Santa Clara County Democratic Party

A Romney economy

noreply@blogger.com (Jacquie) — Mon, 14 May 2012 15:43:00 +0000

What did Romney do when he was involved with Bain Capital? He destroyed good paying American jobs so that his company could make profits for a few individuals. No one is against profit, but when it comes at the expense of American workers we all are harmed.

To be fair one needs to be truthful

noreply@blogger.com (Jacquie) — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:34:00 +0000

Willard "Mitt" Romney is on the campaign trail, however he seems to think that campaigning gives one the right to lie at will. Watch for yourself, and feel free to share this video with your friends and family members. We can't let Willard get away with lying at will.

Measure B will cost taxpayers millions

noreply@blogger.com (Jacquie) — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 23:12:00 +0000

In June the residents of San Jose will be asked to weigh in on Measure B. The Santa Clara County Democratic Central Committee is recommending a “NO” vote on Measure B, and we would like you to know why.

First, no one is arguing that pension changes are not necessary; rather it is the way these changes are being proposed that is the problem. In 2010 voters passed Measures V and W, had the city in good faith negotiated with labor over pensions San Jose would have seen almost two years of savings to date.

The city claimed that labor was not giving up enough to fix the pension problem, however we now know that Mayor Reed was citing a $650 million dollar shortfall, a number which has been discredited. Labor had offered up hundreds of millions of dollars in concessions, which, had they been accepted, would have put us on the road to fixing the pension system in San Jose.

Additionally there are changes to disability, health insurance and more. These changes include the possibility that a public safety person who is hurt on the job could be denied disability payments by the city, even if the person is determined to be disabled enough that they could not perform their job. For instance, a public safety employee is hurt on the job and can no longer do their job. The city than determines that the person can do another city job and move them to that job. The problem is the next part: if there are no job openings the person will not receive disability and will be without employment. Imagine that a public safety employee, risking their life, is hurt and there is no open position for them to move into, they will be without a job and any disability payments. Is this really how we want to treat those who protect us?

Had the city and labor come to an agreement shortly after V and W were passed the pension system in San Jose would have seen an infusion of needed funds. What we have now though is Measure B, which if passed, will be brought to court immediately. Not only will it be brought to court, but the measure itself could be put on hold until the court decides if it is illegal or not. All told we are looking at a year, or longer, without any additional funding to our problematic pension system. In addition the city will need to pay legal fees to defend their position in court, on top of the two court cases they have already lost (one of which also involved the city paying for the petitioner's legal fees).

If Measure B is ruled illegal, after the court battle, San Jose will have wasted millions of dollars without any fixes to the problem.

Voting NO on Measure B will force the city council and labor to sit down and come to an agreement on fixing the pension problem. Voting NO will save our city from a costly legal battle we could well lose. Voting NO on Measure B can actually start to fix the pension system sooner than if Measure B passes.

Secondly, our informed opinion is that Measure B goes about fixing our pension issue the wrong way. Measure B scapegoats city employees too heavily for the economic crisis cities and counties all over the country are facing, Measure B permanently codifies many changes that go beyond simple reform of pensions. We also believe that the better approach is to work with the city's labor unions to collaboratively find solutions to the problem.

We are all in this boat together; residents, employees, business, and we need to make sure the way forward will create solid economic footing for the foreseeable future. Measure B does not achieve that goal, if passed Measure B will cost the residents of San Jose millions of dollars and if the courts throw out Measure B (as many legal scholars think will happen), we are that much further behind. Vote NO on Measure B and demand that Labor and the City of San Jose do their jobs and reach an agreement that is viable for everyone.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

noreply@blogger.com (Rachel) — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:10:00 +0000

Here's a shot of today's hearing on birth control and "religious freedom." Notice anything strange? How odd that a panel on birth control would feature only men. The absurdity didn't go unnoticed by House Democrats, who walked out of the hearing in protest. At a later news conference, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi asked, "Where are the women?" Questioning why Republicans would purposely exclude women from a panel on women's health, she added, "I may at some point be moved to explain biology to my colleagues."

President Obama's insistence that insurance companies offer birth control free of charge as preventative medicine has really sent Republicans off the deep end. Frankly, many in the GOP are making fools of themselves on the subject -- how else to explain the recent statement by Foster Friess, billionaire backer of Rick Santorum, that in his day, "gals" put aspirin between their knees "and it wasn't that costly."

Given that large majorities -- including large majorities of Catholics -- support the president's plan, it's hard to see how Republicans think that this is a winning issue, especially in this day and age. Thank goodness at least one party has its feet planted firmly in the 21^st century.

Change we can believe in? It's working

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:21:00 +0000

As we look forward to more ways President Obama can work independently to move the country forward, let's not forget important progress that has already been made.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stopped an economic free-fall. Republicans claim that there has been a net job loss under Obama's administration, but those claims fail to acknowledge the massive jobs hemorrhage that he inherited, and they don't account for the slow but steady turn-around in employment that occurred after the Democratic stimulus plan took effect. January was the 23rd consecutive month of job growth under President Obama's leadership.

