. Plus, gas taxes fund transportation (mostly highways, but that could change), which means jobs. Not likely it will happen, however.

Building Livable Communities

Ray LaHood, the Secretary of Transportation, has a post up at the Department of Transportation's blog, one of the ugliest-looking blogs I've ever seen, what I imagine a blog from 1982 would look like if they had blogs or the public Internet back then... but I digress, because the content is excellent:

Today, I was proud to address my former colleagues in the House of Representatives and co-present a DOT-HUD partnership to help American families gain better access to affordable housing, more transportation options, and lower transportation costs.

As I told House members, “One of my highest priorities is to help promote more livable communities through sustainable surface transportation programs.” That means roads, rails, and transit. It means safer passage for pedestrians, for bicyclists.

After housing costs, transportation takes the biggest bite out of the typical household budget. That's why a partnership between HUD and DOT can be so effective; we have the ability to ease the largest financial burden on many American families. We're talking about 60% of the average working American family's expenses. HUD Secretary Donovan and I can cut these costs by focusing our departments' efforts on creating affordable, sustainable communities.

While so many of the decisions about smart growth and livable communities are typically made at the local, the federal government can absolutely play a role in encouraging better development decisions, either through the bully pulpit or grants in aid. Housing, transportation and energy are all intimately linked. A community with residential and commercial spaces close together, which provides durable transit options between home and work, whether through bike lanes or light rail or whatever, allows for reducing carbon emissions through auto transit. It means a more vibrant neighborhood and a higher quality of life. Communities that cater just to businesses get abandoned at night. Bedroom communities are sleepy during the day. It doesn't make any sense. Not to mention that reducing housing and transportation costs in tandem frees up money for economic activity for small businesses that cater to the area.

Desmoinesdem has a ton more on this initiative, which I find very exciting. Land use and urban planning is the most important aspect of government that gets overlooked. The implications of a smart growth policy are boundless. Also, check out the Complete Streets project, which has legislation pending in Congress (S. 584 and H.R. 1443) that would ensure a fuller range of infrastructure investment on travel including "driving, bicycling, walking, or taking public transportation."

SUPERTRAIN FTW

This is a boom time for one sector of the economy - public transportation. With gas prices stabilizing, I don't think there was an expectation that ridership would continue to increase. Furthermore, transit is used 60% of the time for work, and with so much job loss, you would expect ridership to go down. But it's expensive to maintain a car, and often cheaper just to take the bus.

Despite job losses and falling gasoline prices, record numbers of Americans rode subways, buses and commuter rail last year, boosting public transportation ridership to its highest level in 52 years, according to a survey to be released today by the American Public Transportation Association.

Advocates say the ridership figures show growing support for public transportation. They hope to use that support to push for federal funding beyond the $8.4 billion in stimulus money set aside for transit. More investment in transit not only helps the economy, advocacy groups say, but also helps the environment and fosters energy independence.

"Now, more than ever, the value of public transportation is evident, and the public has clearly demonstrated that they want and need more public transit services," said APTA President William W. Millar.

The looming problem is that tight state and municipal budgets may not be able to keep up with demand. Even successful transit operations aren't exactly money generators. Which is why federal money for operational costs, not just the $8.4 billion set aside for new capital spending, is needed.

In addition, this should convince everyone that high speed rail would be a massive success. Ridership is growing on transit even in the downturn, and by the time any HSR lines are built we should be out of the woods. It's a good time to start funding this now, when labor and material costs are relatively low. And of course, the savings in energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions would be tremendous. If Republicans are worrying about the Europeanization of America, maybe they're talking about the imclusion of actually decent rail services. They eschew convenience.

The Coming SUPERTRAIN Domination

High speed rail got a big boost in the final stimulus bill.

And while many initiatives were scaled back as Congress and the White House sought to cut the overall cost, there were some surprise increases, including a quadrupling of money for high-speed rail projects to $8 billion.

The White House pushed for the added money in the final rapid-fire negotiations, seeing it as a tangible way to create jobs and benefit different parts of the country. It also added a futuristic element to legislation that has been criticized as lacking forward vision.

That could be just the author trying to wrap its head around it. In fact, high speed rail will dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create thousands of jobs and offer a tangible benefit to the American public, finally bringing our transit infrastructure in line with Europe and Asia. While the California HSR blog is perturbed that this boost appeared to come from funding for existing mass transit and intercity rail systems, which is distressing, hopefully the normal budget process can fill in the gaps on public transit. You would never see high speed rail get this kind of money from a regular appropriation. This will restart some projects that needed to be chilled because of a lack of private investment.

Nevertheless, the wingnut brigade is going apeshit over an off-handed comment attributed to Harry Reid:

The madness continues on the right-wing’s crusade against a mythical high-speed rail to Las Vegas project that Harry Reid is alleged to have snuck into the stimulus bill. “Tell me how spending $8 billion,” asked House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) on the floor, “in this bill to have a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and Las Vegas is going to help the construction worker in my district.”

