Cal Dems Candidate Statements
February 17, 2010 by Nik, under Home.
As promised, here are the candidate statements we received for our endorsement meeting. You can find a list of the candidates we endorsed here.
We also heard surrogates for Kamala Harris and Alberto Torrico, who are running for Attorney General, and Tom Torlakson, who is running for State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Additionally, we talked to Assemblymen Hector De La Torre and Dave Jones, who are running for Insurance Commissioner.
Lieutenant Governor:
Secretary of State:
Attorney General:
Insurance Commissioner:
State Treasurer:
State Superintendent of Public Instruction:
State Board of Equalization:
No Comments
Cal Dems Primary Endorsements
February 12, 2010 by Nik, under Blog, Home.
At its meeting on Thursday, February 11, the Cal Berkeley Democrats made the following endorsements for the June primary election:
- Governor – No Endorsement
- Lieutenant Governor – Hon. Janice Hahn
- Secretary of State – Hon. Debra Bowen
- Attorney General – Hon. Kamala Harris
- State Controller – Hon. John Chiang
- Insurance Commissioner – Hon. Dave Jones
- State Treasurer – Hon. Bill Lockyer
- State Superintendent of Public Instruction – No Endorsement
- State Board of Equalization – Hon. Betty Yee
- United States Senate – Hon. Barbara Boxer
Cal Dems will vote for these candidates at the California Young Democrats’ endorsement meeting on February 27 (if applicable) and promote them during campus GOTV efforts.
1 Comment
January Endorsements
February 3, 2010 by Nik, under Blog, Home.
On January 28, 2010, the Cal Berkeley Democrats endorsed four bills, ballot initiatives, and policy positions regarding both state and federal government. Members voted unanimously to support AB 656, the California Democracy Act, an end to the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
- AB 656 would place a 9.9% “severance” fee on oil companies, which drill in our lands and profit from our resources. Currently, California is the only oil-producing state without such a fee. AB 656 would raise $1 billion, all of which would be reserved for higher education.
- The California Democracy Act would end minority rule in the state legislature by removing the two-thirds requirement for budgets and taxes. It would allow the majority to govern in accordance with democratic principles, and end the current gridlock in Sacramento.
- The military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy currently mandates the discharge of openly gay service members. DADT is both a national security problem and a moral problem. Under it, the military has expelled thousands of capable soldiers during wartime. Moreover, DADT condones homophobia and denigrates service members who risk their lives for their county.
- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), already passed by the Senate, would bring meaningful and long-overdue reform to our health care system. It would move our nation closer to universal coverage, insuring 31 million Americans and reducing up to 45,000 unnecessary deaths per year. It would also institute consumer protections, and shield Americans from abusive practices like rescission, discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, and annual or lifetime caps. PPACA would both expand coverage and lower costs, while actually reducing the deficit by more than a trillion dollars.
All four proposals have been added to Cal Berkeley Democrats’ platform. Cal Dems will work to support them over the coming months and beyond.
###
The Cal Berkeley Democrats is the official arm of the Democratic Party at UC Berkeley.
No Comments
Mills Health Care Forum
December 21, 2009 by Nik, under Blog, Home, Media.
On December 7, Cal Dems Robbie Bruens and Nik Dixit spoke at a health care forum hosted by the Fem Dems at Mills College. Thanks to the Fem Dems for arranging the fantastic event!
Photos are below, and videos can be found here.
No Comments
Nate Silver: The Health Care Elevator Pitch
December 18, 2009 by Nik, under Blog.
Nate Silver addresses criticism from the left and makes another great argument for health care reform. His elevator pitch:
Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln are probably willing to sign off on $900 billion in public subsidies so that poor and sick people can have better access to health care. Is there really no way we can make this work for us?
Another noteworthy passage:
But that money isn’t really going to poor people — it’s going to Cigna! Then there’s an argument I have much less sympathy for: that the $900 billion is not ultimately going to disadvantaged people, but rather to insurance companies. Some of the money, indeed, will turn into insurance company profits. But how much? Probably not very much: most likely about $30 billion of the $900 billion, or about 3.3 percent, which is the average profit margin in the insurance industry. The insurance industry is actually not very profitable — it may be inefficient, but it is not especially profitable. The vast majority of that $900 billion goes to improve health outcomes for poor and sick people.
The whole thing’s worth a read, if you have the time.
No Comments
Mills Health Care Forum
December 18, 2009 by Nik, under Blog, Media.
On December 7, Cal Dems Robbie Bruens and Nik Dixit spoke at a health care forum hosted by the Fem Dems at Mills College.
Robbie discussed his work with Organizing for America, and the moral case for health care reform. Nik discussed the policy and politics behind the legislation in Congress. Watch excerpts of their presentations:
2 Comments
Krugman: Pass the Bill
December 18, 2009 by Nik, under Blog.
Paul Krugman has a column which makes the same points I did, only more eloquently. I strongly recommend you read it:
The result would be a huge increase in the availability and affordability of health insurance, with more than 30 million Americans gaining coverage, and premiums for lower-income and lower-middle-income Americans falling dramatically. That’s an immense change from where we were just a few years ago: remember, not long ago the Bush administration and its allies in Congress successfully blocked even a modest expansion of health care for children.
Bear in mind also the lessons of history: social insurance programs tend to start out highly imperfect and incomplete, but get better and more comprehensive as the years go by. Thus Social Security originally had huge gaps in coverage — and a majority of African-Americans, in particular, fell through those gaps. But it was improved over time, and it’s now the bedrock of retirement stability for the vast majority of Americans.
On the consequences of failure:
Again, history suggests the answer. Whereas flawed social insurance programs have tended to get better over time, the story of health reform suggests that rejecting an imperfect deal in the hope of eventually getting something better is a recipe for getting nothing at all. Not to put too fine a point on it, America would be in much better shape today if Democrats had cut a deal on health care with Richard Nixon, or if Bill Clinton had cut a deal with moderate Republicans back when they still existed.