(Perhaps unemployment would be even lower without massive government layoffs around the country, but these are the natural result of an austerity regime embraced by conservatives whose aversion to deficit spending does not include tax breaks for the wealthy or unlimited war.
The Affordable Care Act is quietly making a difference. Tax credits are helping small businesses; those with pre-existing conditions can now access affordable health insurance; seniors are saving money on their drug prescriptions, and a whopping 2.5 million young people are now insured, thanks to being able to piggy-back on their parents' insurance plans. And the law won't even be fully implemented for two more years! Now that's change we can believe in.
Bailing out the auto industry saved the backbone of American manufacturing. Republicans called the move "dangerous" and "a war on capitalism." Mitt Romney even issued a flat call to let Detroit go bankrupt. Today, however, American car companies are climbing back, having gained market share for the first time in two decades; analysts also expect a third consecutive year of gains. While Republicans were willing to sacrifice American auto companies as well as the millions of livelihood dependent on the industry, Democrats were not. We were right.

We can't wait: President Obama takes matters into his own hands

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:54:00 +0000

For those of us frustrated by a year of brinksmanship and inaction in Congress, President Obama is finally providing some welcome relief. Bypassing a legislative branch held hostage by those determined to thwart his agenda at any cost, the president has taken a number of steps recently to take matters into his own hands:

In December, the White House announced a $4 billion energy investment program leveraging public and private funds to upgrade government buildings – at no cost to taxpayers. The program, part of a coordinated effort to help the economy with action that the Executive Branch can take without waiting for Congress to act, also includes a housing initiative designed to help people refinance their homes and a program to help repay student loans.
In early January, President Obama took advantage of the congressional recess to appoint Richard Cordray as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The bureau was a key part of financial reform legislation passed in 2010, but fell victim to the Tea Party sweep in Congress later that year. While Cordray, a former Ohio attorney general, was well-qualified to lead the new agency, Republicans had refused to let his nomination even come up for a vote, insisting that the bureau itself would be too powerful in its oversight of consumer financial products. According to Cordray, the bureau has already begun overseeing payday lenders, mortgage servicers, private lenders and other nonbank financial firms that were unregulated before Obama’s financial reform legislation was passed.
A few weeks later, the White House announced a small but important change to immigration rules that will make it easier for citizens to get waivers for family members who may be in the country illegally. Previous rules had resulted in years of separation for family members and provided an incentive to stay in the legal shadows. Immigration specialists hailed the change as a "welcome rational solution to a simple problem" that will mean "thousands upon thousands of families will remain together."

While all these initiatives are a welcome sign of progress, they are just the beginning. With a Republican Party likely to double down on its intransigence in the coming election year, look for the president to make more of these moves in the months ahead.

Republicans are driving working-class voters into the arms of the Democratic Party. Are we ready?

noreply@blogger.com (Rachel) — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 20:21:00 +0000

The assault on unions finally brought the Republican Party the backlash it deserved: earlier this month, voters in Ohio resoundingly rejected the GOP's efforts to roll back collective bargaining for public employees. The reaction was so intense it took even party leaders by surprise and exposed the growing gap between working-class voters and the right-wing Republican base. Coupled with the frustration and anger expressed in the nation-wide Occupy Wall Street protests, conservatives are getting nervous. As a writer for the neoconservative The Weekly Standard put it:

"The GOP base voter believes the deficit is as large a problem as the economy; the white working-class independent does not. The GOP base voter believes cutting entitlements is necessary to cut the deficit and that taxes on the rich should not be raised; the white working-class independent disagrees. The GOP base voter wants to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan; the white working-class independent wants to come home. The GOP base voter scorns Occupy Wall Street; the white working=class independent thinks the Occupiers have something of a point."

While the Republican Party struggles to appeal to these voters, Democrats should be jumping for joy. We don't have to bend over backwards to find common ground with this voting bloc: We already support what they want! It is Democrats who defend Social Security and Medicare. It is Democrats who believe millionaires and corporations should pay their fair share. It is Democrats who want out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Democrats are the party of the 99%. We can claim victory in 2012 by fighting hard for what voters already expect us to defend. Social Security and Medicare must not take a back seat to millionaire tax cuts. Wall Street must be held accountable. Jobs must come before deficits -- indeed, the current climate of austerity robs us of our ability to invest in our infrastructure and our people and guarantees economic hardship for years to come. Poll after poll shows that Americans back Democratic priorities -- let's be loud and clear in defending those priorities. We must not be afraid to fight for the values -- justice, accountability, protecting the middle class -- that 99% of us hold dear.

Class Warfare?

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:00:00 +0000

Last Sunday, Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in the world, wrote a powerful op-ed in the New York Times asking that Congress "stop coddling the super-rich." He pointed out that he pays a lower effective tax rat than any of his employees. Returning the capital gains tax rates to historical levels and closing tax loopholes would help provide revenue to the federal government, and would ask the richest Americans to pay their fair share.

Of course, Buffett has been attacked all week on Fox News and in other right-wing forums. He has even been called a "socialist." While Republicans in Congress go after spending for programs that benefit lower and middle class Americans, they turn their back on the $700 billion that would result from returning the top two tax brackets to where they were under President Clinton.

While Republicans decry what they call "class warfare," they are making the case that the poor need to pay more taxes. Keep in mind that while those with the lowest incomes often don't pay federal income tax, they do pay sales tax, vehicle license fees, gasoline tax, and plenty of other taxes. Last night, Jon Stewart showed clips of these attacks on working Americans. The worst was from Fox News, who questioned whether they really are "poor," since they have refrigerators and microwave ovens. Watch the segment from the Daily Show shown below, but be warned - some of the clips made my stomach turn at the sheer callousness of the arguments.

