Opinions expressed are those of the poster and not necessarily the Sonoma County Young Democrats.

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Death to the 2/3 rule!

Let's imagine a scenario: A once great land is mired in political bickering. Nothing can be done without lies and personal attacks being lobbed by the opposing factions. Social programs that the people have relied on for decades begin to crumble. The price of a college education soars beyond what most can reasonably afford. State parks you've visited your entire life are closing. People are confused, angry and ashamed of what is being done. A land once held up to the world as the shining beacon of hope and equal oppurtunity begins to fade away. Guess what? This land is our great state of California. While there are many factors that brought California to this point, one stands out as the most destructive, and the most to blame; the requirement of a 2/3 majority to simply pass a budget. That requirement may have worked in an age without term limits, when lawmakers from both parties had worked together for years. They were friends and enemies at the same time. Nowadays, they are only the latter.

Every year, a political showdown occurs in Sacramento. Republicans vow to resist any increase in revenues, and Democrats fight tooth and nail to save programs we all unknowingly depend on. And who loses? The people. Especially those people who have no voice; the homeless, the poor, the elderly, students and many other powerless groups. The people who go unnoticed in state politics because they can't bankroll massive campaigns and get politicians elected. We read about these budget cuts every year in the newspaper, yet it's often hard to put a face to them. But behind each dollar cut from a program, there is a person who will suffer or die. Programs that provided funding for HIV/AIDS medication, breast cancer screening for women who can't afford it on their own, and food stamps. Those are just a few of the examples of our social safety net being ripped to shreds. How did this happen in California? Blame that 2/3 requirement.

What is the 2/3 requirement you ask? It's simple; 66% of the state legislators need to vote 'aye' to any budget package, or any tax increase. Since the CA Legislature is mostly Dems(thank god), a few Republicans each year must be coaxed into voting for what is essentially a Democratic budget. Like the health care debate in the US Congress, these handful of GOP lawmakers hold an enormous amount of sway over the debate. They demand concessions for their vote, and they always get them. Last year the Republican leaders in the Assembly and Senate did the right thing and voted for the budget, saving their constituents from hardship. Care to guess their caucus' reaction to an act of political bravery? They immediately removed them from the leadership, and essentially ended their careers in public office. This is the reward given to a Republican by their own party when they bite the bullet, and do the right thing.

And why should the average voter care? It's hard to fathom in the moment when the budget is signed what will happen, but now we are beginning to see the results. Tuition costs at state universities are rising, state parks are on the brink of closure, infrastructure projects languish due to lack of funding, and social services are cut to the bone. Our land of fruit and honey has been reduced to a land of bond debts and no money. And while there are other factors to be considered in this, such as term limits and ballot initiatives tying legislator's hands, the 2/3 rule is the crux of the problem. Eliminate this insane requirement to simply pass a budget, and our great state may yet reclaim it's former glory. Stay tuned for more posts about the budget, because I assure you, this yearly battle is just heating up again.

Monday, December 21, 2009

"We are entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts"


Below is a link to a lively exchange between Sen. Franken and Sen. Thune. In his short time in the Senate Franken has established himself as a much needed voice of reason. In the clip he attempts to explain to Senator Thune that "We are entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts."

Sadly, in this ongoing debate about healthcare reform, facts haven't always been at the forefront. Watch the clip and enjoy a healthy exchange.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

My letter to Santa

Dear Santa,

I am writing, and I know this is a little late, but I am writing to ask for a small gift. That gift would be Senator Harry Reid stripping Joe Lieberman of his Chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. I know it is not nice to ask for something to be taken away from someone during this holiday season, but I think the time has come. I know what you’re thinking Santa, we need Joe on our side, and letting him have the Chairmanship keeps him in our good graces, but I ask you, is he the kind of friend we want? He campaigned for McCain, he is toying with running as a Republican for re-elections, and he has vowed to vote against a public option.

Sen. Lieberman has been very good to his friends though. Aetna, has contributed over $91,000 to Lieberman. This past September he was interview by a news agency and stated his support of expanding Medicare, but is now against it? Instead he favors “a centrally financed system of private health insurance options”. I wonder if his friends over at Aetna had anything to do with that change of heart?

Sen. Lieberman has stated that he is prepared to live with his opposition to publicly funded insurance, convinced, he said, that it would increase taxes.

Doesn’t this seem like a Republican point of view? I know personally, I am prepared to live with an increase in the taxes I pay if it means as a country, we can allow everyone access to insurance coverage. If I have to skip out on a couple of martinis in exchange for a public insurance option for all, so be it. During the past two years one out of three Americans under the age of 65 were without health insurance. How is that?

