• 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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

Part One:

Part Two:

Thanks to the Fem Dems for hosting the great event!

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.

What’s wrong with California?

Many of us ponder this question with alarming regularity. Unfortunately, our concerns are well-founded. This summer, we saw our state fall over the fiscal precipice. We issued IOUs for the first time in years, damaging both our credit rating and our pride. We made drastic cuts to services, including K-12 education and our own university. We saw our political system paralyzed by gridlock, with its leading figures mired in childish bickering. Our state’s dysfunction lies exposed as it never has before.

The sources of our problems are numerous and multifaceted. We have an initiative process dominated by special interests, which abdicates responsibility to low-information voters. We have gross partisan gerrymandering, which produces extreme polarization and frustrating gridlock. We have a volatile tax system, which enriches us during good times and starves us during bad ones.

Our biggest problem, though, is the so-called “two-thirds rule”. Under this rule, any budget or tax increase must be approved by two-thirds of each house of the Legislature. However, since it allows a small fringe to thwart the popular will, the “two-thirds rule” is actually minority rule.

From any reasonable perspective, minority rule makes no sense. It is grossly undemocratic, as it allows a mere thirty-four percent of voters to override the other sixty-six. Moreover, with its excessive requirements, it traps our state in endless gridlock. Minority rule is a disaster, on both principled and pragmatic grounds.

Firstly, minority rule is fundamentally undemocratic. Undoubtedly, some decisions, such as those regarding basic rights, should require supermajorities. However, for bills as routine as budgets, they have no place. The central principle of democracy is “one man, one vote”, yet in California one-third of our citizens can negate the rest.

Minority rule is a radical perversion of democracy. We require only simple majorities for constitutional amendments, yet two-thirds for everyday business. This process is so twisted that California stand alone—we are the only state which demands a two-thirds vote for both budgets and tax increases.

In practice, minority rule grants Republicans de facto control of state government. This is true despite the fact that they are a small and dwindling minority in California. They number only 31.1% of voters, and they do not have majorities in any Assembly, Senate, or Congressional district. At the presidential level, California has not voted for them in over twenty years.

Yet, because they control one-third of the Legislature, Republicans have the power to block any budget. Unsurprisingly, they exercise this power with great frequency.  Forty of forty-four Republican legislators have pledged never to raise taxes under any circumstances, and, aided by minority rule, they have forced this rigid ideology upon our state.

Most recently, Republicans wielded their power during the July budget battle. Due to deteriorating economic conditions, legislators were forced to close a $26 billion deficit. However, instead of taking a balanced approach, Republicans categorically forswore new revenues. They left California with only one option: cut, cut, cut. As a result, we bore terrible blows to even the most basic of services. K-12 education lost $6.5 billion in funding, and higher education another $2 billion.

These cuts are especially painful because they could have been mitigated. Instead of slashing services, Republicans could have explored popular, common-sense revenues. They could have increased tobacco fees, which would have reduced smoking and raised over $1 billion. They could have placed “severance” fees on oil companies, which drill in our lands and profit from our resources. (At present, California is the only oil-producing state without such a fee.)

Both these solutions are overwhelmingly popular; according a July poll, 66% of Californians support severance fees and a whopping 73% tobacco fees. However, minority rule allowed Republicans to impose their anti-tax extremism. They blocked these common-sense solutions, choosing affordable cigarettes over affordable education in contrast to the popular will.

Budgets are literally the most ordinary, routine legislation in government. They involve basic allocations of resources, not fundamental rights. They should be shaped by majorities, as they are in nearly every other state. Yet, in California, we see the reverse. Democracy is diminished, overshadowed by the fact of minority rule.

Additionally, one should oppose minority rule on pragmatic grounds. With its unrealistic requirements, it is the chief cause of our perpetual gridlock. Under normal circumstances, a majority can pass a budget with little difficulty. However, with minority rule, our conflicts remain intractable. A two-thirds threshold is impossibly high; even the Washington filibuster can be broken with less. If Congress required such support to pass a bill, it would not have produced major legislation in years.

Gridlock is more than an abstract, theoretical concern; it became far too familiar last summer. In fact, minority rule led directly to our embarrassing episode with IOUs. We failed to produce a budget for the new fiscal year, and, as a result, we could not afford to pay our bills. We had no choice but to issue IOUs, halting payments to businesses, agencies, and taxpayers. Our credit rating sank to the lowest of any state, and we became a national laughingstock.

Unfortunately, this was not a one-time anomaly. California has missed its budget deadline 22 of the last 30 years, and minority rule has played a lead role in fermenting this gridlock. Majorities could easily produce bills, yet they are forced to deal with unwavering and uncompromising extremists. If anything, minority rule creates a perverse incentive for crisis—the more California deteriorates, the likelier majorities are to acquiesce. Gridlock is a systemic feature of minority rule, and eliminating it can mend our dysfunction.

Minority rule is a disaster—it eviscerates democracy, and it paralyses our government. Luckily, a consensus is emerging that California needs reform. Many diverse groups have called for a constitutional convention, including Repair California, the California Action Network, and the business-oriented Bay Area Council. San Francisco mayor and former gubernatorial candidate Gavin Newsom also supports such a measure.

However, a more direct assault has been launched by one of our own professors, George Lakoff. In September he submitted the California Democracy Act, a ballot measure stating (in its entirety), “All legislative actions on revenue and budget must be determined by a majority vote.” This proposal brilliantly captures the essence of our problem: democracy. Some may demonize it as a ploy to raise taxes, but it does not even speak of them—it only restores majority rule.

Under it, tax policy would reflect the democratic judgment of our entire society, determined through a fair and open process. If the legislature overreaches, we would always have recourse—elections. This initiative has no hidden agenda; it only upholds democracy. It offers a straightforward solution to minority rule, and it deserves our support in 2010.

One way or another, minority rule must go. It is the foremost problem of our state, and it enables countless others. We need to restore democracy. Our flag proudly exalts our “California Republic”—we should live up to that name.

I thought the GOP couldn’t get any crazier. How wrong I was.

This January, the Republican National Committee will consider a “purity” resolution for candidates. It would have ten planks, and candidates who violate three or more would be denied the party’s endorsement or funds:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

I have two things to say about this. First, this guarantees the GOP will be a haven for lunatics and lunatics only. Typically, after getting trashed two election cycles in a row, parties widen their tents. Now, it seems the GOP is determined to do the opposite.*

Second, this provides yet more evidence that the GOP is the Party of NO! Count how many times you see the word “oppose” in that list. It’s heavy on “opposition” and light on innovative ideas…surprise, surprise.

—–
* I have plenty of respect for principled conservatives. But, the national GOP has completely gone over the edge.