Keep in mind, this is the same Paul Krugman who railed against the stimulus bill, which economists agree has been working well. While compromise is painful, it’s much better than nothing.
No Comments
Pass Health Care Reform
December 17, 2009 by Nik, under Blog.
Since Joe Lieberman killed the public option, many liberals, from Howard Dean to Keith Olbermann to Markos Moulitsas, have called on Democrats to shelve health care reform. They argue that without a public option reform is worthless, and Democrats should wait to pass “real” reform at a later date.
Such a view, while understandable, is immensely shortsighted. Even without a public option, health care reform would do tremendous good and is still worth passing.
First, the bills before Congress still contain consumer protections and subsidies which would help tens of millions of Americans. They would ban insurance companies from engaging in a host of abusive practices, including recession and discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. They would also provide subsidies to those making under 400% of the poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four), which would dramatically expand coverage.
The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the net result would be coverage for 31 million Americans, a huge improvement from the status quo. This would reduce the 45,000 deaths per year which occur due to holes in our insurance system, as well as the bankruptcies and financial troubles caused by the status quo.
Just as importantly, it would establish the principle that government is responsible for ensuring the health of its citizens. Whereas health is now a private affair, post-reform government would have a legitimate role to play. Put simply, in both practical and symbolic terms, health care reform would be the most important piece of social legislation since the Great Society. To quote Nate Silver,
how many other opportunities will exist to provide in excess of $100 billion per year in public subsidies to poor and sick people?
Second, even if health care reform is inadequate, it can be improved later. As it gains a constituency and political muscle, it can be expanded in the future.
This is more than a remote possibility; in fact, it is exactly what happened with Social Security. As enacted, it was a small, limited program for older Americans. However, later changes increased benefits, broadened eligibility, included disability, created SSI, and automated cost of living increases. Whereas only 222,000 Americans received benefits in 1940, 44 million receive them now.
The same can happen with health care reform. As long as it establishes a foothold, it can develop a constituency. Then, incremental changes can strengthen existing components and add new ones.
Finally, if health care reform fails, we are unlikely to get another chance in the near future. Politically speaking, as the incumbent party in a midterm election, Democrats are likely to lose seats in 2010. Historically, too, failure at health care reform has meant decades of dithering.
For example, after Clinton’s attempt, our country waited sixteen years before anyone even tried again. Conventional wisdom held that health reform was politically toxic, and its electoral toll too high. If reform were to fail, it would send the same message that obstacles are insurmountable. Health care would again become a “third rail”, and, as it did after Clinton, it would slip into the background for another generation.
The costs of waiting are simply too high. Tens of thousands of people are dying now, and it would be decades before we got another chance.
Health care reform is still worth passing: it would insure 30 million Americans, it can be expanded later, and failure will only beget more failure in the future.
Progressives have been fighting to pass health reform since Truman. For the first time in half a century, we have a genuine chance. We would be fools to toss it aside.
—–
Also consider: failure would depress our base, embolden Republicans, and sink the rest of President Obama’s agenda. He’s staked his presidency on health care, and abandoning it would jettison financial reform, immigration overhaul, and energy legislation for years.
1 Comment
The Need for Health Reform
December 11, 2009 by Nik, under Blog, Media.
On Monday, Cal Dems visited Mills College for a health care reform panel discussion. Members Nik Dixit and Robbie Bruens were among the presenters. Below is a screencast of Nik’s presentation:
Part One:
Part Two:
Thanks to the Fem Dems for hosting the great event!
No Comments
Confirm Abel Maldonado
November 27, 2009 by Nik, under Blog.
Following John Garamendi’s election to Congress, Governor Schwarzenegger has nominated State Senator Abel Maldonado for the post of Lieutenant Governor. However, the appointment is still subject to confirmation, and it’s unclear whether Democrats will play along. From a purely political perspective, they should.
First, as far as Sacramento Republicans go, Maldonado isn’t that bad. He is the most likely Republican to cross party lines, and he believes (at least rhetorically) that some of our service cuts were too harsh. Concretely, he voted with Democrats on the February budget. Since this included tax increases, he hugely angered his base and was even threatened with a recall.
If Democrats were to deny his appointment, it would send the wrong message. It would tell Republicans that bipartisanship is not welcome, and would only leave them exposed on all flanks. If we want the two-thirds we need to pass a budget, we can’t discourage dissent.
Secondly, and more importantly, confirming Maldonado would be politically advantageous. If he were confirmed, there would be a special election for his Senate seat. Democrats would have a fairly good chance winning–the district has a 6.5% Democratic voter registration advantage, and it went for Obama by a whopping 20 points. If we were to win, we’d be one step closer to two-thirds. This means more funding for education, health care, social services, etc.
Some argue that if Maldonado were confirmed, he could run for re-election as an incumbent and win. Realistically, this won’t happen. Remember, due to his budget votes, Maldonado isn’t in good graces with his base. His problems are compounded by sheer racism in the Republican Party, which has stopped him from winning statewide elections before.
Lastly, even if he were to win, as LTG he wouldn’t be powerful. He’d be an ex oficio UC Regent and CSU Trustee (and a member of the Lands Commission), but not much else. Right now, Maldonado has more power as a Senator. I’d trade his Senate seat for the LTG office anyday.
In my opinion, Democrats should confirm Maldonado–it would encourage moderate Republicans to cross party lines, and it would give us a meaningful shot at picking up a Senate seat. To quote Rick Jacobs, chair of the Courage Campaign:
For once, we agree with the Governor – Abel Maldonado should be demoted to Lt. Governor.
