I want to vote for a comprehensive bipartisan plan to address the fiscal cliff. I'm willing to take a tough vote. I'm willing to make sacrifices. I'm willing to feel the heat. But I'm not willing to solve the fiscal cliff by throwing seniors over the cliff. I draw the line at cutting benefits in Medicare and Social Security.
This week, House Republicans unveiled their fiscal cliff counterproposal. While they continue to call for an extension of the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, they propose offsetting this cost by gutting Medicare benefits, including raising the age of Medicare eligibility to 67. I won't go there. As California's Insurance Commissioner for eight years, I know this would be horrible policy, throwing millions of seniors into the rapacious hands of an insurance industry interested only in profits for its shareholders.
Medicare is a promise we made to seniors more than four decades ago. When President Johnson signed Medicare into law, one in three seniors lived in poverty. Half of seniors had no health coverage at all. Today, less than one in ten seniors live in poverty and almost all have guaranteed access to affordable coverage. With medical expenses as high as they are, that's a remarkable improvement, and we have Medicare and Social Security principally to thank for it.
The seniors being kicked off Medicare under the GOP plan will face uncertainty, delayed treatments, and more expensive care - if they can even afford health care at all. Do we really want our emergency rooms clogged with seniors who couldn't afford their heart medication and suffer a preventable heart attack? Is it really in anyone's interest to see grandmothers and grandfathers sent to an early grave because they were forced to choose between having a roof over their head or paying out of pocket for lifesaving diabetes medication? This is, to borrow a phrase from Mitt Romney, severe conservatism, and it's the opposite of a reasonable bipartisan fact-based compromise.
If the House Republican plan to increase the age of Medicare eligibility to 67 moves forward, health care delivery in America would become more expensive for everyone. Seniors remaining on Medicare would see a substantial increase in their premiums because seniors ages 65 and 66, in the aggregate, are a lot healthier than seniors 67 and above. By moving 65 and 66 year olds into the expensive private market, states, local governments, employers, and the general public would pick up the multi-billion dollar tab. For example, businesses who provide health insurance and have older workers would bear the full cost of health insurance - effectively shifting the cost to these employers and their employees.
If the goal is to keep the Medicare system running as efficiently as possible, we should be looking into ways to lower the age of Medicare eligibility, not ways to increase it. The Republican plan chips away at Medicare affordability - one of its greatest strengths - seemingly by design. I'm willing to compromise, but I'm not willing to compromise the health and economic security of seniors and everyone who hopes to become a senior.
I approach this from the perspective of someone who regulated the insurance industry for eight years. I know how they operate, and I know how health care delivery operates in America. I know changes need to be made to Medicare to make it more solvent in the years and decades to come, and I know we can make those changes without harming benefits. For example, we can empower Medicare to directly negotiate drug prices or we can import drugs from Canada and other countries with robust safety standards. We can improve electronic records and crack down further on Medicare fraud. We can ramp up the prevention and early treatment provisions in current law. Each of these ideas has support among most Democrats and many Republicans. Let's make these ideas the starting point in extending the solvency of Medicare (beyond the eight additional years from the Affordable Care Act) and in preventing our national debt from becoming unmanageable in the long-term (as was done under President Clinton).
Compromise to address the fiscal cliff is not an end; it is a means to an end: preserving the health and well being of all Americans. We can fashion a bipartisan deal that keeps seniors' retirement security preserved. We can take a step back from the fiscal cliff without breaking our promise to seniors.
We can get this done and done right, but raising the age of Medicare eligibility to 67 is a nonstarter for me, and it's a nonstarter for many of my Democratic colleagues.
Rep. John Garamendi wrote this blog for Labor's Edge.
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa defended his decision to join The Campaign to Fix the Debt even as an online petition demanding he resign from its steering committee approached 11,000 signatures.
