2009 A Year in Review

As this is my last blog of 2009, I’m doing it. I’m the first! The very first 2009: year in review! It has been an exciting one hasn’t it? We started with a brand new president, full of hope, 2009 was going to be a great year! Well, I don’t know if it was great, so much as just completely crazy.


2009 has seen some big issues come our way, from California’s budget crisis (parts one and two), to national healthcare, to possibly dismantling the Federal Reserve.

So let’s recap:


- We have a new President ladies and gents! Someone who people either find hopeful or horrific, no one can accuse Obama as being lazy as he’s packed some big issues into his first year in office.

- The economy goes from bad to bad. Ok, let’s face it, the economy hasn’t really gone anywhere in the last year. We’ve been assured that without the billions in bailout money it would’ve been a whole lot worse, but it isn’t exactly a whole lot better either.


- Among several other states, California finds itself in a budget crisis because of the economy. The legislature throws some band-aids on it to stop the hemorrhaging, but is back in the red only a few months later.

- To protect consumers, Congress starts discussing several different angles on financial regulations. None are particularly helpful and appear to just increase the crazy bureaucracy. Except for the possibility of getting rid of the Federal Reserve, which would put the power of the purse back in Congress’s hands where the founders intended it. But, given how we all feel about Congress, are we really comfortable with that?


- Senator Al Franken is elected giving the Democrats 60 votes in the Senate, a so-called “supermajority”. Except that for some reason they still can’t get anything passed. (To hear my full rant on this particular issue, feel free to email me!)

- California’s Gubernatorial election is in full swing! It appears that the conservative candidates will be Steve Poizner, Tom Campbell, and Meg Whitman vs. democratic candidate Jerry Brown.

- This year saw the outing of a power religious group: “The Family”. While the particular political dealings of this group are still veiled, I highly recommend the book for some totally scandalous (but completely true) reading: http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780060559793/The_Family/index.aspx


- Two propositions are submitted to California’s Secretary of State giving the people the opportunity to scrap the current California constitution and start all over.

- Healthcare. Need I say more?


It’s been quite the year. Publicly and personally, it’s been a year full of change. At times it’s been scary, and at other times it’s been nothing short of amazing. I hope your 2009 brought you health and happiness and that 2010 brings you everything you hope for. Happy New Year everyone!

'Twas the Night Before Voting

'Twas the night before voting, when all through the Senate, All creatures were stirring, discussing their tenets

The healthcare debate must come to a close, the Senate will vote while the West coast will doze

The Senators nestled all snug in their seats, In hopes that the bill will not meet defeat

Hopefully hoping to go home at last, They’d been working much harder than holiday’s past

But out from the floor there arose such a clatter, we all sprang from our couches to see what was the matter!

Away to the news stations we flew like a flash, to cable, to internet and other such trash

The flashing of cameras at great shelves of books, giving the semblance of smartness to people with looks

When, what to my inquiring eyes should appear, but former Governor Sarah Palin! And her politics of fear!

With a lively old interviewer, just nice as heck, I knew it a moment it must be Glenn Beck

Knowing without doubt that his rivals were lame, he yelled and he shouted and he called them by name;

“Now Nancy, now Stewart, now Hoyer and Kerry! On Colbert, on Schumer, on Obama and Harry!

To the top of the ratings! To the top of them all! Now watch me, now watch me, now watch me,” he called.

As the Senate’s debating drew near to an end, with a bill full of provisions and a nation to mend

The protestors they came, to the capital they flew, with a bag full of signs and some firearms too

But then, in a twinkling, I read it online, they have all the votes to pass it on time

As I took off my glasses and was turning around, from my laptop there came an unmistakable sound

She was dressed in a skirt suit, her lipstick dark red, And her blouse neatly pressed, hair perfect on her head

In her hand she held over 2,000 pages, And all she can say is “it’s one for the ages”

Her eyes—how they twinkled! Her dimples so merry! Between you and me, she’s been into the sherry.

Not that I blame her with a nation so torn, though there’s not much to do but regard them with scorn

Who would like a Congress that does everything wrong? And is a big part of why this year’s been so long.

But don’t worry good people, 2010’s a new year, we’ll vote them all out and change will be near

For now though adieu as I must take flight, Happy Christmas to all and to all a Good Night

You'd Have to be So High...

To continue with last week’s theme of ballot initiatives in California’s November 2010 election, this week we’re going to talk about everyone’s favorite topic! Legalizing marijuana! (Don’t forget your towel.)

To hear a national overview of the different views, check out this clip from This Week with George Stephanopoulos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zizS76elpiU

To hear it straight from the mouths (ok, website) of the official “Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010” check out their About Us page: http://www.taxcannabis.org/index.php/pages/about

The general idea is that, rather than continuing a seventy-year war on marijuana, which we seem to be losing both in terms of actual dollars flowing back to the Mexican drug cartels and actual dollars that we spend locking up drug offenders who are caught with non-medical marijuana, we should legalize it, regulate it, and tax it.

California has always been on the forefront of decriminalizing the use of marijuana starting in 1996 when we became the first state to legalize marijuana for medical use. In July of this year, Oakland became the first city to assess a sales tax on marijuana. The initiative has already gathered the signatures it needs to be presented on the general election ballot in 2010. (And here I thought pot-heads were lazy and had no motivation! I am appropriately impressed.)

According to The Sentencing Project http://www.sentencingproject.org/template/index.cfm) drug arrests have more than tripled in the last 25 years leading to 1.8 million drug arrests in 2005 alone. The majority of these arrests are for simple possession of marijuana and most people in prison for drug offenses have no history of violence.