The Daily Show - World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Nancy Pelosi Makes the Case for 2012

noreply@blogger.com (Rachel) — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 22:41:00 +0000

In an interview with ABC this week, Nancy Pelosi said that Democrats have "a very good chance" of taking back the House in 2012, laying out the party's election-year strategy in the clearest possible terms: "What we want is to change the view that the Republicans have that it is OK to abolish Medicare [and] to make seniors pay more for less while we give tax breaks to big oil. That's not a formula that I think works for the middle class."

Pelosi was unbending in her successful fight against Republican attempts to privatize Social Security in 2005, and she has been just as ardent in defending Medicare, insisting that cuts to benefits for seniors are "absolutely" off the table.

Prioritizing Grandma's health care over tax cuts for millionaires? That's not just a winning message; it's how civilized societies operate. Let those who think otherwise defend their position. In fact, looking ahead to 2012, Democrats should give them every opportunity to do so.

The Price We Pay for Millionaire Tax Cuts

noreply@blogger.com (Rachel) — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 00:13:00 +0000

Even though their latest show-vote on the deficit is now behind them, don't expect Republicans to let up on their austerity plans any time soon. After all, "We're broke," says House Speaker John Boehner, a sentiment echoed ad nauseum by conservative politicians, pundits and teabaggers everywhere.

What can we afford, according to this group? Well, tax cuts for millionaires, actually. Every time you hear a prominent conservative wring his or her hands over the country's huge deficit remember this: those deficits are caused almost entirely by the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Even the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (put entirely on the nation's credit card without a peep from the GOP, by the way) don't contribute as much to the deficit problem as those tax breaks given to our richest citizens. Late last year, in the middle of an unemployment crisis not seen in decades, Republicans even threatened to cut jobless benefits unless tax breaks for the wealthy were protected.

We know then, according to the GOP, that tax cuts for millionaires are more important than unemployment benefits or continuing Medicare. What else must be cut so we can continue to line the pockets of the rich? Here's a small sample:

Medicaid

Food safety

Schools, environmental protection, healthcare

Clean air and drinking water

Weather forecasting satellites and tsunami warning centers

Disaster relief for tornado victims

Public broadcasting

Financial regulation

Infrastructure investment and research

The chart below, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, illustrates the source of our current fiscal deficit. The list above actually illustrates something else: the GOP's moral deficit.

UPDATE: Add nutritious school lunches to the list of things we "can't afford" because millionaires need their tax cuts.

End of the Line for the Tea Party?

noreply@blogger.com (Rachel) — Thu, 26 May 2011 16:32:00 +0000

Has the Tea Party Express finally come to the end of the line? This week's surprise special-election victory of Democrat Kathy Hochul over her Republican opponents in a bright red congressional district is just the latest indication that -- perhaps -- the public might not care for the radical conservative agenda being pushed by today's GOP. While action on the usual divisive issues like abortion may have been expected, voters apparently were not prepared for a wholesale attack on unions, drastic cuts to education and infrastructure, and, of course, the straw that broke the camel's back: the elimination of Medicare. Though conservatives were riding high after sweeping victories last November, voter remorse has quickly set in. Recalls are in motion in Wisconsin, where Governor Scott Walker would lose today against his Democratic opponent. Michigan's radical Republican Governor Rick Snyder's approval is a dismal 33 percent. Rick Scott, the Florida Republican whose "jobs budget" lays off 4,500 workers, is now one of the most unpopular governors in the nation, according to the latest Quinnipiac poll. Ohio's anti-union John Kasich would lose a do-over election by 25 points. Even the vaunted Rick Perry of Texas is teetering: his ratings are split 41-42 percent approval/disapproval, with 28 percent "strongly" disapproving; only seven percent of Texas voters think he should run for President.

With voters once again waking up to the mess made when conservatives are in charge, it's up to Democrats to remind the electorate that "every man for himself" is not exactly the moral vision our Founders had in mind for their City on a Hill. Our party believes in a government that serves more than just the top one percent of the country. It's a contrast that grows brighter against the backdrop of an increasingly radical Republican agenda, and one that Democrats must highlight every chance we get.

Redistricting in California: Notes from a Panel at the Cal Dem Convention

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Roth) — Thu, 19 May 2011 22:04:00 +0000

Reposted from my site:

As a representative to the California Democratic Convention, I thought it only appropriate to bring back some notes. The most interesting panel was on redistricting. Here are my rough notes on the content of the panel.

Citizens Redistricting Commission

As you know, because of 2 ballot measures last year, the districts will be drawn by a The Citizens' Redistricting Commission comprised of Republicans, Democrats and Decline-to-State voters. The commission is set up so that any map proposed by the commission needs to get a super-majority of votes from the commission, so it will not be possible to have an all-Democrat map, or an All Republican-map.

Information on the make up of the commission can be found here.

Read the full post here.

The Auto Industry Bail-Out: The Hidden Success Story

noreply@blogger.com (Rachel) — Mon, 16 May 2011 23:15:00 +0000

"Just giving them $25 billion doesn't change anything."

It's a "road to nowhere."

Do it, and "you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye."

What do all these statements have in common? They're straight from the mouths of prominent Republicans, heaping scorn on the auto industry bailout. Coming at the depths of the financial crisis late in 2008, lending limited government support to an American auto industry teetering on the brink of collapse wasn't the most popular move, but it was championed by President Obama and Congressional Democrats as a way of saving one of the cornerstones of U.S. manufacturing, as well as the vast network of businesses and the thousands of jobs that went with it. The list of those who opposed the plan could be a line-up for a Fox News presidential debate: Mitch Daniels, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Michele Bachmann all assailed the idea as doomed to failure.