For one thing, if we stuck by the standard that members of congress should only agree to fund infrastructure projects located in their own districts, then obviously we’d have no infrastructure at all. This is a debate that I thought we settled in the days of Henry Clay. But beyond that there is no such provision in the bill.

There are millions of people who would gladly use that Vegas line - I've been in that traffic - and it's a reasonable project, but it is not currently on the list of federally designated HSR corridors.



Hilariously, one of the big areas for HSR in that map is Ohio, despite the fact that Ohio's John Boehner is a ringleader in slamming the made-up LA-to-Vegas line. High speed rail can be an economic engine for the Midwest, spurring growth and productivity, but these Republicans don't even know a good thing when it hits them in the face.

Old Tech, New Tech, Lower Emissions

We have such an urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that we must explore all options. Some are very forward-thinking, like Democrat Chris Van Hollen and Republican Zach Wamp's proposal for green banks:

Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) wrote a letter to Obama this week urging his support for a national “green bank,” and a fund to help homeowners retrofit their homes for energy efficiency.

They say private sector support for the projects is flagging in the face of falling fuel prices and the evaporation of credit markets.

“The current financial crisis has not only thrown us into recession, it has significantly derailed or killed off virtually every alternative energy project in the pipeline,” the duo wrote in a letter to Obama this week, “making renewable energy yet another victim of the economic fallout.”

The “green bank” has a more formal name, the National Clean Energy Lending Authority. The $10 billion program would be a government organization intended to finance the transformation of the energy sector.

I agree, says the guy with SRI (socially responsible investing) funds that have lost 60% or more!

More seriously, thinking long-term on funding green investment and future innovation in the sector is a brilliant idea. But there are also more immediate solutions that aren't totally intuitive, but would reduce emissions in a big way. Phillip Longman writes about freight rail.

For now, Virginia lacks the resources to build its "steel wheel interstate," but that could change quickly. Thanks to the collapsing economy, a powerful new consensus has developed in Washington behind a once-in-a-generation investment in infrastructure. The incoming administration is talking of spending as much as $1 trillion to jump-start growth and make up for past neglect, an outlay that Obama himself characterizes as "the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s." We’ll soon be moving earth again like it’s 1959.

By all rights, America’s dilapidated rail lines ought to be a prime candidate for some of that spending. All over the country there are opportunities like the I-81/Crescent Corridor deal, in which relatively modest amounts of capital could unclog massive traffic bottlenecks, revving up the economy while saving energy and lives. Many of these projects have already begun, like Virginia’s, or are sitting on planners’ shelves and could be up and running quickly. And if we’re willing to think bigger and more long term—and we should be—the potential of a twenty-first-century rail system is truly astonishing. In a study recently presented to the National Academy of Engineering, the Millennium Institute, a nonprofit known for its expertise in energy and environmental modeling, calculated the likely benefits of an expenditure of $250 billion to $500 billion on improved rail infrastructure. It found that such an investment would get 85 percent of all long-haul trucks off the nation’s highways by 2030, while also delivering ample capacity for high-speed passenger rail. If high-traffic rail lines were also electrified and powered in part by renewable energy sources, that investment would reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emission by 38 percent and oil consumption by 22 percent. By moderating the growing cost of logistics, it would also leave the nation’s economy 13 percent larger by 2030 than it would otherwise be.

Yet despite this astounding potential, virtually no one in Washington is talking about investing any of that $1 trillion in freight rail capacity. Instead, almost all the talk out of the Obama camp and Congress has been about spending for roads and highway bridges, projects made necessary in large measure by America’s overreliance on pavement-smashing, traffic-snarling, fossil-fuel-guzzling trucks for the bulk of its domestic freight transport. This could be an epic mistake.

Again, I agree. The over-reliance on "shovel-ready" projects encourages unsustainable suburban sprawl. The current mania for infrastructure spending offers an opportunity to change that dynamic and use the latest in technology as well as old tech like freight rail.

Who'll Build The Electric Car

The Detroit Auto Show is this week, and there are half a dozen electric car models on display, as well as a number of hybrids. Well, welcome to the party. Maybe killing the Saturn EV1 doesn't seem like such a good idea now, ay? After all, GM would have been first to market, instead of hoping that the Chevy Volt doesn't get lapped by any of these new concepts.

Cadillac Converj. An upscale sibling to volt, it will have a 16-kilowatt-hour battery, of which half will be available for propulsion. Electrics and hybrids only use about half their capacity to avoid wearing out the battery.

Tesla Roadster Sport. Tesla showed off the Roadster Sport version of its already-on-sale Roadster (photo above). The Sport is said to be even quicker (3.7 vs. 3.9 seconds 0-60 mph)

Chevrolet Volt. GM showed off the production-like design of the car that is supposed to go 40 miles on electricity, then up to 500 miles on a tank of gas. "Production-like" means the body is fiberglass for ease of doing a one-off model; the real think, due at the end of 2010, would be traditional steel.