Between the reduced prison costs of legalizing marijuana and the possible revenue from taxation, it kind of sounds like a deal. So what IS the big deal anyway? (Got your towel?) Well, there is still a pretty big list of questions that have not yet been answered: “Who is going to determine or regulate how marijuana is produced and distributed? Who will it be distributed by? How is the state going to collect the taxes? Will it really have an impact on the illicit trafficking and production of marijuana? Will this lead to proposals to legalize other drugs?”

All right all my business friends out there, ready for your next big business idea? Producing and distributing (selling) pot! Who knew that you too could grow up to be a drug dealer? You can drive around town in your fancy BMW and wear lots of bling. Next thing you know, you could be Snoop Dog’s best friend.

In other news, the Senate has finally passed a health care bill. Help us all. More about that on Wednesday!

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, for your Bills, Bills, Bills

Today we’re going to revisit the Job Bill. Almost a month later after my first Job Bill blog, the House is still working to pass a version of the bill lovingly dubbed by Democrats as the “Jobs for Main Street” bill. Currently, the tab is up to $174 billion, but it includes:

$36 billion for highways and mass transit.
$20 billion to keep Highway Trust Fund solvent for existing obligations.
$23 billion to pay teacher salaries in an attempt to save or create about 250,000 education jobs.
$2 billion for job training, summer jobs for teenagers and for AmeriCorps.
$500 million to retain or hire firefighters.
$1.2 billion to put 5,500 law enforcement officials on the beat.
$2.3 billion to extend the $1,000-per-child tax credit to 16 million poor families.
$24 billion to states for Medicaid for the poor and disabled.
$41 billion to extend emergency unemployment benefits for six months.
$12.3 billion for health insurance subsidies for long-term jobless workers.
$600 million for improvements to airports and seaports.
$2.8 billion for water projects.
$2 billion for housing renovations.

Sometime this week the House will officially vote on the bill as well as voting on a temporary, two-month increase in the national debt of $1.2 trillion. About half of the jobs bill will be financed by the left over or repaid money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP – the Treasury Department’s bank bailout).

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey had some harsh words for critics of the bill who say the price tag is too high, “We make no apology whatsoever for trying to give the same amount of attention to Main Street needs as was given earlier to Wall Street needs.” (Oh! Zing!)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20091215/pl_bloomberg/ahqzpf24e2eg
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091216/pl_nm/us_usa_congress_jobs

Reforming, Rewriting, and Repairing

Let’s start off today with some trivia! Who once said, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”?

It has been argued recently, both in the press and amongst my family and friends, that California’s government has become overly large, complex, and destructive. California’s constitution is the third largest in the world. Not only amongst states, but amongst any governing entity with a constitution (states, countries, etc.). We have diluted our constitution with over 500 amendments since its ratification in 1879. As a result, our education system is practically on the brink of collapse, our elections produce legislators with ideological extremes who cannot pass a decent budget to save their (or our) lives, and our water will likely dry up completely before anyone does anything about that looming crisis.

At this point to “effect” Californians’ safety and happiness, it seems that the next logical step is to “alter or abolish” the government. Ok, take a deep breath, I’m not saying that we should take up arms and storm Sacramento (although that would be really exciting), our founders actually gave us the tools to fix the underlying problem in a non-violent way (way to be on top of that founding fathers).

Through a constitutional convention, California can completely scrap the constitution as it stands now and start all over! Sounds like a pretty good idea right? Unfortunately, as of now there is only one way that we can make this convention happen: our legislators can authorize a convention with a two-thirds vote (HA! The very idea that two-thirds of our legislators would agree to do this totally cracks me up.).

Enter Repair California (www.repaircalifornia.org). A non-profit organization started by the Bay Area Council (http://www.bayareacouncil.org/bay_area_council.php), Repair California’s mission is to give Californians the opportunity to take part in a Constitutional Convention to completely rewrite our current, overblown and diluted constitution. On October 28, 2009 Repair California presented the Attorney General with the language for two Propositions which will appear on the November 2010 ballot and which you will know as Proposition 1 and Proposition 2.

Proposition 1 amends the current constitution to allow the citizens of the state the opportunity to call for a constitutional convention with a majority vote on a ballot initiative.
Proposition 2 is the ballot initiative calling for a citizens constitutional convention.

I highly recommend reading both initiatives. Proposition 1 is only two pages long and Proposition 2 is only slightly longer at 16 pages. The text can be found here: http://www.repaircalifornia.org/Docs/repair_california_prop_1.pdf and here http://www.repaircalifornia.org/Docs/repair_california_prop_2.pdf.

There are still lots of hurdles to clear before the citizens constitutional convention can become a reality. Both measures have to get 1.4 million signatures before the attorney general can even allow them on the ballot. Then, both initiatives have to be passed by the people, clearly one is no good without the other. Once the convention is held and the delegate’s reform package is written, is must again be voted on by the citizens in 2012 to become legally binding. I realize this sounds incredibly overwhelming and a little scary. But really, I think sticking with our current constitution is far more terrifying.

To calm your fears a little, here’s an interesting statistic: since 1950, five states have undergone constitutional conventions to completely rewrite their constitutions. They are Montana, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan and Connecticut.

Now for the answer to trivia! In 1776 Thomas Jefferson wrote, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness” in the Declaration of Independence.

Big Bank Bohemoths & My Economic Solution

Today in the wake of Obama’s jobs summit and the plethora of speeches on the economy, we’re going to have a small history lesson.

One of the problems that I hear over and over again (in that plethora of speeches) is how the government gave all that money to the banks to bail them out so they could start lending again. But, now, (shocker) they’re not lending. Now I have a theory. Sure, lots of people are defaulting on mortgages because of variable or resetting interest rates resulting in crazy huge bills that they can’t pay because they’re unemployed. But how the heck are they supposed to go out and start their own small businesses if they can’t get a loan? (No, of course I am not talking about myself! Wink, wink!) Face it though, banks have lots and lots of other ways to make money. For example, investing!