In fact, the bailout was a risky move that paid off, saving thousands of jobs at a critical time. Today, GM has reported its fifth consecutive profitable quarter, and all three Detroit carmakers are posting their first operating profits since 2004. Moreover, taxpayers are on track to recoup the lion's share of bailout costs. As the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne summarizes, "Allowing the market to operate without any intervention by the government would have wiped out a large part of the business that is based in Midwestern states. This irreversible decision would have damaged the economy, many communities and tens of thousands of families."

The rescue of the auto industry is indeed one of the biggest, but under-reported, success stories.

It's time to get the word out.

UPDATE: Chrysler is on the upswing, too, announcing that it has repaid its bail-out loans to the U.S. government -- six years early.

Republicans take another stand for the wealthy and privileged

noreply@blogger.com (Rachel) — Tue, 10 May 2011 01:07:00 +0000

There they go again. Last week, determined once more to stand up for their wealthy benefactors, Senate Republicans moved to block implementation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, unless it was considerably weakened. Created as part of financial reform legislation to protect consumers against predatory lending practices, the agency has been strongly opposed by the financial services industry, who are particularly opposed to Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard professor and consumer advocate whom President Obama tasked with getting the new agency on its feet and who has been an ardent proponent of Wall Street reform.

While GOP senators were busy defending bankers, their colleagues in the House were doing the same for the oil industry. Even though oil company profits are surging -- Exxon-Mobil reported profits up 69% this year alone -- House Republicans rebuffed a Democratic attempt to repeal billions of dollars in oil industry subsidies.

Coming on the heels of Republican calls to turn Medicare into a voucher system, these latest moves only underscore the GOP's true priorities: Protect the wealthy and powerful at all costs.

UPDATE: Senate Democrats are taking up where their House colleagues left off: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Tuesday that the Senate would target $4 billion in oil company subsidies. "It's a no-brainer" he said. "Let's use the savings from these taxpayer giveaways to drive down the deficit, not drive up oil company profits." Added Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill, "If we cannot end subsidies to the five biggest most profitable corporations in the history of the planet that come from the federal taxpayer, than I don't think anyone should be talking about deficit reduction."

Ryan's Radical Budget Plan: What Social Contract?

noreply@blogger.com (Rachel) — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 22:08:00 +0000

As congressional Republicans eagerly await their threatened shut-down of the federal government, their anointed budget guru, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, this week unveiled his FY 2012 spending plan, a truly radical proposal that breaks new ground in the upward redistribution of wealth that has become a Republican trademark. Slashing $6 trillion from the federal budget over the next ten years, Ryan's budget eliminates both Medicare and Medicaid, guts food stamps, low-income housing and Pell grants, and repeals the Affordable Care Act. The benefits of these "savings" go directly to the top in the form of huge tax breaks for wealthy Americans, corporations, and large estates. While college opportunities dry up for low and middle-income students, the elderly are left to fend for themselves in finding health care on the expensive open market, and the poor are left without food or health care entirely, people with incomes over $1 million will enjoy average tax cuts of $125,000 a year.

Ryan claims that his plan will lower the deficit and generate millions of new jobs. Unfortunately, those claims rest in part on an analysis by the Heritage Foundation, which also predicted that a jobs boom would result from the Bush tax cuts. In reality, not only would the Ryan plan cost roughly two million private sector jobs , it would, according to the Congressional Budget Office, actually increase the deficit by the end of the decade.

Make no mistake: despite its ostensible concern over the deficit, the Ryan budget plan is effectively a values document, one that couldn't demonstrate the Republican perspective on the role of government more clearly. In this view, government essentially has no role in "promoting the general welfare" other than to ensure that its benefits accrue to the wealthy and privileged. While such an idea might seem shocking, it is one now openly embraced by the GOP. Republican legislators and presidential candidates are praising Ryan's plan as "courageous" and "serious." Ryan himself is a rising star in the party and was given unprecedented power at the beginning of the legislative session to craft his budget blueprint.

Fortunately, Democrats have seized on the radical nature of this budget and are vowing to fight back. Nancy Pelosi declared that Ryan's proposal needs to be "snuffed out," likening it to former President Bush's efforts to privatize Social Security. The White House issued a statement saying, "Any plan to reduce our deficit must reflect the American values of fairness and shared sacrifice. Congressman Ryan's plan fails this test." A plan that requires sacrifice from society's most vulnerable citizens so that the wealthy can enjoy additional riches? This is more than a budget fight -- it is a values fight, and one Democrats must not wage timidly.

CDP Chairman John Burton on California's Budget Talks

noreply@blogger.com (David) — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 03:55:00 +0000

Statement of California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton on
Conservative Activist Grover Norquist's
Attempt to Hijack California Budget Talks

Grover Norquist's description of the California Democratic Party as "pathetic" is an indication that he is unaware of the butt-kicking we gave his Republican Party up and down the state of California last November.

California Democrats defeated billionaire Meg Whitman for Governor, multi-millionaire Carly Fiorina for US Senate, the popular Los Angeles County District Attorney for Attorney General, and the rest of the Republican ticket. We even picked up one seat in the state legislature. Any political party in the country would like to be that "pathetic."

Norquist is using bullyboy tactics against Republican office holders, who are in theory supposed to represent their constituents and not Norquist's ultra-right, money-making organization. This is exactly what we would expect from the former chief speechwriter for the reactionary United States Chamber of Commerce.

He was so successful with Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" that Republicans lost the House and Gingrich left under a cloud.