BYD Auto F3DM. The Chinese maker showed a battery-powered sedan it said it could launch in two years.

Toyota FT-EV city car. Toyota said it will sell an all-electric car by 2012.

Ford urban car. Ford will introduce a small electric car in 2011, working with supplier Magna International. It's based on the compact Ford Focus sedan. Target range is 100 miles on a charge. Ford development head Derrick Kuzak targeted sales at 5,000-10,000 a year. Also planned: a battery-powered commercial van based on the Transit van in 2010 and a plug-in hybrid (meaning the battery can be topped off in the garage) passenger car by 2012.

Chrysler. Chrysler showed four electric or range-extending hybrid concept vehicles. The first could arrive next year, the others by 2013. They include the Dodge Circuit EV, all-electric sports car; and the Jeep Patriot, the Jeep Wrangler Unlimited EV, and the Chrysler Town & Country EV range-extending vehicles. They could go up to 40 miles on a battery charge, then keep on cruising with small gasoline engines.

Mercedes-Benz BlueZero E-Cell. This is a battery-only small electric prototype. It also showed sibling cars, the the hybrid BlueZero E-Cell Plus and the hydrogen fuel cell BlueZero F-Cell, powered by a hydrogen fuel cell. MB says its first electric would ship in 2010.

Smart Fortwo prototype. The cute two-seater now has an electric version, currently a prototype, but possibly shipping late this year.

Ultimately, this set of cars on display in Detroit shows that electric vehicles are the future. Now the job is to live up to the promise of Al Gore and end all electricity generation from non-renewable sources within the next 10 years. If the car companies can finally get out of their slumber and innovate, we can do the same for our electric grid.

Bigger, Faster, Stronger, Cleaner: Post-Sprawl, Post-Downturn Economics

Five top Democratic governors have called for a larger stimulus package than is presently being called for in Washington, precisely to fill in the gaps created by a loss of tax revenue in the states.

To help offset state budget cuts, a group of Democratic governors urged the federal government Friday to pass a $1 trillion economic stimulus package, significantly larger than the one under discussion in Congress.

The package would help states compensate for cuts to education spending that could cause long-term economic decline, as well as bolster infrastructure projects and benefits programs for the poor, the governors from New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio and Wisconsin said in a news conference [...]

The governors recommended that the stimulus plan include $350 billion for infrastructure, including transportation, wastewater and broadband projects; $250 billion for anti-poverty programs such as Medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps and child care; $250 billion in flexible education spending to maintain funding for programs from pre-kindergarten to higher education; and middle-class tax cuts.

The money, disbursed over two years, would offset cuts needed to balance state budgets and would serve as a "bridge" until 2011, by which time the governors hope the economy will have recovered, said Massachusetts Gov. Deval L. Patrick.

Predictably, the Republican Governor's Association called it a "bailout" of the general funds of the various states.

Well, yes. The states, by and large, did not have the ability to get out from under the financial meltdown, and the consequent economic downturn that resulted shouldn't disproportionately affect the least of their citizens. Furthermore, given that the road to recovery is massive fiscal stimulus, having states cutting back on spending at this time, be it infrastructure, education or healthcare, is completely counterproductive and will do nothing but prolong the agony.

In the future, it will take more than backfilling state budget cuts in a downturn, but a more structured system, like a "Federal Infrastructure Finance Corporation," to ensure that state assets aren't sold off to private interests during a downturn. The days of creative borrowing and the crossing of fingers are over. We need new structures to manage economic volatility and avoid fiscal traps, PARTICULARLY in California, where the tax system too closely mirrors the boom and bust cycle.

In the near term, I imagine something like this will pass. Barack Obama today put out a call for "strategic investments" to create jobs and improve the long-term economic outlook simultaneously. The question locally is whether California's plans will actually accomplish that. CalPIRG is criticizing the state's wish list, saying that it relies too much on increasing highway and road capacity and not enough on cleaner energy investments:

The California Public Interest Research Group reports that the state plans to spend 31% of road money on creating new capacity instead of addressing long-deferred maintenance and repair projects. By contrast, the group said, Massachusetts would commit 100% of its road funds to repairs.

"We can't afford to waste precious resources on new highways at the expense of ready-to-go projects to repair and maintain existing roads and bridges and expand public transportation," said spokeswoman Erin Steva.

The group also faulted the California Department of Transportation's list, saying that only 37% of the funds would flow to public transportation. The group called for a higher percentage, citing the record ridership on California's mass transit systems, which have been hit by severe cutbacks in recent years. The proposed percentage is less than what is being planned in Tennessee, Wisconsin and Massachusetts, CALPIRG said.