"As a progressive Democrat, I joined the Campaign to Fix the Debt because Democrats and Republicans need to come together to find a balanced approach to our fiscal future," Villaraigosa said in a statement to the LA Times." There are tough decisions ahead and the only way that we are going to find long-term solutions is by stepping out of our ideological boxes and reaching out to a broader coalition to get something done"
The Institute for Policy Studies has called Fix the Debt a 'Trojan Horse for massive corporate tax breaks'.Scott Klinger, who wrote the IPS report critical of the lobby group said, "They're simply taking advantage of the so-called 'fiscal cliff' to push the same old agenda of more corporate tax breaks while shifting costs onto the poor and elderly."
Founded by deficit hawks Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson (co-chairs of Erksine/Bowles 2010 deficit-reduction commission) the Campaign to Fix the Debt claims to be a "bipartisan" interest group, yet touts the very Republican "core principles" of keeping tax rates low for the wealthy while slashing Social Security and Medicare.
ļ»æMake permanent the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%.
Cut corporate tax rates and shifting to a "territorial tax system"
that would permanently exempt from U.S. taxes all offshore income earned
by U.S. corporations.
"Reforming" earned-benefit programs by raising the retirement age
and means-testing Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security benefits.
In only 36 hours, 11,000 people have signed on to a petition begun by a former Villaraigosa campaign volunteer demanding he resign.
"As somebody who volunteered and knocked on doors to help elect for Mayor Villaraigosa, I feel disappointed and betrayed, " states Angela Garcia Combs in the petition. "As former chair of the Democratic National Convention, it is inappropriate that Villaraigosa use his position to help this corporate backed group gut Social Security and Medicare, which many of us will need someday."
The politically ambitious Villaraigosa is termed out of office in 2013, and has made noises he wants to run for Governor of California in 2014.
But by signing on as a progressive "beard" for corporate interests, he'll be on the wrong side of the "core principles" of another interest group. Namely the coalition of working Californians,public sector unions, and progressive organizations fighting for economic justice who've traditionally backed Villaraigosa.
Set aside for the moment the balls required for Villaraigosa to pretend to be a deficit hawk. His handling of L.A.'s municipal finances is a matter of record.
Let's instead look more closely at the "balanced approach" advocated by Fix the Debt, especially its "pro-growth" tax reform ideas. What counts as "pro-growth"? Well, any reform that "broadens the base, lowers rates, raises revenues, and reduces the deficit."
Wait wait wait, go back. Lowers rates? Is this a deficit-cutting plan or a tax-cutting plan? Let's turn it over to Paul Krugman
That last part makes no sense in terms of the group's ostensible mission, but makes perfect sense if you look at the array of big corporations, from Goldman Sachs to the UnitedHealth Group, that are involved in the effort and would benefit from tax cuts. Hey, sacrifice is for the little people.
In the same vein, Matt Yglesias argues at Slate that Fix the Debt is not really that concerned about fixing the debt: "What they believe in, instead, is the overwhelmingimportance of rate-cutting tax reform and reduced spending on retirement programs."
You'd think that Antonio Villaraigosa, an ostensible liberal, would want to pay attention to those voices. Evidently not.
Hey California Democrats! Were you entertaining any thoughts about supporting Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic Presidential Primary in 2016? Well, don't. Just, don't do it. Because whatever push he may have done for marriage equality in the state of New York, he's a Lieberman-style villain who has betrayed the Democratic Party.
Go read Markos Moulitsas' take for the full story. The bottom line is that even though Democrats have more seats in the New York State Senate than do Republicans, five Democrats formed the so-called "Independent Democratic Caucus" that is now affiliating with the champers Republicans and handing control to them. All with Cuomo's tacit consent and approval: as Moulitsas says, Gov. Cuomo endorsed some Republicans for the Senate, and didn't offer an opinion on which party he'd like to see control the chamber.
So bottom line? If you feel a sense of obligation to Cuomo because he got marriage equality in New York, I get it. But there will be plenty of Democratic candidates who strongly support marriage equality, and the Democratic Party can do better than the next Joe Lieberman.
In an era of nonpartisan districting, what is a safe seat?
by Brian Leubitz
Much will be written about what brought Steve Fox to the Assembly. The unlikely Assemblyman from the normally solid Republican foothills of LA County was shall we say, not expected to win. The area's voting history made most observers inclined to believe that it would be a relatively easy Republican victory for Ron Smith, the Republican in the top-2. And that was shown in stark relief by Fox's website and the seeming lack of interest in the race by the usual Sacramento suspects.