For a complete list of where Citigroup Inc makes their money for example, check out their most recent 10-Q. http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=6877451-1106-1291714&type=sect&dcn=0001047469-09-009754 By the way, if you can read it, can you let me know what it says? I’m five minutes away from being a CPA and I pretty much barely understand it.

Back to my last point though, banks can invest in lots of things to make their money these days. Like hedge funds or derivatives. Both are totally safe investments, of course, so when they take your hard earned money that you put into your savings account to get a whole 1.5% interest and they put it into a derivative investment and either make lots and lots of money or lose everything, I’m sure we can all feel good about it.

Anyway, I believe I promised you a history lesson. Way back in the day (when people were partying like it was 1999, because it WAS 1999), three senators wrote a bill formally named The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. (Informally the bill is called The Gramm Leach Bliley Act or GLBA – go ahead, I give you permission to laugh!) The first section of the bill repeals Section 20 of the Glass-Steagall Act to now allow mergers between securities and banking companies and also repeals Section 32 of the Banking Act of 1933 to permit officers and directors to serve in those capacities for both securities and banking companies. To read the Senate Banking Committee’s Summary of the Bill check this out: http://banking.senate.gov/docs/reports/s900sum.htm.

To give you an idea of how popular the bill has been since its passage, economists Robert Ekelund and Mark Thornton have stated that the bill, “amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly.” Economist Paul Krugman called Senator Gramm, “the father of the financial crisis” because of his sponsorship of the bill. Yikes.

Here are my thoughts: bring back Section 20 of the Glass-Steagall Act and Section 32 of the Banking Act of 1933. As if the banks weren’t already too big before this crisis, now there’s only five large banking institutions left. What’s going to happen when they mess up again? Do you think maybe they’d start lending again if we took away their securities? It’s time to break up the behemoth party. And if I’m not convincing as an economist, check out economist Robert Reich’s personal blog: http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/10/too-big-to-fail-why-big-banks-should-be.html. (I love that I use the same blogger as Robert Reich! It gives me goose bumps!)

Oh California's Education System, Why Are You So Terrible?

Ok, I admit it, today I am picking on an easy target: California’s education system. As we all know, it sucks. Big time. Let’s go over some of the statistics:

* Only 36.3% of California’s high school graduates go on to college, compared to 40% nationally.
* We rank 18th out of the 20 largest states in the percentage of 12th graders who go directly to college and 17th in the amount who ever go to college at all.
* We are 30th in spending per pupil
* 49th in student to teacher ratios, and
* UC fees have increased 300% in the last 10 years

Yikes. In this blog though, I would like to concentrate on bullet #3! Only twenty states spend less per pupil than California. And what exactly are we spending that money on? Before school started this year, my sister (who teaches 1st grade – damned those kids are cute) confessed that the budget crisis is creating a borderline hostile atmosphere at her school as the various grade levels duke it out for whatever money they can get their hands on. In the same breath, she told me that she wasn’t sure she would even have the budget money to provide her five and six year olds (who go through erasers like no other) with enough pencils for the school year. Tragic.

As it that wasn’t bad enough in and of itself though, let’s talk about earmarks! As school budgets are created by those higher ups somewhere out there, money gets set aside for certain activities or expenses and once those budgets are passed it becomes illegal to spend that money on anything else. For example, at my sister’s school thousands of dollars has been tied up to buy new PE equipment. Now, that’s very nice and everything, but the school can’t afford to hire a PE teacher so there is no PE program to buy new equipment for! And in the meantime my sister is worried about pencils.

In a really great example of misused funds, remember Swine Flu? On Friday, state schools chief Jack O’Connell announced that the state has purchased 23 million masks and gloves to prevent the spread of Swine Flu. Yup, even if those suckers only cost 50 cents apiece, we’re talking over $11 million. (If you’d like your own Swine Flu mask now that flu season is almost over, there’s a pretty good assortment here: http://www.google.com/products?q=swine+flu+mask&rlz=1I7DLUS_en&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=yOcaS-1RjbCzA8Xr6PwE&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&ct=title&resnum=6&ved=0CDgQrQQwBQ)

The supplies were paid for by a federal grant which was given for the sole purpose of purchasing the masks and gloves.

http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr09/yr09rel160.asp
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten5-2009dec05,0,2869973.column
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579367,00.html

Afghanistan: How much sleep are you losing over it?

Last night President Obama gave a much anticipated speech on the future of American involvement in Afghanistan. So what’s the verdict? (drumroll please) We need a surge! What else is new? It’s like our new favorite war term.

About 30,000 more lucky winners get to head off to the hot, dusty Middle East bringing the grand total of military personnel (does anyone else wonder what exactly the term “military personnel” means? I mean, are they troops or what?) to about 100,000.

Of course, what’s everyone’s new favorite question? How are we going to pay for this? Funny, you would have thought we would wonder that eight years ago when we actually went to war. It appears that we have two (ugly) choices: one, raise taxes or two, issue war bonds.

First, let me ask, how often do you think about the fact that we are actually at war? That we are in fact involved in two wars?? I’m going to guess that you don’t think about it all that often. So let’s take a look back into the history books shall we?

World War II: The American public was actually put under strict rationing. From food and gas to clothing, Americans consumption was limited so that our resources could be directed to our troops. Recycling was actually born during World War II to help reuse materials that could be useful in war. War bonds were issued and training sessions were held to teach women how to shop wisely to help conserve food. Can you imagine how we would all react if our government put us on rationing today? (Can we say communism?)

Vietnam (speaking of communism): I only have two words for you, the draft.

So I have to ask, given our history, why does asking Americans to sacrifice just a little, for a war that we all wanted to fight so badly, scare our Representatives so much? I, for one, want to know why we think we have to make a choice between raising taxes or issuing war bonds? Heck, let’s do both! Remember when the troops in Iraq didn’t have enough bullet-proof vests?? I certainly do, and I say, by all means, raise my taxes to make sure that my friends overseas (who are fighting my battles) are a little bit safer.