It is elemental that the stimulus spending cannot prop up an unsustainable growth model based on sprawl. Experts up and down the state understand this, and one of the best examples is in this Merced Sun-Star editorial, which nicely explains the tension between speed and smarts:

The problem for the planners is that the stimulus must be geared toward putting people to work as fast as possible. That, many believe, argues for the traditional sort of public works, such as highways.

In many cases, plans are already in place to replace crumbling roads, highways and bridges. By contrast, plans for urban transit systems and intercity high-speed rail are less firm, meaning it may take more time to actually start turning dirt and generating paychecks [...]

We're confident that a solution exists that puts people to work right away and also lays the groundwork for a new approach to the nation's transportation needs.

It won't be easy, but it has to happen. We can't continue to simply build more transportation infrastructure on a model that's now more than a half-century old.

A new model for transportation is part of the change we need.

Read the whole thing. One good idea calls for phased stimulus spending, giving enough for critical highway and road repairs at the start, with the bulk coming later for transit and rail projects.

Boyz In The LaHood

So the second Republican has been tapped for President-elect Obama's cabinet - former Illinois Congressman Ray LaHood as Transportation Secretary. In past Administrations, the Transportation Secretary hasn't been that powerful a job and has been a dumping ground for the inevitable token member from the opposite party. Heck, even Bush had Democrat Norman Mineta installed there. However, with the focus on infrastructure improvements being central to Obama's economic recovery platform, and with a lot of that going to rail and transit, DOT might be more important this time around. And it's being handed to a Republican. Of course, there's an open question about how involved LaHood would be on those infrastructure issues, rather than the normal work of DOT, a lot of which involves air travel.

The reception has been mixed. Streetsblog is not impressed.

We've been calling around to Congressional staffers, advocates and insiders to get a better sense of what Obama's appointment of Ray LaHood as transportation secretary means for those pushing for sustainable transport, smart growth, livable streets. While no one is giving up hope on the Obama administration a month before the inauguration, the general consensus is pretty clear. As one insider summed it up: "It's a real read-it-and-weep moment."

The selection of a downstate Illinois Republican with close ties to highway lobby stalwart Caterpillar Inc. is being taken by many as a clear sign that progressive transportation policy is, for now, nowhere near the top of the Obama's agenda.

"Obama still hasn't made the transportation - land use - climate connection," Petra Todorovich, director of Regional Plan Association’s America 2050 program said. "It's clear he's thinking about these things in separate categories." For Todorovich and other advocates, the LaHood pick was the second shoe to drop this week. The first piece of bad news arrived on Monday when Obama trotted out his "green dream team," his appointments to key environmental, energy and climate posts, and the transportation secretary was nowhere to be found.

Friends of the Earth is a little more hopeful:

“Congressman LaHood’s challenge is great. He must ensure U.S. transportation policy supports, rather than undercuts, the Obama administration’s goals on energy and climate change. This means he must work closely with Obama’s nominees for the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency, and with Obama’s new energy and climate czar, Carol Browner.

“While his overall record on energy and environment issues is poor, LaHood has in recent years broken with many in his party to support crucial investments in passenger rail and public transportation, and he is a member of the Congressional Bike Caucus. These are reasons to hope that he may be open to the visionary transportation policy that is needed to move our country forward.

“Friends of the Earth looks forward to working with Congressman LaHood to bring about such a policy.”

I think it's clear that Obama doesn't connect green policy and transportation policy, but it's probably because his green thinking outweighs the thinking on transportation. I don't think LaHood will have much of a power center. He is moderate for a Republican, and he has promoted expanded rail and transit funding in recent years, so I don't think he'll be an obstacle to that either. At some point, however, Streetsblog is right: to truly remake our energy future we need to provide options to alter the way we live - with smart growth, proper land use and livable streets. The era of suburban sprawl cannot continue because our efforts on reining in greenhouse gas emissions will collapse. DOT actually could play a valuable role in setting that policy, but Obama doesn't want to go there. His urban background, however, suggests he understands the importance of it, both for the economy, the environment and quality of life. So we'll see.

...just to round out the cabinet, there's former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk as US Trade Representative. I think it was clear with Xavier Becerra's remarks when he turned down the job that Obama didn't really think trade was a first- or second-order priority, and he didn't connect trade to our larger economic problems, so this may be another area where the pick doesn't entirely matter since that policy will be attacked from a different angle.

CA-26: The Mystery of "Democrats For Dreier"

Last week, David Dreier sent a letter to residents in his district. It was signed by nine "Democrats for Dreier" announcing their support of his re-election campaign, because he is a "different kind of leader" who is a passionate advocate for the San Gabriel Valley and the Inland Empire.

The letter was signed by the following 9 Democrats:

Paul Eaton, Mayor of Montclair
Roberto Campos, small businessman, Glendora/Upland
Karen Davis, Mayor of Glendora
Mary Ann Lutz, Monrovia Councilmember
Kurt Zimmerman, Mayor of Sierra Madre
Joe Garcia, Monrovia Councilmember
Anthony Fellow, Director, Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, Arcadia
Dorrie Bryan, HR Manager, Rancho Cucamonga
Eugene Sun, San Marino Councilmember

The questions arose almost as soon as the letter was sent.