He was so successful in helping Arnold Schwarzenegger privatize the CalPERS system that the fund went into the toilet. Even though Grover wants to drown government in the bathtub, which may help him raise funds for himself and his organization, I do not believe that it is the point of view of even conservative Republicans here in California.

Good-government Grover of course worked with the totally discredited convicted criminal Jack Abramoff, and public records allege that his group served as a conduit for funds contributed from Abramoff's clients to finance "grassroots lobbying campaigns."

It is not surprising that somebody who supported the illegal effort of Oliver North, which tried to overthrow various governments around the world, would want Republicans to deny their constituents the right to self-determination on any number of issues including increasing revenue to support schools, health, public safety and other measures.

Grover was once quoted as saying when he became 21, he decided nobody learned anything about politics after the age of 21. Clearly the man's growth has been stunted. His effort to stunt the growth of California makes this plain for all to see.

Peace and friendship,

John Burton,
Chair
California Democratic Party

Let the Voters Decide

noreply@blogger.com (Rachel) — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 00:29:00 +0000

It's no secret that our state budget is in crisis. Years of economic decline and legislative stalemate have taken their toll -- California's once-vaunted public schools and universities are in decline, its infrastructure, once a model for the country, is crumbling; even its parks are closing their doors. While his predecessor preferred budgetary gimmicks, Governor Jerry Brown has offered up a budget that, through a combination of budget cuts, tax extensions and a realignment of state and local government, finally aims to place California on a more sound and sustainable economic footing.

The plan is no liberal dream. It aims to close an estimated $26.4 billion budget gap with a combination split almost 50-50 between spending cuts and the extension of temporary taxes that were set to expire this year. The cuts are drastic -- they include a billion dollars from higher education as well as painful reductions in social services to children, elderly and the poor. The targeted taxes would only be extended if approved by voters, as Brown promised during his campaign. But the plan is meeting the usual resistance from Republicans more interested in ideological purity than in practical governance. While temporarily extending taxes that California residents are already paying is hardly the nefarious "tax increase" conservatives like to portray, Republican legislators have already heard from tax extremist Grover Norquist, who has put them on notice that supporting Brown's plan, or even voting to place it on the ballot, violates their pledge to "oppose and vote against any and all efforts to raise taxes."

GOP legislators may snap to attention at Norquist's command, but California voters seem ready to respond to Brown's honesty on the budget. A recent PPI poll found that two-thirds of likely voters approve of placing Brown's plan on the June ballot, and more than half would vote yes -- a finding that suggests why Republicans are so adamant in their efforts to prevent voters from getting that chance.

Governor Brown's budget plan is not perfect, but his straightforward approach to outlining the options before us and his willingness to listen to ideas from across the political spectrum is a good first step. Our budget woes cannot be solved with spending cuts alone, and, with the stakes this high, we can't afford to waste more time wallowing in ideological quicksand. As the governor noted in his State of the State address, "the only way forward is to go back to the people and seek their guidance." At this critical juncture, the people's voice must be heard.

We Must Defend the Right to Choose

noreply@blogger.com (Rachel) — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 22:53:00 +0000

It's like clockwork: whenever Republicans come back into power, there is one area in which action is certain, and the 112th Congress is proving no exception. While the rest of the country might have hoped its legislators would be focused on jobs and the economy, the new GOP leadership in the House of Representatives set its laser sites once again on ... abortion. Right after its attack on landmark health care reform Republicans launched its first assault on the right to choose. The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, along with the Protect Life Act, call for a permanent ban on federal subsidies for abortion and for any healthcare plan that covers abortion. The bills would also make permanent the Hyde Amendment, which bans any federal money for abortion. (It must now be reintroduced every year.)

While these are perhaps familiar salvos in the long-running battle against choice, this year Republicans have taken the fight over women's health to new heights (or lows). The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, for example, briefly sought to redefine rape, tightening existing exceptions to the ban on Medicaid abortions from rape to "forcible rape." Sponsors backed off only after an outcry from women's groups and legal watchdogs that such a redefinition would exclude some rape victims and force others to justify their need to terminate a pregnancy based on the precise nature of their attack. Another bill, introduced just last week, would allow hospitals to deny an abortion or even a transfer to an abortion-performing hospital for a woman whose pregnancy threatened her life. Essentially, the law would allow a hospital to let a woman die rather than perform even an emergency abortion.

As the abortion war heats up, it also threatens an important progressive aspect of last year's Affordable Care Act -- access to contraception. The Obama administration, to its credit, is seeking to make contraception part of the free preventive services insurers are required to offer under the ACA. While this is a no-brainer from a public health perspective -- a move recommended by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics -- it has raised the predictable ire of the Roman Catholic Church, the Family Research Council and other ideological opponents of women's rights.

This battle over abortion is wearying. Many of us would rather focus on issues of seemingly greater urgency -- jobs, the economy, health care reform, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. But we ignore this fight at our peril. The right to choose is fundamental. It is central to a woman's ability to control her own life and her own body, to make decisions about her future that only she can make. It's easy to forget that in the absence of safe access to abortion, women die . In our own country, access to safe abortion has ebbed over the last thirty years as the legal noose around abortion rights has grown ever tighter. No one cheers on abortion. As former President Clinton used to say, abortion should be "safe, legal -- and rare." But maintaining the right to choose is elemental to a woman's right to self-determination. As Democrats, we must commit ourselves to its continual, vigorous defense.