California has the Budget Blues... Again

Ah, to think California almost made it five whole months before diving back into the depths of a budget crisis. Yup, it’s true. Cleverly though, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) released their report over the long weekend (or maybe just before, it’s not entirely clear from where I’m sitting) so… you know… maybe nobody will see that we’re $20.7 billion in the hole through 2011. Yea, I’m sure nobody will notice. In fact, according to said report, we’re likely to continue to see tens of billions of dollars in deficits until 2014 when revenues are projected to rebound (I think I’ll still keep my fingers crossed on this one, you know, just in case!). Read the LAO’s report here: http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/PubDetails.aspx?id=2143.

So where is the money going to come from this time? Nobody knows for sure, but likely sources are health and human services, education (oi), and corrections. The only possible silver lining to this hurricane of a disaster is the possibility of a lessening of regulations on small businesses (I’m giving that a preemptive “yay”!).

The scary thing (at least for me) about this upcoming budget crisis is that, “Legislators have expressed concerns that approving a balanced state budget will be harder this time around, as some of the easier cuts have already been made.” (http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/billion-15872-california-deficit.html) Um, excuse me, did you say “easier cuts”? Am I the only one who recalls how long it took to resolve the last budget crisis? When we made those “easier cuts”? When people were getting I.O.U.s instead of cash for the tax refunds? Anyone? Anyone?

Why is it that the only people who seem to understand the problem and offer real, realistic solutions are not our elected officials? A letter to the editor published in the Ventura County Star gives some great ideas, check them out at this link: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/nov/26/ob9budgetletts27/?partner=yahoo_feeds.

When will the legislature start to work on closing the new budget gap? Well, your guess is pretty much as good as mine, but if you want to follow what the legislature is up to, check out their website: http://www.legislature.ca.gov/.

Since we haven't talked about healthcare in almost a whole month...

The healthcare monster is officially open for debate on the Senate floor. With barely enough votes to even get to the debate part of the process (the motion to debate passed 60-39, with 60 being the minimum amount of votes to pass), the Democrats are in for what could turn into unrestrained debate next month. Did I mention that not a single Republican voted to begin debate and more than likely will not vote for any healthcare reform bill?

The latest argument over the bill: the cost. The U.S. currently has the largest debt we’ve ever had. If we don’t raise the current legal debt ceiling, we will actually default on some of our debt. The healthcare bill as it stands now will cost approximately $979 billion over 10 years. It will also reduce the deficit over the same 10 years, i.e. the bill will NOT add to our current debt. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul) Supposedly the bill will save 3.5 million jobs and $800 billion over the next 20 years. Republicans however, don’t buy it and are saying things like, “I don't want to fix the problems in our health care system in a way that creates more of an economic crisis.” (Joe Lieberman, I-CT). Kit Bond (R-MI) even called the whole bill a, “scam”. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_democrats)

To find out who exactly is full of it, I went straight to the source: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the entity in charge of estimating the fiscal impact of bills introduced by congress. Per a CBO report published on November 20th, the federal budget deficit will have a net reduction of approximately $138 billion. ($979 billion cost over 10 years less the $800 billion in savings over 10 years… not exactly $138 billion in net savings, but close enough for our purposes here.) If you’d like to read the whole report, click on the link: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10741/hr3962Revised.pdf.

For those of us who are skeptical of the CBO (or any governmental entity), here are the facts:

1. The director is jointly appointed for a four year term by the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
2. Director and Deputy Director compensation is set by law
3. Approximately 70% of the professional staff hold advanced degrees in either economics or public policy.

For more info in the CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/

Former Director Robert Reischauer, who served from 1989-1995, recently noted, “CBO is there to score savings for which we have a high degree of confidence that they will materialize… There are many promising approaches [in these reform ideas] but you...can't deposit them in the bank.” Hmm, I think I might be sold on this whole billions of dollars in net savings thing…

For an extremely in-depth well-written article on the specifics of the healthcare bill, check this out: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/a_milestone_in_the_health_care_journey.php

U.C. Tuition Increase.. Because of COURSE students should pay for our budget crisis!

In the midst of the great California budget crisis, at a time when all Californians young and old are feeling the squeeze, last Thursday the University of California regents voted to raise tuition by 32%. DANG! Starting in January, half the hike will kick in, raising tuition to $8,373. The rest of the increase will take effect next fall and will raise tuition to $10,302. To give you an idea of the obscenity of the hike, the average annual tuition increase nation-wide is 6.5%.

I am glad to say that the students are not just rolling over and taking the news lying down. Students at Cal took over an English building, which led to three arrests. Over 2,000 students protested at U.C.L.A., and at least 50 students and one professor were arrested following protests at U.C. Davis. And we certainly can’t leave out those crazy U.C. Santa Cruz kids (you know who you are!) who took over Kerr Hall and demanded, not only the repeal of the tuition increase, but the impeachment of Mark Yudof, President of the University System and the altogether elimination of the regents. We could all take a few good negotiation lessons from those crazy U.C.S.C. kids: First, aim high in negotiating so you can always compromise down, but second, you need to have something to negotiate with in order to get anything you want. Taking over a building will only get you arrested. Unless you can get everyone (and I mean everyone… like on the planet) to agree to stop going to school (i.e. stop paying tuition), you have very little bargaining power.

In case that wasn’t depressing enough for you, here are some interesting statistics: Even though California can’t find the money to fund its education system, we still find the money to maintain all those prisons, check out this chart: http://www.good.is/post/prison-and-college-californias-ridiculous-priorities/. In my article perusing of this topic it seems that California is either #1 or #5 in spending on our prison system (which I think we can all agree is… well… up there), while we are a dim #48 in spending on education. Yikes.

