No More Compromises

December 6, 2009 by Robbie, under Blog.

The word out of the developed world’s most dysfunctional national legislative body is that there is going to be some kind of grand compromise suckdown on the public option of the health care reform bill next week. Here is my message to every Senate Democrat except Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown and Roland Burris (!), the only three US Senators who so far are actually standing firm with progressives instead of preparing to fellate Joe Lieberman:

Don’t use the existence of the filibuster as an excuse to dodge responsibility for creating subpar legislation. Everyone knows the Democratic caucus has the power to get around the filibuster or end it, so don’t expect progressives to cut you slack when you sell us down the river in deference to minority rule. Progressives worked hard to elect President Obama and the very large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. If we don’t feel like we’re being represented in Washington, we aren’t going to work very hard for you in 2010. That’s not a threat, any ‘political scientist’ can explain how base motivation works. So fight for us like your job depends on it…because it actually does.

More on the public option here and here and the filibuster here.

1 Comment

The Great Debate

December 2, 2009 by Anais, under Blog, Home, Media.

Watch the highlights!

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.

3 Comments

The High Cost of Minority Rule

November 25, 2009 by Nik, under Blog.

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.

1 Comment

The GOP’s “Purity” Resolution

November 23, 2009 by Nik, under Blog.

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.

1 Comment

Bringing On the Crazy

November 20, 2009 by Nik, under Blog.

Normally I don’t do partisan red meat, but today it seems Republicans are going out of their way to violate the First Law of Tropic Thunder.

Let’s start with Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman in NY-23. Today he un-conceded his race, claiming that “ACORN and labor unions” committed voter fraud. I really can’t do this justice, so I’ll let him explain:

“As evidence surfaces, we find out that reported results from election night were far from accurate. ACORN and the unions did their best to try and sway the results to Obamacare supporter Bill Owens,” Hoffman wrote on his campaign site. “Rest assured, they will not succeed, and I am therefore revoking my statement of concession.”

The next few paragraphs say it all:

And Hoffman’s claims are being undermined by his own staff and Republican election workers in the district.  His campaign adviser, Rob Ryan, told the Syracuse Post-Standard that the campaign “knows chances for a victory grow more remote with each passing day.”

The Jefferson County Republican elections commissioner told the Watertown Daily Times that Hoffman’s allegations were “absolutely false.”

Sigh….Let’s move on to the GOP base in general. Public Policy Polling found that 52% of Republicans–an outright majority–believe Obama “stole” the 2008 election. The culprit? Of course, ACORN. How original.

Among Republicans, however, only 27% say Obama actually won the race, with 52% — an outright majority — saying that ACORN stole it, and 21% are undecided. Among McCain voters, the breakdown is 31%-49%-20%. By comparison, independents weigh in at 72%-18%-10%, and Democrats are 86%-9%-4%.

Yes, ACORN stole 9.5 million votes, and no one’s managed to find a shred of proof . All things considered, in relative terms this isn’t that bad. “Only” 42% of Republicans are birthers.

Finally, let’s look at everyone’s favorite hack, Mitt Romney. Today, he penned an op-ed in Politico attacking Obama for, amongst other things, lacking the experience to be president.

Governor, you may have overlooked one fact: he *is* the president. Only 43 people in history have more experience than he does, and you’re not one of them. The hills of New England are not the mountains of Afghanistan. There are plenty of legitimate critiques of Obama, but the experience angle should have been dropped the day he was inaugurated.

That’s quite a lot of stupid for one day, don’t you think?

–

P.S. Not a Republican, but this caught my eye too: Dad Spoke Only Klingon To Son For Three Years. Crazy times we live in.

No Comments

Great Debate Photos

November 20, 2009 by Nik, under Blog.

Photos from the Great Debate are up!

If you have any I haven’t included, please send them to me at nik@caldems.com.

No Comments

The Individual Mandate

November 19, 2009 by Nik, under Blog.

One of the biggest points of contention in our debate versus the Berkeley College Republicans was the so-called “individual mandate”. Under this provision, individuals would be required to either have insurance or pay a fine.

The individual mandate wasn’t always controversial. It’s supported by a broad range of wonks and policy experts. In fact, until it became a political football, it was even championed by prominent conservatives. Mitt Romney himself called it, “the ultimate conservative idea”.

I’m honestly surprised this is controversial. It’s actually based on a conservative principle—that you shouldn’t be a burden on the rest of society. Right now, if you go into the emergency room and you don’t have insurance, others pick up your tab. In essence, you’re free riding. What this does is make sure that no one free rides on others.

Now, this won’t hurt anybody. If you can’t afford insurance, the government will help you buy it. Yes, it’s setting a new requirement, but it’s also giving you the means to meet it. We’re not interested in penalizing you; we want to give you coverage. If you have trouble affording it, that’s okay. We’ll help you, not punish you.

The individual mandate makes good, policy sense: it stops free riding, and it won’t unduly punish anyone. It shouldn’t be a controversy in our national health care debate.

–

P.S. Before anyone asks, yes, it is Constitutional.

2 Comments

Public Option is Key to Reform

November 17, 2009 by Nik, under Blog.

Cal Dems has a new op-ed in the Daily Cal! Titled, “Public Option is Key to Reform”, it explains the importance of the public option and the stakes of its fate in the Senate.

To read our op-ed, click here. To see more of what Cal Dems has done for health care reform, visit our Health Care Action Center.

No Comments

The Great Debate 2009: National Health Care Reform

November 17, 2009 by Nik, under Blog, Home.

Last Thursday, Cal Dems participated in its annual Great Debate versus the Berkeley College Republicans! The topic was national health reform, and it was a blast for all involved.

The event could not have happened without the hard work of many other individuals and organizations.

First, thanks to the Undergraduate Political Science Association, which put the debate together. They make this happen every year, and we apprericate their work.

Secondly, thanks to Professor Hassner for moderating. Very few professors are willing to sacrifice their evenings, and he acted with all the fairness and impartiality we could have hoped for.

Last, but not least, thanks to the Berkeley College Republicans for debating alongside us. As said on Thursday, we may have a friendly rivalry, but it’s always a pleasure to discuss our views and have a civil debate of ideas.

Over the next few days, we’ll have media coming in from the event. We’ll get some pictures on Flickr,* a video on YouTube, and some policy posts on our blog. Stay tuned!

–

P.S. For in-depth policy analysis of BCR’s proposals, read this post. For more Cal Dems has done on health care, visit our Health Care Action Center!

* Update: Photos are up!

No Comments

• 
  
  We meet every Thursday night at 7pm in 56 Barrows. Come join us!
• 

  
• 
• 

  Cal Berkeley Democrats on Facebook