First of all, the fact that he filled out the list with two random small businesspeople instead of filling the list with electeds is kind of curious in and of itself. But there are far more serious issues with this list.

Paul Eaton, the Mayor of Montclair, spoke for Russ Warner, the Democratic CHALLENGER to Dreier, at a fundraiser two months ago and called him "the type of change we need in the district".

Mary Ann Lutz is a CONTRIBUTOR to Warner's campaign. She gave $250 on June 30 of this year.

In these cases, there are only two explanations. Either Dreier just placed these Democratic supporters of Russ Warner (or at least it seems so) on a "Democrats for Dreier" list without their knowledge, or he bullied them into supporting his candidacy lest they find their local communities without federal help from Congress in the future. I have credible information that this is a case of the latter. A fellow activist just got off the phone with Eaton, and he explained that Dreier has lobbied for his support consistently since he reached office, laying out the carrot of increased transportation funds for Montclair and the surrounding area. This time around, Dreier basically, as I understand it, intimated that Warner wouldn't have the seniority to steer transportation money back to the district, and as a result electeds like Eaton decided to support him this time around.

This is fairly typical politics, and it's standard for an incumbent to argue that experience and seniority is an asset for their candidacy. But it's a particularly brutal way to play the game, and in this case Dreier is pretty transparently offering a quid pro quo of dollars in exchange for support.

There's also the case of Kurt Zimmerman, a former Assistant US Attorney and, according to this Smart Voter guide, a current Attorney with the Department of Commerce. If that's still accurate, his signature endorsing a political candidate would be a violation of the Hatch Act prohibiting government employees from partisan political activities.

This is only the beginning of the questions surrounding the "Dems for Dreier." I also think this shows an element of fear from Dreier's campaign, that they need to de facto bribe public officials into gaining their support.

Fossils Addicted To Fossil Fuels

The short-sighted American auto industry is still claiming that increased fuel efficiency will cost them jobs, as opposed to, you know, being the only thing to save the entire industry from complete and utter destruction. Nobody wants to buy their gas guzzlers anymore. How long is it going to take for them to figure that out?

Schmucks. Never mind the fact that radical climate change is a fact of life and 100 years of chomping on fossil fuels has put us in a predicament where saving "part" of our ecosystem is the only future option. But on strictly an economic basis, cars that don't stretch the fuel dollar won't be sold. Period. People already have cars that get shitty gas mileage and they're not going to upgrade to something worse. There's enough competition in the market, and more coming on line, that automakers with a 1956 way of thinking about auto efficiency will be crushed like a bug.

The killer app that could wipe out these jokers completely is better transit. Ben Cardin is a national leader on this front, and I encourage you to read this interview. An excerpt:

Grist: You authored the transit portion of the Climate Security Act. Clearly this is a priority issue for you. What role do you think transit policy should play in climate legislation?

Sen. Cardin: A huge part. [The transit portion called for] $171 billion over the life of the bill. That's big money. That can make a major impact. It can make a huge difference in the capacity for transit programs. We are in desperate need of significant transit improvements. We've got to have the facilities and we don't today, and then we need the fare-box and economic policies that reward people for taking public transportation. Some try to say that it should be "self-sufficient" or have a certain percentage return through the fare-box. We don't do that on our roads, and public transportation is much better for so many reasons -- not just the environment or the quality of life. We should be providing much stronger incentives for people to use public transportation, but first you need to have the facilities.

I'm a big, big supporter of dramatic change in public transportation. It includes more than just the bus and rail systems in our urban areas. It includes a commuter rail and inter-city rail -- the whole gamut of services that get people out of their personal vehicles. I don't want people driving their personal vehicles the way they are today.

He's absolutely right about this. Reality is coming to the transportation sector and they can climb aboard or get out of the way. The time for backward thinking is over.

UPDATE: Harry Reid is completely right, by the way. Coal does make us sick, and furthermore the real cost of using fossil fuels is almost never addressed. We built the public infrastructure through taxpayer money. We spend hundreds of billions on defense to ensure safe passage for oil. The real cost of gas is at least double what you pay, and more if you factor in the lung disease and sickness associated with refining and rendering and smog and pollution. Coal makes us sick. Oil makes us sick. It's time to get off them.

McCain vs. Obama on Energy and Transportation

The Jeddah conference began and ended with nary a word of hope for anyone suffering through high gas prices, and it's clear that they will continue in the near term. In the medium term, the Republican robots calling for more domestic drilling are trying to play the country for suckers. Everyone knows (and I'm including the Republican Speaker of the Florida House on this list) that snapping your fingers and yelling "Drill!" won't immediately alter the price of oil. Moreover, Big Oil already has millions of acres of leased fields that they refuse to bring online, and industry analysts have finally figured out this shell game. Plus, talk of "environmentally safe" drilling is disingenuous, especially considering that the Interior Department - George Bush's Interior Department - is right now suing a company for damaging the environment on a field in Wyoming.