Ever wonder who these so-called “regents” are? Well, I’m glad you asked. Of the 26 board members, 18 are appointed by the Governor to serve 12 year terms, 1 is a student appointed by the Regents to serve a 1 year term (you know, in case they get too uppity), and 7 are ex officio members including the Governor, Lieutenant Governor and several other political cronies. (See their official website here: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/) While regents themselves do not earn a salary for their position, they are in charge of setting compensation for all UC executives, administrators, and faculty. Check out some of the (rather disgusting if I may say so) increases in executive and administrative salaries at UC’s this year: http://www.upte.org/about/press/2009-07-23.pdf.

The only regent to vote against the increase was the student regent. I’m shocked.

A Second Stimulus?

This week in the House of Representatives (it’s a soap opera, not unlike As the World Turns), Democrats started discussing a possible jobs bill. Now that the U.S. unemployment rate is officially greater than 10% clearly something must be done (before it was obviously under control, but now that we’ve reached the magical 10%, Congress must act to save us all).

Of course, let’s be clear, this will not be a second stimulus bill (or at least we definitely wouldn’t want to call it that because the public probably wouldn’t like it), the bill will be clearly focused (because Congress is great on focusing) on jobs. So will Congress just throw more money at the problem? Supposedly the main focuses of the bill will be:

* A transportation bill that could cost up to $500 billion
* A tax credit for businesses that create jobs
* Assistance to state governments, which otherwise would lay off teachers, police and other employees as they cope with plunging tax revenues and rising social spending
* Low-interest loans for small businesses
* Another extension of unemployment benefits, which otherwise could run out for millions of jobless workers
* An extension of health-insurance subsidies for the jobless
* A transaction tax on over-the-counter trades in unregulated "dark markets"

On the one hand, our deficit is already over $1 trillion, and this bill certainly won’t be paying for itself in the short run. As House Republican leader John Boehner (heh heh) put it, “Americans are asking, 'Where are the jobs?' But all they are getting from out-of-touch Washington Democrats is more spending and more debt piled on our kids and grandkids. Instead of doubling down with more spending and borrowing, the American people want fiscally responsible solutions to get the economy back on track.” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091118/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_jobs_bill

On the other hand though, how else are we going to create jobs if we don’t spend any money? According to economist Robert Reich, “The Administration's biggest economic mistake so far was to badly underestimate last January how bad the employment situation would become by Fall. As a result, it low-balled the stimulus -- settling for a plan that, while avoiding even worse job losses, didn't go nearly far enough.” http://www.robertreich.blogspot.com/

Congress Cares! Right?

Yesterday as I perused the headlines to see what the big Congressional news of the week was, here are some of the headlines I saw:

“Bill Clinton spurs US Senate Democrats on health care” (Really? We have to bring back Bill Clinton to get the Democrats to actually do anything useful?)

“Abortion foe seeks curbs in Senate health bill” (Ah yes, apparently abortion is now the big health care bill issue. We don’t want the government to dictate what procedures we can and cannot get – can we say the ‘death panels’ scare – but NO ABORTIONS ALLOWED!)

“US seeks climate framework, not legal pact: experts” (Because when we want our government or businesses to do something, all we have to do is ‘suggest’ it and they’ll get right on it – HA! Hello people, Windows 7 was not really your idea.)

“House passes historic health care bill, with one GOP vote” (Therefore it’s ‘bipartisan’! Boy am I proud.)

“Opponents say they have votes to block U.S. tourism to Cuba” (Two things, one: of all the things happening in this country, we’re concerned about lifting the ban on tourism to Cuba? But two: why are there so many people blocking the lifting of the ban on tourism to Cuba?! Are we still that concerned about Fidel Castro and Communism? Seriously?? I mean, first of all, if I was the U.S., Cuba would be my pinky finger! Secondly, maybe if we opened up Cuba to tourism, the actual people of Cuba wouldn’t be quite so poor, and they would stop trying to invade Florida.)

Ugh, that was all so uplifting that I had to laugh when I saw this headline: “AP-GfK poll: Country in a funk” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091110/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_ap_poll

Yes! I am in a funk! Thanks for noticing AP-GfK! The article cites lots of interesting statistics including the fact that only one third of the country approves of how Congress is doing. I’m not surprised, those guys clearly can’t get their act together. Then, I went and looked at the original poll which includes congresses approval rating over time. http://surveys.ap.org/data/GfK/AP-GfK%20Poll%20Final%20November%20Topline%20111009_political.pdf

Ok, so Congress’s approval rating was about 30% in November 2009, but it was 21% in November 2008! Now I’m surprised. You’re telling me that Congress’s approval rating has actually improved by nine percentage points in the last year?! Ok, forget surprised, I’m downright shocked! Or at least I was until I revisited what Congress was doing last year around this time: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/index.asp Enter the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act. Ah, mystery solved.

In fact, looking back on last year at about this time, between the multitude of bailouts, the Dow Jones diving to under 8,000, and the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, things were looking pretty bleak. At least now, Congress is doing something to try and help me instead of just throwing money at corporate America. Thanks for at least pretending to care Congress! Things are looking up already!

California's U.S. Senate Race: Carly Fiorina Makes it Official!

This week, former HP CEO Carly Fiorina announced her candidacy for one of California’s U.S. Senate seats. Sen. Barbara Boxer is up for reelection in November 2010 and the Republican primary will be held in June.