Tony Quinn, an editor of the California Target Book and a former redistricting lead for the Republican Assembly caucus in 1971 and 1981, has a great take on the race, the 2012 election, and the role of the two parties in California going forward:
So what's the problem? Well, over the summer local Democrats put on a big registration drive in this middle class district, as they did across the state and using the new online registration signed up a whole lot of new voters. And guess who they were: loads of young Latinos, citizens and native Californians, who have learned to read and write, no thanks to the Republicans, and know who their friends are and who they are not. Because they were new voters, many were not on the precinct rolls, so they cast provisional ballots. And that is who manipulated the election, Mr. Smith. The new voters who voted.
It isn't a long article, and certainly worth a full read. Yet the point is there. If demographics really are destiny, where does that leave the Republican party. Perhaps this is the first in a number of calls for reform in the so-called GOP. Or perhaps it will go unheeded once again.
The Democratic Party did a good job on registration. Partially by using new tools, like the online voter registration, and partially by good ol' fashioned shoe leather. But, the Republicans have been doing much of the work of marginalization of their party all by themselves.
With the news that Jim Brulte is considering a bid to run the CA Republican Party, perhaps they can work towards a more practical future. Brulte has a history as a right-wing Republican, but that being said, he also know how to work within the system to get things done. It would take a Herculean effort, as the Republicans can simply not survive relying on the traditional voter base alone.
But, even with a somewhat pragmatic leader like Brulte, Quinn points out that the Democrats really left several seats on the table this election.
Democrats actually failed to make the gains they could have in this election; there are about half a dozen newly-elected Republicans in districts like Smith's who faced unknown and unfunded Democrats in 2012 but still had mediocre showings because of Latino turnout in their districts.
Of course, the answer isn't as simple as Latino turnout alone. However, with additional resources and targeting, 2014 and 2016 could mean the further marginalization of a party that once ran this state.
This time he's making national headlines for joining the steering committee of "Fix the Debt", a high-profile lobbying group whose "core principles" include keeping tax rates low for the wealthy while slashing Social Security and Medicare. Founded by deficit hawks Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson (co-chairs of Erksine/Bowles 2010 deficit-reduction commission) the Campaign to Fix the Debt claims to be a "bipartisan" interest group, and is trying to influence ongoing fiscal cliff budget negotiations taking place in Washington D.C.right now.
"If we're serious about long-term economic growth, we need a balanced approach for reducing the federal debt," said Villaraigosa in a press release. "That approach should include spending cuts, raising revenue and reforms that put our entitlement programs on a sustainable footing. The Campaign to Fix the Debt is dedicated to reminding all Americans that we can't reduce the debt and create the conditions for long-term job creation without working across party lines to find practical solutions."
"They're simply taking advantage of the so-called 'fiscal cliff' to push the same old agenda of more corporate tax breaks while shifting costs onto the poor and elderly."
ļ»æMake permanent the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%.
Cut corporate tax rates and shifting to a "territorial tax system" that would permanently exempt from U.S. taxes all offshore income earned by U.S. corporations.
"Reforming" earned-benefit programs by raising the retirement age and means-testing Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security benefits.
Perhaps. But by signing on as a progressive "beard" for corporate interests, he'll be on the wrong side of this fight in the eyes of the coalition of working Angelenos, public sector unions, and progressive organizations fighting for economic justice who've traditionally backed Villaraigosa.
"Fix the Debt is a creature of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and the Wall Street Engineers of the the economic crisis we elected Barack Obama to get us out of, " said Rick Jacobs, founder of the California Courage Campaign. "I hope the President will pay attention to the voters and not those who put us into this mess."
Bill signed last year would block therapists from "converting" gay minors
by Brian Leubitz
Sen. Ted Lieu's bill barring anti-gay conversion therapy from being practiced on minors was blocked by a federal judge yesterday.