Now, John McCain did something right today. He advocated for an X-Prize type of solution: $300 million dollars for any company that can build a superior car battery. In general I think these are well-spent endeavors; the company that receives the prize can plow that money into assembly and distribution, and they have an incentive to deliver the goods quickly. He also called for bigger fines on any carmaker who violates current fuel efficiency laws, and a large tax credits for purchasers of zero-emission vehicles.

Of course, this is completely askew with his call for more offshore drilling, and maybe that's because he's taken more money from Big Oil than any other Presidential candidate. But it's also because McCain has become the Sybil of this Presidential election, with a sop to moderates one day and the hard right the next. Of course, on the important issues, he's going to stay with the Bush-Cheney agenda.

But what I really notice about McCain's proposals, even the decent ones, is that they exist on a narrow field where the car-based economy remains prominent. All of his ideas have to do with making cars more efficient, stretching the gallon of gas out of existing structures of transportation using technological advancement and market forces. That's maybe a part of the solution, but if we're going to reduce the cost of transportation and mitigate global warming, we have to find different ways to commute. And those solutions are readily available; in fact, people are already taking advantage of them:

Record prices for gasoline and jet fuel should be good news for Amtrak, as travelers look for alternatives to cut the cost of driving and flying.

And they are good news, up to a point.

Amtrak set records in May, both for the number of passengers it carried and for ticket revenues — all the more remarkable because May is not usually a strong travel month.

But the railroad, and its suppliers, have shrunk so much, largely because of financial constraints, that they would have difficulty growing quickly to meet the demand.

Many of the long-distance trains are already sold out for some days this summer. Want to take Amtrak’s daily Crescent train from New York to New Orleans? It is sold out on July 5, 6, 7 and 8. Seattle to Vancouver, British Columbia, on July 5? The train is sold out, but Amtrak will sell you a bus ticket.

“We’re starting to bump up against our own capacity constraints,” said R. Clifford Black, a spokesman for Amtrak.

I rode the bus to work twice last week. There's a public meeting about light rail coming into my town this week. People are ready for mass transit solutions that improve stress, quality of life, their personal budgets and environmental damage. The problem is the investment in rail and bus and subway lines is just not there. It won't surprise you to know that John McCain is a longtime opponent of Amtrak.

Barack Obama, however, has lived in a city, has served constituents who mostly commute by train and bus, and understands the external benefits to mass transit. His speech at the US Conference of Mayors stressed all kinds of innovative transit solutions.

Let’s invest that money in a world-class transit system. Let’s re-commit federal dollars to strengthen mass transit and reform our tax code to give folks a reason to take the bus instead of driving to work – because investing in mass transit helps make metro areas more livable and can help our regional economies grow. And while we’re at it, we’ll partner with our mayors to invest in green energy technology and ensure that your buses and buildings are energy efficient. And we’ll also invest in our ports, roads, and high-speed rails – because I don’t want to see the fastest train in the world built halfway around the world in Shanghai, I want to see it built right here in the United States of America.

The entire heading of the speech was a "Metropolitan Strategy" for America. I don't think there's been one before, and it's important that the connections between cities and their outlying metropolitan areas are made. By allowing those who live outside the city center a transportation option outside their cars, we can reduce oil dependence, clean the air and water, mitigate global warming and most importantly improve people's outlook.

Now, Obama isn't perfect on this front. As Ezra Klein noted he mentioned filling the Federal Highway Fund before investing in intercity rail, and his position on ethanol is dispiriting, although inevitable given that winning Iowa was the difference between his winning or losing the nomination. But clearly, the fact that he's at least THINKING about high-speed rail and metro development and mass transit puts him light years ahead of McCain. Then there's the answer to this question.

What do you see as the gravest long-term threat to the U.S. economy?

Obama: If we don't get a handle on our energy policy, it is possible that the kinds of trends we've seen over the last year will just continue. Demand is clearly outstripping supply. It's not a problem we can drill our way out of. It can be a drag on our economy for a very long time unless we take steps to innovate and invest in the research and development that's required to find alternative fuels. I think it's very important for the federal government to have a role in that process.

McCain: Well, I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we're in against Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence. Another successful attack on the United States of America could have devastating consequences.

McCain is a caricature about anything outside of his military comfort zone. Obama understands how energy issues threaten our long-term survival, and is going to be aggressive in coming up with alternatives.

The Green Cultural Movement

I went to the Dwell on Design show over the weekend, a look at home furnishings from the architecture and design magazine. And what amazed me was how foregrounded the green credentials of all the products were. Even in front of the design qualities. From VOC-free paint to tabletops that don't emit radon gas to solar panels to tankless water heaters and on and on, there was practically nothing at this design show that was purely aesthetic.