In the primaries, Fiorina will run against Chuck DeVore, a California State Assemblyman from Orange County a position he has held since 2004. Mr. DeVore has clearly had his feet firmly planted in the political arena since age 19 when he began actively volunteering for the Republican Party. Since then he has been a Reagan White House appointee to the Pentagon, been an aide to former Congressman Christopher Cox, was the City Commissioner for the City of Irvine and has been elected to the Orange County Republican Party Central Committee four times. To read where Mr. DeVore stands on the issues, visit his Chuckdevore.com for U.S. Senate website at http://www.chuckdevore.com/issues/

Given Chucks long political record, compared to the fact that Fiorina has voted in six of the fourteen elections held in California since 2000 and did not vote once in the ten years she lived in New Jersey prior to moving to California, I am surprised that she is already spending her time attacking Sen. Boxer, rather than her primary opponent that she will have to defeat in June.
In fact, I found the video of her campaign announcement absolutely fascinating! Take a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIYREAUpkeM

I agree, job creation should definitely be a top priority for Washington. What about those 28,000 HP jobs that went away when you were CEO Carly? What about all those jobs that went overseas?

Fiorina cut her political teeth as top economic advisor to the McCain Presidential Campaign in 2008 (and we all saw how well that went). Although it went particularly badly for Carly, after saying that none of the candidates were qualified to run a major corporation like HP, she was more or less blackballed from the campaign. http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/09/16/is-fiorina-finished-two-big-mistakes-get-carly-in-trouble/

Ok, maybe I’m being a little harsh here, but it seems like she hasn’t done much of anything that anyone has liked. First, she was ousted from HP, then she was ousted from the McCain campaign. What exactly does she think she can bring to the party this time??

Job creation! (I think this should be the new definition of “creationism”.) Focusing on small businesses and entrepreneurs is the way to go. Make it easier to start a new business, she says! But how? The systems are so different depending on which state you’re in (clearly since Delaware is THE state to incorporate your business in while incorporating in California would subject you to expensive laws, regulations, and other terrible things). Maybe she and Meg Whitman should switch races…

Oh, and as a recent breast cancer survivor you better believe that the woman has some serious opinions on healthcare. Although, her problems seem to be more centered on leaving decisions in the hands of the patients and their doctors, ensuring better communication throughout the system, and lowering costs. Not that I have a problem with that, I think all of those things are important. However, lowering costs is never going to happen until you get the uninsured out of emergency rooms, and make preventative care more available. I also have a small problem with someone who received a $21 million severance package from HP telling me that she just had a typical experience in the healthcare system. Money may not be able to buy happiness, but it can certainly buy a better healthcare experience.
For more Carly info, check out her website: http://carlyforcalifornia.com/

Election 2009: Did We Really Care?

I never know how to feel the day after an election. Nothing ever completely goes your way, something will go exactly how you wanted it to, but something else can just wipe that smile right off your face. The two most important races in yesterday’s election were: Proposition 1 in Maine and the Congressional seat in New York’s 23rd district.

Maine voters decided to reject a gay marriage bill signed into law only six months ago, once again outlawing same-sex marriage in yet another state. Gay marriage activists are officially 0 for 30 in these types of votes. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1934432,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

In better news, New York’s 23rd district is officially out of the woods. (For now.) For me what makes New York’s 23rd district election interesting are two things:

1. A brand new party called “The Conservative Party of New York State” decided to insert their own candidate into the election even though The Republican Party already had a candidate Dede Scozzafava on the ballot. And,

2. The Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman took so much of Scozzafava’s base away from her that she actually dropped out of the race three days before the election (drama!!)!

So who is this “Conservative Party of New York State” (CPNYS) anyway? http://www.cpnys.org/ Not to be confused with the American Conservative Party http://www.theamericanconservatives.org/cms/ (Yup, I just figured that out the long way.) To make a long story short, the CPNYS wants to:
* Do away with most taxes
* “Reform” of Medicaid so it looks more like a private health insurance plan
* Have more charter schools
* Restore the death penalty in New York State
* Ban stem cell research
* Constitutionally define marriage as between one man and one woman
* Oppose any government mandate on health care
* Opposes casino gambling (how boring for them)
* And the public property that New York transferred to the United Nations? They would like that property back… please.

All this among other things, of course. Apparently, the problem with the Republican Party candidate, chosen by the Republican Party, was that she just wasn’t conservative enough. In fact, the American Conservative party called her, “an embarrassing, self-serving, union-supporting liberal… She is of questionable fitness to hold a seat in the House of Representatives, and definitely unfit to hold the line against government growth, spending, and abuse of power.” Actually the Conservative Party secretary Charlie Domino (was he a mob boss in his last life?) said that about her. Interesting since he worked for City of Houston Public Works department for twenty years and now has a rather nice pension (provided by the government) that many of us will never even get to dream of having. If you’re interested in how much his pension might be, Houston has a really nifty pension benefits calculator that you can play with here: https://login.hmeps.org/WebBenefitCalc/

Who else was proud to stump for the new Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman? The likes of Sarah Palin, former Presidential Primary Candidate Fred Thompson, and Glenn Beck who Hoffman actually referred to as his “mentor” on Beck’s Fox News show. (Does anyone else find that terrifying?)

But I digress, yesterday the Conservative Party of New York found out if they have a leg to stand on. Can they actually compete with the Grand Old Party? So far it appears to be so. The Conservative Party candidate officially conceded to the Democratic Party candidate Bill Owens with 88% of precincts reporting, however Owens had 49% of the vote, Hoffman had 46% (still a respectable amount), and Scozzafava (who, yes you recalled correctly, isn’t even technically in the race anymore) had 6%. Sounds to me like even though they lost this one, the Conservative Party has a fighting chance, and given how they seem very excited about the right to bear arms, I won’t be surprised if they come out a fightin’ again.

Gavin Newsom: Over and Out

Less than a month after an endorsement from former President Bill Clinton, Gavin Newsom officially dropped out of the California Governor's race on Friday. Mr. Newsom became a father (awww!) last month at age 42, and has cited his young family as well as his responsibilities at city hall as reasons he will not continue in the election. Forget the fact that Newsom had $1.2 million in his election fund at the end of the last reporting period to opponent Jerry Brown's $7.4 million, and I'm sure the twenty percent lead Brown had over him did not help either.