If more Americans have health insurance, and thus access to a primary healthcare provider, the costs of providing care will go down. As it stands now, those without insurance will end up going to seek care in Emergency Departments. This is the most expensive venue to provide care in. The costs for providing care to these people in the ED are often times not recouped by the hospitals. In order for the hospitals to make up for that loss, they then charge those persons with insurance more for their care in order to cover their losses. So, in the end aren’t we paying for it already? It is time for change, and it is time for us to get those who are against change out of office.

So, in closing Santa, if you can grant me this one wish, I think we can begin to lessen Sen. Lieberman’s influence, and give us a better chance of getting a Democrat into his seat. Maybe then we will see some real reform to our healthcare system.


Sincerely,

Gabe Kearney

Sunday, December 13, 2009

John Perez chosen to lead Ca State Assembly

On December 11th history was made in California. John Perez, freshman assemblyman from Los Angeles was unanimously chosen by the Assembly’s Democratic Caucus to be the 68th Speaker of the Assembly. While Perez is not the first openly gay official to lead a statewide body, the late Allan Spear of Minnesota made that milestone. Having come out of the closet in 1974, Spear was one of the first openly gay elected officials. He was the President of the Minnesota State Senate from 1992 to 2000.

The Speaker Elect did not just walk into this position. He had to compete against two fellow Latino Democrats from Los Angeles, Kevin De Leon and Felipe Fuentes. The battle lasted all the way up to the day of the Democratic Caucus vote. Although Fuentes had bowed out the week prior, De Leon was still in the race, but after several meetings with Perez, finally decided to step down, and ended up nominating Perez.

Speaker Elect Perez, a former labor leader, and UC Berkeley grad, was elected to the California State Assembly to represent the 46th district on November 4th, 2008 with 85% of the votes. Perez faces big challenges in his new post. California is facing a $20 Billion budget shortfall for the next 6 years. With the requirement for California’s budget to pass with a two-thirds vote, and the Republicans vowing to vote against any increase in taxes, make passing a budget a gargantuan task.

With regards to the significance of John Perez becoming the Speaker-Elect, Geoff Kors, Director of Equality California stated, "He's the first openly gay person of color elected to the Legislature, so it's really a testament to what he's done in the Legislature and before in labor, for the environment, for the civil rights movement and for the LGBT movement. To have an openly gay Latino heading the largest legislative body, that represents the most people in the country, in and of itself is going to have a significant impact on advancing LGBT rights."

In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano stated Perez’s election to the Speaker’s post was very poignant. "I was a personal friend of (slain San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk) and to live long enough to see this is very significant. ... Like Milk said, you have to give them hope, and I think what happened today is going to give people hope."

As the fight for marriage equality moves forward in California, having one of the most powerful state legislators being an openly gay man will do a lot to increase the visibility of the inequality that our current marriage laws represent. It has been shown that voters are less likely to vote against civil rights measures when they know someone it affects, and having John Perez as a face to the issue will show many more voters that there is still a long way to go until the LGBT community has achieved equality.

In the coming weeks the transition of power will take place with Assembly voting on the confirmation of Perez as the new Speaker, and current Speaker Karen Bass handing over the reigns. This coincides with the release of Gov. Schwarzenegger’s budget.

Assemblyman Perez is the scheduled keynote speaker for the upcoming Sonoma County Democratic Party Crab Feed on February 26, 2010. Tickets can be purchased through the following link: http://www.actblue.com/page/crabfeed2010

Monday, October 19, 2009

Cotati Recall

George Barich has misrepresented the position of the Sonoma County Young Democrats in the campaign to recall him from the Cotati City Council. The young Democrats strongly urge a "Yes" vote to recall Mr. Barich. The unauthorized use of our logo and the illegitimate use of our organization’s name by the opposition to the recall only further demonstrate his lack of ethics and the need for his removal from the Cotati City Council.


The Sonoma County Young Democrats have endorsed Susan Harvey, a qualified and ethical planning commissioner in Cotati, to replace Barich. We believe that a public official should be an individual of character. Mr. Barich’s actions have demonstrated not only a lack of character, but a lack of integrity.

The Sonoma County Young Democrats support the recall. We support Susan Harvey. We do not support George Barich, or his incredibly inappropriate behavior while on the Council. His latest stunts have done nothing to improve his reputation in our eyes, nor those of the community.