The green movement is cultural. It's not using the usual measures of politics to gain power, but creating a lifestyle that incorporates eco-friendly elements into it. It's starting in building and re-design, and because of the price of gas is moving quickly into transportation. Both Nissan and Saturn are putting a significant investment into electric cars, and as most Americans expect gas prices to remain high it's very likely they'll buy them and find alternative means of travel.

Of course, this cultural movement is going to leave some people behind. Green technologies are expensive now, and out of reach to many. That's what I thought when I read this article about how rural Americans are suffering the most from higher gas prices. Electric cars aren't coming to the heartland anytime soon. How do we deal with this?

Across broad swaths of the South, Southwest and the upper Great Plains, the combination of low incomes, high gas prices and heavy dependence on pickup trucks and vans is putting an even tighter squeeze on family budgets.

Here in the Mississippi Delta, some farm workers are borrowing money from their bosses so they can fill their tanks and get to work. Some are switching jobs for shorter commutes.

People are giving up meat so they can buy fuel. Gasoline theft is rising. And drivers are running out of gas more often, leaving their cars by the side of the road until they can scrape together gas money.

The disparity between rural America and the rest of the country is a matter of simple home economics. Nationwide, Americans are now spending about 4 percent of their take-home income on gasoline. By contrast, in some counties in the Mississippi Delta, that figure has surpassed 13 percent.

As a result, gasoline expenses are rivaling what families spend on food and housing.

“This crisis really impacts those who are at the economic margins of society, mostly in the rural areas and particularly parts of the Southeast,” said Fred Rozell, retail pricing director at the Oil Price Information Service, a fuel analysis firm. “These are people who have to decide between food and transportation.”

Outside of rebates, I don't know how you deal with that. Building an entirely new energy infrastructure, new bus routes and mass transit, in areas that have none, is prohibitively expensive. A windfall profits tax won't impact these people, at least not to the extent that they can fit transportation cleanly into their budget.

Something to think about.

Robbing From The Voters

Last night on Warren Olney's Which Way LA?, which everyone should be podcasting, Dan Walters from the Sacramento Bee made a very interesting point about the budget that has been somewhat unremarked-upon to this point. I'm not generally a fan of Walters, but it's hard to argue with this.

The budget that passed the Assembly took $1.2 billion designed to go to transit and put it back into the general fund, with the reason given that the infrastructure bonds are financing transit improvements so there would be some duplication there. That's not what voters approved in November at all. Not even close. The infrastructure bonds on transportation were meant to be additional funds that the state could use to start new projects. It was in no way meant to stand in for the regular finances received from the state regarding transportation.

So we now have a situation where bonds have been floated to finance existing projects and maintenance. Is this a preview of things to come, a get-out-of-the-deficit-free card by using Arthur Andersen-style creative accounting tactics? Voters approved those bonds because they wanted to see new mass transit options and new carpool lanes. They did not approve an addendum to the state budget to solve the fiscal mess.

(We of course see this also in the cut to Prop. 36 funding for drug treatment in prisons, also approved by voters, which I guess doesn't matter. It's a good thing nobody covers this state in the media, or there would be some howling going on)

CA-37: Two-Day-Late Debateblogging

I hope you guys appreciate me, because I managed to get through the entire 90-minute debate for the June 26 primary in the 37th Congressional District to replace the late Juanita Millender-McDonald held on Thursday night. 11 Democrats were on stage, and because they were all given 2 minute opening statements, the debate really didn't cover much ground. But actually, the fact that the moderator was a clueless local news anchor from LA's ABC7 who had virtually no connection to the district was a good thing, as the persistent issues of race played out in the media in the campaign were fairly nonexistent in the debate.

Let's take a look at each candidate's opening statement:

Ed Wilson: former mayor of Signal Hill, a small city in the district. He immediately went after the whole ethnicity issue, saying "this is not a black seat or a white seat or a Hispanic seat, it's your seat."

Peter Matthews: He's the PDA-endorsed candidate who has run for office many times, including challenging Millender-McDonald in a primary in 2006 (and getting 10,000 votes). Matthews is running on the progressive issues on getting us out of Iraq, closing the inequality divide, providing single-payer universal health care, and restoring tax fairness.

Jenny Oropeza: The state Senator was strong on the war, saying "we need to get out of Iraq now." She talked about the environment, health care, revising NCLB, and needing to "turn around trade agreements" that sacrifice American job (that was cheering). She closed with "You know my record," playing off her experience serving the area.

Laura Richardson: Assemblywoman Richardson is also running on her record. She kind of messed up her move from talking about Iraq to domestic issues, saying "I want to talk about the war in America" and then claiming that Al Qaeda is running rampant (I think she meant in Waziristan, not Long Beach). Didn't seem like much of a public speaker.