A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked California from enforcing a first-of-its-kind law that bars licensed psychotherapists from working to change the sexual orientations of gay minors, but he limited the scope of his order to just the three providers who have appealed to him to overturn the measure.(AP via Fresno Bee)
Judge Shubb, a HWBush appointee who is known for his forceful presence in the courtroom, didn't really strike down the law, per se. However, with this action he both indicates that the therapists have a decent shot of winning and he can expand the scope to further therapists. However, another federal judge is also considering the case in Sacramento, so the legal wrangling on this one is just beginning.
However, it is worth pointing out a snip from Shubb's order
"Even if SB 1172 is characterized as primarily aimed at regulating conduct, it also extends to forms of (conversion therapy) that utilize speech and, at a minimum, regulates conduct that has an incidental effect on speech," Shubb wrote.
The judge also disputed the California Legislature's finding that trying to change young people's sexual orientation puts them at risk for suicide or depression, saying it was based on "questionable and scientifically incomplete studies."(AP via Fresno Bee)
Now, the protection of free speech, no matter how disgusting the content is and should be one of the most important duties of our government. That being said, this bill was narrowly tailored to minors only, and if anybody over 18 wants to make themselves miserable by trying to change who they are, therapists are legally allowed to oblige them. However, the state clearly has an interest in protecting LGBT minors, who are often forced into such clinics. The legal path is just beginning, but we can hope that this is just a temporary setback.
Suffice it to say that Steve Fox was on nobody's radar this year. You can tell that he wasn't on the Assembly Democratic Caucus target list, as the SteveFox4Assembly website is pretty, um, atrocious. That is unless you are into free geo-cities type websites with a bunch of talk-to-camera videos with interesting messaging.
But, be that as it may, Steve Fox looks set to win a stunner of a race in the new AD-36 over Republican Ron Smith. While he was down on election day by over 2000 votes, he has clawed his way back to the narrowest of wins. (less than 50 votes, last time I checked)
So who exactly is Steve Fox? Well, he previously ran for Assembly as a Republican, and has apparently signed the Norquist anti-tax pledge. But he does seem to support public education funding (see video). However, he will likely be something of a wildcard vote. But, probably better than a wildcard Republican vote.
2012 was the absolute worst case scenario for California Republicans. The question now has to be whether they intend to do anything about it beyond further moving toward their out of touch base vote.
Supreme Court to decide on future of Prop 8 litigation
by Brian Leubitz
It has been over four years since Prop 8 passed in November 2008. Though it would now appear as pro-equality forces are on the march nationally, and could have flipped the 2008 final tally this year, we are still waiting for news from the Supreme Court.
In theory, that should come today. While the court could possibly hold over a final decision, that's the luxury of being the nation's highest court, I suppose. However, the justices were to discuss the case and announce a decision on whether to grant review of the decision today. So, what are we looking at?
If they decline to review the decision, Prop 8 remains dead in California. Marriages would likely begin once the Ninth Circuit lifts the stay and clears the last few procedural hurdles. Unfortunately, due to the narrow decision of the panel, the case only directly impacts California. However, you would certainly have to think that marriage inequality amendments in other 9th Circuit states will be looked at skeptically until there is a Supreme Court decision.
If they take the case, a decision would likely come in the batch of decisions released in June after oral arguments. The Court also will decide whether to look at the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. With DOMA have being ruled unconstitutional in several states, it seems at least better than a 50-50 call that the Court will deal with at least one of the LGBT rights issues.
And, so the waiting continues...
UPDATE: Well, as soon as I post this, it seems that they may be pushing it off. Not official yet, but ScotusBlog has a good track record. Their rumor is that the Court is determining which marriage equality cases to take, especially with regards to the DOMA cases.
#scotus did not act today on #ssm petitions.Could issue orders Mon, but Dec 7 more likely.2 other grants, including gene patents.
Minuteman Assemblyman looks to challenge for 2014 Governor's race
by Brian Leubitz
Tim Donnelly isn't one to shy from a fight, and clearly that's what he has in mind by announcing a bid for the 2014 Governor's gig. Now, Gov. Brown hasn't yet announced his intentions, but the speculation is that he will likely be giving it another go. Challenging Gov. Brown, even with the state's challenges, is a tall order that many prominent Republicans (read: wealthy outsiders) may not want to take on.