If you're uber curious to read his full statement: http://www.gavinnewsom.com/releases/statement_by_mayor_gavin_newsom, knock yourself out.

So who does that leave the Democrats to vote for in the primary? Jerry Brown or.... nobody. Sounds like June 8th is going to be a super exciting day to be a Democrat.

Although really, with all the problems facing California, I'm not really surprised that people seem to be shying away from running in the upcoming election. I mean, no sooner did we fix (hmmm... maybe "band aid" is a more appropriate term) the budget deficit, than we had another shortfall. That's right folks, only three months later we are already billions of dollars in the hole. By the time the fiscal year ends on June 30th, the new budget deficit for the current year will be approximately $7 billion. State Treasurer Bill Lockyer recently called the budget, "a train wreck" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/us/01calif.html), a phrase that I personally believe should be reserved for anything that Michael Scott does.

Oh, but don't worry, there is a plan for shoring up at least part of the budget shortfall. The state is getting an interest free loan! I know what you're thinking: Who on earth would give a state who's bond rating is in the tank an interest free loan? Obama? Nope, we are! The California taxpayer! Darn, that's awfully nice of us. Funny how I don't remember anyone asking if that was ok with me though. Starting today, anyone who has taxes withheld from their paycheck (presumably anyone who gets a paycheck) is going to find that their net pay is just a little bit smaller. Starting this week, the withholding tax rate is increased to ten percent. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-state-tax31-2009oct31,0,2028140.story?track=rss But don't worry, it's not technically an income tax increase, it's just a loan, so you'll get your money back after you file your taxes. That is, unless we have no cash again, in which case good luck with that I.O.U.

With issues like this, I'm not surprised that we seem to be lacking candidates for Governor of California, I'm actually surprised that anyone is running at all.

Healthcare: One Step Forward, Three Steps Back?

The heathcare debate continues! As if it will ever end! To start, here is a link that everyone who is confused about the healthcare debate should read:
http://www.time.com/time/healthcaredebate

The final Senate bill was completed on Monday and is currently being analyzed by the CBO
(Congressional Budget Office) to determine the ultimate costs of the bill.

The completed bill, which is a combination of the Senate Finance Committee bill and the Senate Health Committee bill currently includes a public option with a provision that allows states to opt-out in case they want to continue to contribute to the incredibly disheartening budget deficit. Why on earth they would choose to opt-out, when nobody would be forced into the plan is anyone’s guess. This appears to be a move by Senator Harry Reid (Democratic Majority Leader in the Senate) to appease the moderates and conservatives who are vehemently against a public option. Of course, as noted in a Time article this week, fewer than 5% of Americans are expected to sign up for the public option. http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091027/us_time/08599193239700

So the fight is on. Moderate Democrats are suggesting that perhaps a public option should only be available to states where only one or two insurers control the market and “premiums are high” (whatever that means), so the state would have to invite the federal government’s plan in, rather than opting out.

Meanwhile, the GOP has actually threatened to filibuster the bill on the Senate floor and will do so for any bill that contains a public option. (This could be political suicide considering the most recent polls: http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2009/10/27/Poll-Majority-favors-public-option/UPI-55041256619076/.) Independent Senator Joe Lieberman said yesterday that he would back a Republican filibuster of Reid’s healthcare bill.

And just when you thought it couldn’t get uglier, “anti-abortion activist Randall Terry is calling on people to burn effigies of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this Halloween, as part of a ‘Burn in Hell’ video contest to protest the health care legislation in Congress.” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091027/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul_burn_in_hell. Wow. Do they not realize that abortions are covered by many private insurance companies? I mean, think about it, one procedure is a whole lot cheaper for an insurance company than pre-natal appointment after pre-natal appointment followed by the actual visit to the hospital to give birth. (Yes, I realize that was way harsh, but really people, we’re talking about Fortune 500 companies which had billions of dollars in profits in 2008, and they didn’t get there by not thinking about things like that.) Perhaps these people should be burning an effigy of Leonard Schaeffer (CEO of Wellpoint Health Networks, formerly Blue Cross/Blue Shield) as well?

Have a happy and safe Halloween everyone!

Proposition 8: One Year Later

Almost a year after the passage of California’s Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage, the same fight is emerging for the Nov 3rd election in Maine. The election there is almost an exact replica of what happened in California last year.

Remember the cute couple who were worried about what their son was learning in school after gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts? Well, after they moved from Massachusetts to California (only to discover that someone had given gays rights here too), they moved again to Maine! Now they’re running into the same gosh darn problem of those same-sex marriages. Maybe they should move to Alaska if they’re so worried about it. Oh, what’s that you say? They never moved out of Massachusetts!? Then why are they sticking their nose into my business?

Schubert Flint Public Affairs, the public relations firm hired to run the pro-Proposition 8 campaign has also been hired to run the campaign in Maine.

Meanwhile, has California forgotten about Proposition 8 already? Oh no, don’t worry, we have certainly not heard the last of this issue. Liberal advocacy group Courage Campaign is currently collecting signatures (and money) to put an initiative on the 2010 ballot to repeal Proposition 8. However, the major player on the anti-Proposition 8 side, Equality California, has announced that it will wait until 2012 to bring an initiative to California to legalize gay marriage and will spend the next three years on an extensive outreach campaign to educate Californians about the issue.

I’m oddly ok with the delay only because I am so tired of seeing ads (for and against the healthcare bill, for and against your favorite politicians, or for or against same-sex marriage) that make me want to break my TV. (It’s nice, it’s big, and I paid a lot of money for it so frankly, I prefer it remain intact.) So really, since 2012 is an election year anyway, and you can only imagine how ugly that’s going to get, you might as well throw in something else that gets everyone all worked up.