Jerry Brown Takes Budget Challenge Head-On in State-of-the-State Address

noreply@blogger.com (Rachel) — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 04:41:00 +0000

It was a State-of-the-State address that bore all the familiar hallmarks of the man himself -- direct, no-nonsense, aspirational rather than ideological. Monday evening, Governor Jerry Brown called on Californians across the political spectrum to act as Californians first in facing the most serious economic crisis in a generation. Addressing the State Legislature, Brown urged "vision and discipline," telling lawmakers, "We owe it to ourselves and to our forebears -- and to our children -- to rise to this occasion, do what is right and regain the public's trust."

He laid out his goal "to make California again a leader in job creation, renewable energy and state of the art efficiency, innovation of all kinds and a solid primary and secondary education" -- a goal achievable only if Californians deal directly and honestly with the budget deficit.

Acknowledging the wide split between Democrats and Republicans in dealing with this deficit, Brown insisted that "now is not the time for politics as usual," and he pressed for placing his initiatives to extend some temporary taxes on the ballot: "My plan to rebuild California requires a vote of the people, and frankly I believe it would be irresponsible for us to exclude the people from this process." He framed his proposal to eliminate redevelopment agencies as one of the "hard choices" needed: while the agencies leverage their funds to create jobs, those funds come from property taxes that fund core government services like schools, police and fire protection, and, when the chips are down, it is these core government functions that must come first. He also mentioned "the long term challenge of ensuring that our public pensions are fair to both taxpayers and workers alike."

The governor used his characteristic dry humor to tweak Republicans who might be tempted to throw some ideological sand in the gears: on taking his tax initiatives to the voters, he challenged them pointedly, "[I]f you want to block the people's right to vote, stand up and say, 'Block that punt!'" Later, after saying, "If you have solutions that are truly viable, by all means present them. We need everyone's best thinking," he paused to look up for a moment. "Go ahead, GOP," he ribbed. "You can applaud."

Ending on a hopeful note, Brown asserted that once its budget is under control, "California will be in a strong position to take advantage of its many assets and its strategic location on the Pacific Rim." Moreover, success in this endeavor means that tackling future challenges will be "easier because we will have learned to work together and earned back the respect and trust of the people we serve."

Audio and transcript here.

Paul Ryan's Republican Message: Rob from the Poor and Give to the Rich

noreply@blogger.com (Rachel) — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 01:32:00 +0000

When Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the new chairman of the House Budget Committee, delivers his response to President Obama's State of the Union speech, keep one thing in mind: His vision for America favors a radical redistribution of income from the very bottom to the very top. Regarded as one of the party's rising stars, Ryan made headlines last year with the release of his "Roadmap for America's Future," a manifesto that aims to fundamentally reorient federal spending priorities. Packed with the usual Republican collection of tax cuts and spending reductions, Ryan's Roadmap is breathtaking primarily in its scope: it would, among other things, eliminate the corporate income tax, privatize Social Security, replace employer-sponsored health care with vouchers, end traditional Medicare and Medicaid, and return levels of government spending to that of the 1950s.

In all, the plan "would result in a massive transfer of resources from the broad majority of Americans to the nation's wealthiest individuals," according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). Massive indeed: the richest .01 percent would see an average tax break of $1.7 million a year -- and that's on top of the break they just received with last month's deal to extend the Bush tax cuts! Worse, the plan actually increases the tax burden on the rest of us. To compensate for tax breaks handed out to the rich, Ryan proposes a new consumption tax, shifting that burden onto the poor and middle class, who would then pay a proportionately greater share of their income in federal taxes.

Ironically, the plan actually adds to the deficit: the Brookings Institute's Tax Policy Center found that it would produce much less revenue than he claims and "would likely fall far short" of its ostensible goal of balancing the budget and paying off the national debt by 2080.

Indeed, Ryan's Roadmap was considered radical enough last year that, although it received praise from the Wall Street Journal, the National Review and other conservative outlets, GOP legislators themselves were more circumspect: House Speaker John Boehner declined to endorse the plan specifically, and Majority Leader Eric Cantor said he could only support "elements" of it. Nevertheless, it is clearly a reflection of Republican values and priorities: besides the plum job of delivering the GOP response to tonight's presidential address, Ryan has been given unprecedented power as Budget Committee chairman to single-handedly set spending levels for fiscal year 2011.

Radical proposals like Ryan's Republican Roadmap require a forceful push-back. Democrats should not be shy in doing so.

Hands Off Social Security

noreply@blogger.com (Rachel) — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 01:30:00 +0000

In advance of this week's State of the Union address, nearly three dozen House Democrats, including our own Representative Mike Honda, have signed a letter urging President Obama to make one message crystal clear to Republicans: "Hands-off Social Security!"

These Democrats remind the president that, with a $2.6 trillion surplus, Social Security is fully able to pay all its obligations through 2037, and even with no changes at all to the current system, will be able to pay out 75 percent of benefits after that. Using the current economic crisis as an excuse to slice into Social Security would harm some of our most vulnerable citizens; it would be particularly cruel in light of how many have seen both their pensions and life savings evaporate in the last few years.

No discussion of "fixing" this venerable program should neglect the fact that, currently, Social Security taxes are levied only on the first $106,000 of income. That means teachers and policemen pay a much heftier share of their income toward Social Security than hedge fund managers or corporate CEOs. Closing this loophole alone would ensure Social Security's solvency far into the future. Raising the retirement age to 70 is unfair both to those who have worked hard all their lives and to younger workers trying to crack an already tight job market. While life expectancy has risen for those at the top of the economic ladder, it has risen much less quickly for those at the bottom -- retiring at age 70 means something different to a lawyer than it does for a construction worker.