The blog post shown below discusses the constitutional merit of the Cotati recall process, and is not specific to the current recall. This post is not reflective of the official position of SCYD, rather, it is an expression of an individual member's opinion, which is valued and protected. However, as above, the position of the Sonoma County Young Democrats is in favor of the recall.

If there is any confusion on this matter, please contact chair@sonomacyd.org.

Cotati's Recall Procedure

By Kim OJ (please note disclaimer above!)

On November 17th 2009 Cotati will be deciding whether or not to recall City Council Member George Barich and replace him with another candidate. Barich is now walking Cotati, knocking on doors in what looks like a losing battle to retain his seat. Barich needs 50% of the voters to vote "NO" on the recall, despite the fact that he was elected to the city council with only 16.4% of the votes, and the two candidates who finished ahead of him in the 2008 race each got 20.2% of the votes.

One of the most fundamental aspects of Democracy is the protection of minorities from the oppression of the majority. This is expressed in the value of fundamental and equal rights, rights which cannot be repealed by majority decision. This is what the Bill of Rights represents. This should also mean equal right to democratic representation. The way city council elections are conducted in Cotati allows minority opinions a chance for a voice on the city council. George Barich is that minority opinion on the Cotati City Council, who notably stands out from his fellow council members with his fiscally conservative opposition to federal stimulus money and the proposed sales tax increase, which would help Cotati's budget problems. But if Barich can be recalled by simple majority, the minority that he represents has been robbed of their equal access to representation.

The way recall works essentially means that any elected, who is not part of the majority, could be recalled and replaced by a majority approved candidate. It is a problem very similar to the Gerrymandering of districts where minorities are isolated to favor the ruling majority. The democratic problem becomes even more apparent when you look at potentially absurd election results. There are 3 candidates running for George Barich's city council seat, which means that one of them could be elected with as few as 34% of the votes. Thus Barich could garner more "NO" on the recall votes (e.g. 49.9%) than the top replacement candidate, and still be recalled and replaced by a candidate with fewer votes.

Recall George Barich
George Barich

Alternate Candidates:
Linell Hardy
Susan Harvey (Endorsed by Sonoma County Young Democrats)
Eric Kirchmann

Monday, July 20, 2009

Budget Deal Finally Reached

The Sacramento Bee has just reported that State lawmakers have finally reached an agreement to end our State's budgetary crisis. CNN has also confirmed this with the Governator. Reportedly, the representatives were able to do minimal (if any) damage to the already faltering school system with the caveat that the state had to shift "costs into the future and [capture] funds from cities and counties".
"Compromises" such as this only serve to reaffirm our purpose in the Young Democrats. Shifting the cost into the future is kicking the problem to us: the future of California. If the elected officials in Sacramento want us to deal with the problem tomorrow, rest assured they will hear what we have to say today.

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Big T and His Giant Tricycle

“Look out the window! What is that?” I asked my neighbor at the bar of one of the handful of nice restaurants in downtown Cottonwood.

“Oh that’s Big T,” He said, as though people drive strange contraptions through town here every day. For all I know maybe they do. I looked to my friend Aaron for conformation and found him looking over my head at our bar mate with a distinct conspiratorial smile as though to say, “She’s from California. She’ll never understand.”

Maybe I won’t understand, but I would have loved to get a closer look at Big T’s vehicle. From a distance it looked like a giant tricycle with a motor and two raised seats in the back. It was sort of like a car with three wheels and no top. It was rigged with lights, and it sparkled in the eerie darkness of the monsoon clouds backlit by a full moon. He drove in a couple of lazy doughnut circles before pealing down the deserted street.

The conversation turned to rock crawling vehicles, and I tuned it out thinking about Big T’s American flag bandana, and wondering why anyone would possibly get on a giant motorized tricycle without a helmet. This is again a sign that I am far from home, since aside from Aaron who works with people who’ve had traumatic brain injuries, I seem to be the only person who is at all concerned about Arizona’s lack of helmet law. The prevailing wisdom is, “If you’re stupid enough to get on a motorcycle with no helmet than you deserve to die.”

Statements like these leave me very confused about Arizona. People here, especially in the rural northern section, say please and thank you, they go to church, and they spend time with their families. I think most would say family and community are important to them. It seems odd to me that people, who are kind and considerate, would be so inconsiderate about other people’s deaths. Furthermore I think it’s pretty inconsiderate of helmetless motorcycle riders to crash and die. Not only does this leave a hole in their heads, but a hole in their families as well. And once we’ve paid to air life the crash victim to the nearest hospital, and in the event that he has no health insurance paid for all of his care, and if he survives, all of his rehabilitation, and if he is paralyzed or brain damaged, services for the rest of his life, there will be quite a hole in the tax payers wallets as well. All this might be prevented by asking Big T to wear a helmet over his American flag bandana, when he rides his giant tricycle.