So, this is what is facing the California GOP. Unless the exceedingly unlikely happenstance of a Democrat challenging Brown occurs, Republicans will likely be free to have a free for all primary and still get on the general election ballot. That being said if there were any "adults" in the room of the California Republican establishment, you would expect that they would shutter at the thought of a Donnelly candidacy.
Let's just look at what the Republicans have here. Donnelly is a far right conservative, out of step with the California electorate, to be sure. But that is probably not a disqualifier with today's California Republican Party. But he really came to the public spotlight through his work with the Minutemen, the anti-immigration group. While leadership in a vigilante organization is always a bit tough to spot, clearly he was in the forefront. And the organization never was all that shy about talking about race and immigration.
So, this is where the CRP is headed. In a state that is a minority-majority state with a burgeoning Latino electorate, the first major Republican to announce an exploratory bid for the Governor's spot is...a Minuteman leader. If Donnelly does get on the general election, it is difficult to see a path for the Republicans out of the wilderness. As Prop 187 brought Wilson to power, it also set the CRP on its course for long-term irrelevance. That culminated this year with a legislative supermajority.
Perhaps there is a place for the Republican Party in California, but if so, they'll need to drastically review where they are headed. The strategy and course they are on is great for a regional party, or perhaps a Southern State. But, unless they can find some way to attract a broader base, they'll keep walking the road to minor party status.
Campaign treasurer blames "bad business" on losing millions of Democratic campaign funds
by Brian Leubitz
Kindee Durkee is something akin to Lord Voldemort in the corridors of Democratic fundraisers. She squandered millions of dollars from a long list of Democrats, including several million from Sen. Feinstein. Turns out that she apparently was really, really not cut out for the job. From a court filing (via SacBee):
"Although a significant amount of money was used to pay for personal expenses, including mortgage payments and credit card charges, a great deal of the stolen funds were used to keep the business afloat and her employees employed. ... Unfortunately, it spiraled out of control, she lost track of the amount of the shortfall and it ultimately reached a level that she will be unable to repay in her lifetime."
Durkee received 8 years for her crimes, but you would figure that she would be out sooner. Her career in accounting, well, that's over.
SF Mayoral Candidate has worked on election issues
by Brian Leubitz
While this will be a surprise to exactly nobody, Sen. Leland Yee is making it official, he'll be a candidate for the 2014 election for SoS.
State Sen. Leland Yee, a San Francisco Democrat who has made voter access and open government among his main priorities as a lawmaker, will run for secretary of state when he is termed out of the Legislature in two years. ...
"Given the fact that I am termed out in two years, I looked long and hard at the options available," Yee said. "Given the work I have done on voting, on transparency and on open government accountability, I thought the secretary of state position would be a nice fit for me."(SF Chronicle)
Now putting aside the issue of term limits and legislators constantly looking to find a new seat, Yee will make for a formidable candidate in this race. He has worked on voting issues, and his bill for online registration saw a boom of around a million voters registering via the internet.
With top-two elections, being the first mover is a fairly big advantage. The party will want to avoid a wild primary with lots of solid Democratic candidates so that we don't inadvertently hand an office to the Republicans. Yee certainly has his share of detractors, but with his background on the issues and a pretty strong base in San Francisco, he will be a strong candidate.
UPDATE: Here's his tweet on the subject.
Excited to announce that I'm running for California Secretary of State. I want to expand on our recent election, tech, and open gov success.
If you ever wonder about the gaping hole in our budget that we've been trying to close for the last decade or so, there is one part of that larger pie that is bigger than the rest. That is the Vehicle License Fee. Back when Arnold Schwarzenegger was running in the recall election, it was dubbed simply the "car tax."
And give him credit for this, when elected he did, in fact, slash the "car tax." We were able to backfill with a few years of budgetary "smoke and mirrors" but the hole was stubborn. And when 2007-8's big recession hit, we were proverbial budgetary roadkill. The cuts just couldn't come fast enough to match the speed of declining revenue, given that we had already made cuts to cover the loss of the VLF revenue.