Social Security has often been called the "third rail" of U.S. politics, a fact underscored by a recent poll: 82 percent of Americans oppose cuts to Social Security to reduce the deficit, and 67 percent oppose cuts to get the program to solvency. Sixty-nine percent oppose raising the retirement age. And 66 percent (including 59 percent of Republicans) support raising the payroll tax cap to bring the program into balance. Shortly after he was re-elected in 2004, Americans soundly rejected George Bush's plan to privatize Social Security. In 2006, they rewarded Democrats who had staunchly defended it. Two years later, a candidate for President said this:

"I believe that cutting benefits is not the right answer; I've seen too many seniors all across the country who are struggling with the limited Social Security benefits that they have; that raising the retirement age is not the best option....

I think that's why the best way forward is to first look to adjust the cap on the payroll tax. Ninety-seven percent of Americans will see absolutely no change in their taxes under my proposal -- 97 percent. What it does allow us to do is to extend the life of Social Security without cutting benefits or raising the retirement age."

That candidate, Barack Obama, delivers the annual State of the Union address this week. Let's hope he takes the letter he just received - and his earlier words - to heart.

UPDATE: Looks like the president has decided to do the right thing.

The "Tax-Cut" Fantasy

noreply@blogger.com (Rachel) — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:31:00 +0000

"Tax cuts!" It's the one-note battle cry for Republicans everywhere, their go-to response for every policy scenario. According to legend, tax cuts pay for themselves. They create jobs. They stimulate investment. As is the case with most fairy tales, however, the reality is far different. Let's leave fantasy behind and look at some facts.

First, responsible economists agree that tax cuts don't boost revenues. The wholesale tax-slashing on upper incomes that took place during the Reagan years, for example, led to an unprecedented sea of red-ink. Tax cuts had the same effect under George Bush (a fact not lost on Dick Cheney when he famously remarked, "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter.")

Tax cuts are also a dud when it comes to creating jobs. During his eight years in office, Bill Clinton created 22 million new jobs. Under tax-cutting George Bush, that figure was a paltry one million, the worst job numbers of any president in the modern era. Indeed, when the "Taxed Enough Already" crowd howls that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would be the "biggest tax increase in history," what they really mean is that taxes would simply revert to what they were during the Clinton years -- those long years of economic prosperity.

But what about tax cuts as a way of goosing a lagging economy? Once again, reality trumps the fantasy. According to the Congressional Budget Office, cutting taxes, particularly for the wealthy, is one of the least effective ways of stimulating the economy, since higher-income households tend to save, rather than spend additional after-tax income. An economy in recession or even in the early stages of recovery needs more spending, not more saving.

While many are suffering in this terrible economy, there are segments that are doing quite well. Those at the very top of the economic ladder continue to rake in an ever-greater share of the national income. The top ten percent took in 48% of total income in 2008, up from 34.6% in 1980; the top one percent took in a whopping 21%, a gap between rich and poor not seen since the beginning of the Great Depression and one that marks the United States as one of the most unequal countries in the world. Similarly, U.S. corporations have had their most profitable quarters ever, growing at some of the fastest rates in history. S&P 500 companies have amassed $2.47 trillion in cash and short-term investments. "The earnings and free cash flow are so good at these companies that they're still going to have to figure out what to do with this surplus free cash flow," said one analyst.

Our country's economic situation is dismal -- millions out of work, millions more without health insurance, others fighting bankruptcy or foreclosure. States and local governments are forced to cut back on basic services, our schools are threatened, and our infrastructure lacks investment crucial to future generations. Meanwhile, Congress has just decided to extend Bush-era tax breaks for the very richest among us, including a major reduction in the estate tax on inherited wealth. At the state level, the governor has just unveiled an austerity budget calling for sacrifice across the board -- except from oil companies, who pay no oil severance taxes in California.

The last politician to talk honestly about taxes was Walter Mondale in 1984, and we all know what happened to him. Still, given the dire straits we find ourselves in, isn't it about time that we had a grown-up discussion about the "tax-cut" fairy tale?

Health Care Reform: Why it's Important, and Why We Can't Afford Repeal

noreply@blogger.com (Rachel) — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 02:58:00 +0000

Access to affordable health care has been a serious and growing problem for millions of American families. Democrats took that challenge head-on in 2010 and passed the Affordable Care Act. Among the benefits that took effect right away: young adults can now stay on their parents' insurance until they are 26; insurers are barred from excluding children with pre-existing conditions, and small businesses get tax credits to assist providing coverage to their employees. Beginning this year, seniors on Medicare will receive certain preventive services for free. In addition, insurers must spend at least 80%, and in many cases 85%, of premiums on benefits and quality improvements. Other benefits will be phased in over the next several years, improving access to basic health care and reducing the bite that health care costs take out of our national budget. Here are other points to make about this historic legislation:

The Affordable Care Act provides Americans with more freedom and control in their health care choices.
It gives families the freedom from worrying about losing their insurance, or having it capped unexpectedly if someone is in an accident or becomes sick.
It frees Americans from the fear of insurance companies raising premiums by double digits with no recourse or accountability.
It frees Americans from discrimination when insurance companies deny women health insurance because they are pregnant, or refuse to provide coverage to children who are born with disabilities.
It provides parents the choice of providing health coverage for a child after they finish school.
It provides people the freedom to change jobs without worrying about losing one's health insurance, or even retire a little earlier without having to worry about losing one's coverage.
It provides seniors with the freedom to get the care they need, including free preventive care, lower cost prescription drugs, and Medicare that they can count on.
And, it gives small business owners the power of competing with large employers by providing small business tax credits to make employees' health coverage more affordable, and by increasing their purchasing power through competitive private health insurance Exchanges.