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Killing Rabbits

I just began a new job working at a vineyard and winery in Northern Arizona, so I will be writing dispatches from outside Sonoma County.

A couple of weeks ago the owner of the vineyard where I work gave her son a gun, and told him to go outside and kill the rabbits in the vineyard. Let’s leave for a moment the fact that rabbits are so cute and cuddly that Amy Sedaris believes you should always have one hopping around the house, because they make people happy. Let’s also choose not to dwell on the owner’s assertion that the state of Arizona is too much like California, because there are some environmentalists in Arizona who believe it’s wrong to kill wildlife. Let’s instead pause to note that her son, a 35 year old self-proclaimed conservative, was unsuccessful at the task at hand. He did not kill or injure any rabbits. He was successful at puncturing, in several places, the irrigation lines for the grapes.

The battle between farmer and wildlife for supremacy in the field is an old one. This battle plays out every day in Napa and Sonoma where I heard a vineyard manager say that the only natural enemy of the wild turkey is the shot gun. Farmers the world over are not much different when it comes to protecting their crops. Maybe I would be a lousy farmer, but I don’t think I could kill a rabbit. I have a hard time cooking lobster and, unlike these rabbits, at least someone will eat the lobster.

All the talk of shooting animals this week drove home to me that I’m a bit out of step with the culture here. I’m a California girl, and I don’t like guns. The Arizona state legislature this week also spent some time talking about guns. They took steps toward passing a law that would allow people with permits to carry a concealed weapon into a bar. Even though this law would make it illegal for gun toting bar goers to drink alcohol, I still feel that there are a few obvious problems with this legislation. What happens when a bar-fight breaks out, and our sober permit holder pulls out his gun to settle it? Will one of the crazy drunk people punching each other wrestle the gun away from the sober person? Or does that only happen in movies?

What if, as happened in my new home town a month ago, a rabid bobcat walks into the bar, and drunk people corner it, and start taking pictures of it with their camera phones until it bites them? Is it ok for our sober friend to brandish her concealed weapon then? And who is it ok for her to shoot?

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Time to go to work

In this last election, the Democratic Party at the state level captured three additional Assembly seats, maintained the status quo in the State Senate, U.S. Senate, and The House. At the federal level, the Democratic Party picked up the Presidency, 21 seats in the House of Representatives and 7 (or so) seats in the Senate. You would have to be crazy to say that Democrats don’t have the upper hand in the next round of elections.


…But Democrats do not have the upper hand in the next round of elections.


According to the Secretary of State website, California’s Democratic Party experienced a small increase (about half of a percent) of voter identification while the Republican Party lost about 2.5%. This means the Independent, or decline to state, soaked up the additional two percent in Republican losses, bringing its representation to 20%. If you add in every registered non-Democrat or Republican, it would make up one fourth of the California electorate.


Even more important is the voting trend in non-Presidential elections. Consistently in off years the Democratic and Republican parties both see a drop in representation at the hands of independent/decline to state, both in relative and absolute numbers.


And finally, 31 of the 58 counties showed a Republican majority even in the face of the Democratic landslide victory.


Instead of looking at the last election as a voter mandate to the Democratic Party, it’s very easy to see it as a backhand to the Republican Party. While we as a party did gain, the amount of voters who don’t feel represented went up even more. I strongly believe that while the incumbent always has the advantage for their specific position, the party not in power has an inherent advantage campaigning. The average person, with the aid of the media, remembers the things that aren’t going well much more readily than the things that are.


It’s time for us all to really get to work. This last election was a gimme- a throw away by the Republicans. They walked into it standing little to no chance. Maybe not this next election, but an election soon, we as a party need to work hard to understand why our message hasn’t courted the 25% of voters up for grabs.


The 31% of people in California who are Republican are not changing. If, at this point and time, you’re still a Republican, then chances are you’re not going to be persuaded to change ever. That 31% is their base figure, the amount they can always count on. And make no mistake, the Republicans have some very smart and charismatic young leaders. I would know, I study with them. They WILL eventually find a way to grab some of those swing voters if we don’t get there first.


We as Democrats should ride the wave while we can, but don’t forget that it’s the swell building under the wave that determines where it goes.

 
Clusty