And so here we stand, with a brand new legislative supermajority sure to eventually show up. So, given the damage the VLF cut brought us, surely it would be at least open for discussion, right? Sen. Lieu thinks so, or at least he thought so a few days ago when he told the LA Daily News just that
The constitutional amendment would restore the 2 percent vehicle license fee slashed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger after he won office partly on that pledge.
The 1.35 percent transportation system user fee increase would generate an estimated $3.5 billion to $4 billion annually for roads and public transit in yet-to-be-decided proportions, Lieu said. ... "It would be a test to see what the two-thirds (majority) Legislature means," Lieu told the editorial board of the Los Angeles News Group. "The best way for us to lose the supermajority is to overreach.
"I'm not saying it would be an easy sell," he added of the proposal. "I'm aware of the fact I may be attacked for it." (LA Daily News)
Now, the interesting part here is that the suggested increase would still go to the voters, because, apparently we are all in on the government by plebiscite thing. All this would do is to save somebody a few million dollars of getting the measure on the ballot. To be honest, the amount of money spent getting it on the ballot would pale in comparison to the amount required to pass it. So, yes, Democrats have a supermajority, but no, they won't be going so far as just passing additional revenues on their own.
Silly you, thinking we had a representative democracy, but even the vote was too much for some.
However, over the last few weeks California's political landscape has changed. I have listened carefully to those who have contacted my office or me. Additionally, more stakeholders weighed in on this important issue. As a result, I will not be introducing the proposal. Instead, I will work with transportation stakeholders and the public next year on alternative ways to mitigate the transportation infrastructure problem. This problem is not going to go away and will only worsen when the final installment of depleted Proposition 1B funds are allocated next year. I am open to any suggestions and if you have any, please feel free to contact me or my office. - Sen. Ted Lieu
So the good senator got some pressure, and as Dan Walters points out they are loathe to be seen as "over-reaching." The CW apparently comes down hard, and despite some solid advice from our very own Robert Cruickshank to move forward on progressive legislation, it looks like there is more work to be done here. Now, that being said, it looks like we may get some not inconsequential reform on the ballot in 2014, but the status quo is still quite strong.
From Frying Pan News. Madeline Janis, the author of the post below, is a co-founder of the L.A. Alliance for a New Economy and a former Commissioner for the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency. She led L.A.'s historic living wage campaign during Riordan's tenure as mayor.
Former L.A. Mayor Richard Riordan has been in the news lately, arguing that city leaders need to take drastic steps to make Los Angeles more business friendly and get the city functioning again. He has blamed public sector unions for every woe facing the region, including the current financial crisis and potholes on his street in Brentwood.
Mayor Riordan is not just crying in the wilderness. His threat to put a draconian pension-cutting initiative on the ballot played a major part in prompting the City Council last month to hastily adopt its own pension-cutting plan - a plan that almost certainly will be thrown out by the courts as a violation of existing collective bargaining agreements.
Riordan's resurrection as a major political force begs a fundamental question: How successful was he at bringing business and jobs to L.A. and overseeing scarce public resources when he was running the city?
About 500 students are currently blockading entrances to the University of California Board of Regents meeting at UC San Francisco this morning, where the Regents are scheduled to vote on a budget that presumes a 24 percent across-the-board increase on UC tuitions over four years. Picketing students have pledged to shut the meeting down.
According to Charlie Eaton, one of the organizers of the protest and co-author of a report released this week that charged the Regents with employing exotic financial instruments that doubled the UC system's debt load over three and a half years, as of 8:45AM PT only a third of the Regents have made it inside the building. About 100 students are inside, according to Eaton.
Chris Norby concedes tightest Assembly race - photo credit: Chris Prevatt
by Brian Leubitz
With the concession of Chris Norby to Sharon Quirk-Silva, the Democratic supermajority in the Assembly was finalized. The Democrats will hold 54 of the 80 seats there. In the Senate, the situation is slightly more confusing. Senator Juan Vargas was elected to replace Rep. Bob Filner in Congress, so we're looking at a special election in that Dem-leaning district.