Republicans want to repeal this ground-breaking legislation. We can’t let that happen!

Repealing health care reform would leave 32 million Americans without health insurance.
Repealing health care reform would allow insurance companies to once again DENY coverage to children with existing conditions, CANCEL coverage when people get sick, and LIMIT the amount of care you can get – even if you need it
Repealing health care reform would add $230 billion to the deficit over the next decade, and even more in the following years.

Learn more:

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/introduction/index.html

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12040/01-06-PPACA_Repeal.pdf

Immigration Petition: Beware

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Roth) — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 22:25:00 +0000

All, be aware that the Tea Party is up to its old tricks. See the following from SVAIR.

-----------------
Hello everyone,

The Tea Party is at it again.

Beware what you sign when someone wants you to sign a petition to place a measure on the ballot. The name is "Support Federal Immigration Law Act"

Jesse Castaneda
Chair, SVAIR

Capitol Alert
The latest on California politics and government
November 23, 2010
California petition drive cleared for Arizona-style immigration law

The California Secretary of State's office today authorized a signature drive to place an Arizona-style immigration law before California voters.

Called the "Support Federal Immigration Law Act," the proposal was submitted to state authorities in September by Michael Erickson, a Tea Party activist in in the Bay Area city of Belmont and former chair of the Sonoma County Republican Party.

Erickson, speaking at a videotaped rally on his initiative's website, said he worked with a legal team to draft a version of Arizona's Senate Bill 1070, which requires that police investigate a person's legal status if an office has reasonable suspicion of that status.

"Since we're never going to get something like this passed through the Democrat-controlled Legislature, it's going to be we the people who are going to make it happen," Erickson said at the rally.

Erickson told the Bee Tuesday that he's tried to draft his proposal -- which also makes it a state crime to hire illegal immigrants -- to avoid constitutional pitfalls. The Arizona law now faces challenges that it is unconstitutional and an overreaching of state law into federal responsibility for immigration enforcement.

Initiative supporters must gather at least 433,971 signatures of registered voters by April 21, 2011, to qualify for an election. Erickson said he'd aim to put the measure before voters during the 2012 election cycle.

The effort will rely largely on volunteers from California's Tea Party network, Erickson said.

The California proposal would make it a state crime for undocumented persons to seek work while hiding their immigration status, and a state crime for employers to "intentionally or negligently" hire an illegal immigrant.

The measure would also require all highway patrol, police, sheriff's deputies and other officers to investigate a person's immigration status if they are "reasonably suspicious" that a person who they stopped is in the country illegally.

The difference with Arizona's law, Erickson said, is that officers would have to contact federal immigration authorities and conduct such a check within a "timely manner" and could not hold a person for a long period of time.

Like the Arizona law, the proposal would also seek to allow legal residents to sue officials or agencies if they refuse to carry out this type of immigration enforcement.

Local GOP Endorsed Candidates: Laws do not apply to them Part One

noreply@blogger.com (Jacquie) — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 17:20:00 +0000

Yes, we are heading down to the home stretch for the election. Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer are still ahead in the polling, but we must do all we can to make sure that they, and the rest of our Democratic ticket, are elected. You can view the official Santa Clara County Democratic Voter Guide online, and you can also share the guide with all of your friends and family members.

Today we would like to share with you a few things about local Republican endorsed candidates. One of them you might be aware of, the other one you might be surprise to learn about. So, let's get started with Larry "Pellman" Pegram. And stay tuned for part two later this week when we expose a candidate running for school district who is also running from his GOP endorsement and running afoul of the law, tsk, tsk.

First up is the wonderful Larry Pegram, candidate for San Jose City Council District 9. Larry Pegram is the man who founded the "Values Advocacy Council," a right wing, evangelical group that seeks to impose their form of "sharia law" on the rest of us. One would think that someone who founded an organization supposedly based on "Values" would have some of those values in their own life. You would be thinking wrong in Pegram's case.

We know now that Lawrence Pellman and Lawrence "Larry'' Pegram were one and the same. After a union group recently accused him of misstating his name to avoid creditors, Pegram explained that it was a typo and that he had signed quickly, under pressure.

"I came in and quickly scribbled my signature,'' said Pegram, who is running once again for council against Don Rocha in District 9. "There was certainly no intent on my part to mislead, manipulate or obfuscate the proceedings.''

I don't believe Pegram. There's no reason he couldn't have asked that the documents be redrafted. In the four times he signed his name as Pellman, the "l'' is clearly visible. In each case, it is different from the way Pegram signs his real name, which shows a "g'' below the line.

Just take a look for yourself. If you think that's a mistake, I have a bridge to sell you.

Here is the picture of the signatures:

Larry "Pellman" Pegram has no values, no morals, and certainly does not deserve your vote. Make sure you let your friends and neighbors know about Mr. "Pellman" Pegram.

Please do all you can to support our Democratic Candidate in this race, Don Rocha, he deserves your support, your vote. San Jose can't afford to elect someone as dishonest and right wing and Larry "Pellman" Pegram.

And remember, stay tuned for our next post as we expose yet another lawbreaking local Republican.