Valerie McDonald: The late Congresswoman's daughter talked about her ties to the area, the need to keep families together in the black community, and the importance of education.

Bill Grisolia: He's a longtime employee of Long Beach Memorial Health Center, so universal health care was one of his themes. But he was at his most powerful discussing the war in Iraq, and his desire to cut funding except to bring our troops home. He also tried to blunt the experience argument by saying "What have the electeds done for you?"

Mr. Evans: I forget his first name and it doesn't matter. He's a far-right immigrant-hating loon who somehow was let into the Democratic primary. He proudly namechecked Lou Dobbs in the first sentence of his statement and called himself a closed-borders candidate. There is a sense in the black community that immigrants are in competition with them for low-paying jobs, but this was the most extreme out-and-out black bigot I've seen.

Alicia Ford: Spent her entire statement talking about something she did a decade ago that ABC7 didn't cover, which made her bad. Also actually said "In Compton, they are without... a lot of things." Stirring.

Lee Davis: Her whole statement decried the front-runner assumptions of the media, and said that "if the top three had any self-respect they'd leave this stage right now" to allow for equal access, and then actually WAITED for them to leave the stage. They, er, didn't.

George Parmer: a truck driver from Long Beach, the first to actually call for impeachment and call out the Democratic leadership for their sell-out on capitulation in Iraq.

Jeffrey Price: Talked mainly about lobbying and ethics reform.

Albert Robles: a write-in candidate in a 17-candidate field. Best of luck to you. I mean, if you can't get the papers in on time...

The first question was on Iraq, and pretty much the entire field is committed to getting out now, so on that big issue, there's not a lot of daylight and everyone is on the right side. Peter Matthews went so far as to suggest that there ought to be impeachment investigations into lying us into war, and announced his support for HR 333, the impeachment of Dick Cheney. The moderator actually did the "raise your hands" thing on the impeachment question, and I think 8 or 9 candidates raised their hands, including Jenny Oropeza (it was a wide shot on a postage stamp video window, so I could be wrong). Mr. Evans, of course, kept calling the President the "commander-in-chief" and yelled at everybody for undermining him in a time of war. I think there's a place for him in the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

On Iran, Jenny Oropeza has sadly bought into the bullshit rhetoric that they are a threat to our national security and that all options have to be on the table regarding their nuclear program. She also said that she thinks diplomacy has failed because this President is incapable of it. Only Alicia Ford understood that Iran is not an imminent threat, but then she went on about how China is a threat to this country and how in Compton they don't have "things."

Transportation and port security was a major topic, with the Port of Long Beach in the district. Most candidates supported efforts to green the ports, including State Sen. Alan Loewenthal's $30 container fee for clean air proposal. Peter Matthews pressed the need for public transit to aid a cleaner environment. Valerie McDonald was good on this issue as well. George Parmer, the trucker, maintained that many truckers own their equipment and can't afford to modernize their trucks, and so some of the funds from the container fee should trickle down to them. I didn't see much difference here.

A big topic was the events at MLK/Harbor Medical Center's ER, which has been in the news lately, as a woman fell dead in the waiting room while the hospital staff did nothing. Most of the candidates believed MLK/Harbor should remain open and would support the $200 million in federal funding that goes into it annually, though Ed Wilson and Valerie McDonald stressed accountability. Laura Richardson said a platitude like "this situation must be dealt with" but didn't explain how. Peter Matthews mentioned that he organized a picket at MLK/Harbor 2 years ago and the only result was that they cut beds in half. Bill Grisolia stressed the need for cooperation in the community, perhaps nurses college training partnerships to get more staff in there. Many stressed the need for universal healthcare so that poor people aren't relying on the ER as their last resort.

On a question about Wal-Mart, Oropeza proudly claimed that she fought against a Wal-Mart in Long Beach, and now there's an Albertson's there! (Does she not read the news about the looming grocery strike and how Albertson's in particular is trying to screw their workers again?) The major candidates were in agreement on this, though only Valerie McDonald mentioned that workers ought to have the right to organize. I take it she'd support the Employee Free Choice Act.

In final thoughts, Oropeza said she wouldn't support the current immigration bill but didn't say why, George Parmer advocated a national paper ballot because "votes are being stolen," and Ed Wilson wanted to stop Congress from raiding Social Security and Medicare funds. Laura Richardson took a cheap shot when she mentioned some local shooting and claimed she was the only candidate there (what, if you run for Congress, you have to know where the shootings are?).

My impression is that the candidates, by and large, are fairly progressive, as befits the district. Oropeza and Richardson are politicians who are playing some political games. Oropeza doesn't seem all that informed on a couple crucial issues, and Richardson is clearly running a "vote for me, I'm one of you" race. I was impressed with Valerie McDonald and Bill Grisolia. Peter Matthews certainly has all of his progressive chops down, and it will be interesting to see if he can leverage the grassroots energy in Southern California from PDA and translate it into votes.