In a small win for same-sex marriage proponents, Governor Schwarzenegger recently signed a bill recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. Although the couples will not be considered technically “married” under the law, "the same legal protections available to couples that enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships in other states," Schwarzenegger wrote in his signing message. "In short, this measure honors the will of the people in enacting Proposition 8 while providing important protections to those unions legally entered into in other states." http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/2248216.html

In a small win for opponents of same-sex marriages, President Obama’s administration went to court to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act just last month even though the President has stated that he personally opposes the statute and would support a repeal. The act (commonly referred to as DOMA) bars federal agencies (including the IRS) from recognizing same-sex marriages.

If you’d like to be able to follow this issue from afar, NPR has a very cool map showing all 50 states and their current laws related to gay marriage. It’s also interesting to see the issue from this perspective. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112448663

Financial Regulation: It's What I Want!

Let’s talk about money: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=insVgcOVVDQ&feature=related

Amid the highest unemployment rate since the great depression, an expected additional 11% drop in housing prices, and a 6.5% increase in tuition at public colleges, you have to wonder who’s looking out for Joe the Plumber (who we heard so darn much about during the election) these days?

Here are a few pieces of legislation that are en route to the floor of the congress:

- House Majority leader Rep Steny Hoyer (D-MD) plans to introduce legislation that would attack the controversial Wall Street practice of short selling. Short selling, the practice of borrowing a security and selling it with the expectation the price will go down, allows the borrower to go back into the market and buy it back at a lower price before returning the security to the owner thus making a profit. Short selling was banned briefly after the stock market tumble. While this doesn’t sound so terrible, what you may not be aware of is that brokerage houses can use their customers’ shares in short selling without their knowledge. Hoyer wants to ensure that brokers are disclosing when they are using customers’ shares for short selling, and that the customers are appropriately compensated. http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20091020/pl_cq_politics/politics3226440

- Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) is currently listening to arguments both for and against his bill, which would allow people forced into bankruptcy from medical bills to waive certain credit counseling requirements, would help them protect their homes from creditors, and give them the option of paying attorney fees at a later time. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091020/ap_on_go_co/us_bankruptcy_medical_bill

- Today, the House Financial Services Committee will vote on whether to establish the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency, and whether or not the agency will share regulatory power with individual states. The vote could potentially give states new authority to protect consumers through additional credit card and mortgage regulation. On the other hand, the bill also contains a provision through which banks could obtain exemptions from specific state laws if granted by federal regulators. (I’d love to know who will be granting those.) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091020/ap_on_go_co/us_financial_overhaul

- Congress is looking to extend a new homebuyer tax credit past November, the original expiration date. According to the National Association of Realtors, “The housing market would not have moved without this tax credit.” So why on earth wouldn’t we want to extend it!? Since the initiation of the program back in February, the IRS has 107,000 questionable claims cases related to the tax credit and has uncovered 167 criminal schemes. Damned. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091020/ap_on_go_co/us_tax_credit_problems

Well, I suppose all of those things are all well and good (or have the potential to be all well and good), but they feel like drops in a big, wide ocean of financial regulation mumbo-jumbo that don’t make much sense. I consider myself fairly well educated in the ways of the almighty dollar, but I have my doubts about whether or not I’ll be able to understand my mortgage even after all these fine laws are passed. Of course, that’s if I can even ever afford a mortgage at all. As always, thanks for your help Congress!

Know Your Future Governator: Gavin Newsom

This week in Know Your Future Governator, meet Gavin Newsom!

As Mr. Newsom is the current Mayor of San Francisco and I have several pending job applications with the city and county of San Francisco, I am not considering myself to be independent and am thus providing you with an anti-blog. However, I certainly do not want to leave you in the dark about Mr. Newsom so here are a few links to get you started.

Official Website:
http://www.gavinnewsom.com/

Bill Clinton endorses Newsom:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/bill-clinton-supports-gavin-newsom-for-california-governor.html

Gavin’s Facebook Page:
http://www.facebook.com/GavinNewsom

Gavin Newsom T-Shirts:
http://www.gavinnewsomtshirts.com/

And lastly… is Mr. Newsom dropping out of the race???
http://www.queerty.com/is-gavin-newsom-already-dead-in-the-governors-water-20091007/

Happy reading!

Coming Back to Healthcare

The big news in Congress this week? Healthcare! Glad I didn’t miss anything in the three weeks I was gone.

Yesterday, in a 14-9 vote, the Senate Finance Committee voted to approve the healthcare bill proposed by Senator Max Baucus. By far the most conservative of the bills passed by the various senate committees, the Finance Committee version does not contain a proposal for a public option and would impose fines on people who do not obtain health insurance.

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), the Senate majority leader (who you can usually see putting the moves on Nancy Pelosi during their joint press conferences), plans to combine the Finance Committee bill with the more liberal Health Committee bill and the final version will come before the full senate (tentatively) the week of October 26th.

With the vote yesterday, healthcare reform is officially the farthest it’s ever been in the U.S. Government. Since FDR first proposed reform almost an entire century ago, the fact that there is about to be a real debate on the floor of the full Senate is practically a miracle.

On the other hand, if you thought it was ugly before, this is just the beginning. The Democratic leadership on the Finance Committee has pledged that a public option will be part of the combined bill, which as you might imagine, is going to send insurance companies and their lobbyists spinning.

Plan to see scary articles about how much your insurance costs will go up if a public option goes into play. Including the letter to the editor in the San Jose Mercury News last Sunday, entitled “Public option would merely shift costs”:
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_13528549?nclick_check=1

Notice that the author of the letter is the CEO of the National Association of Health Underwriters Arlington, VA, the people who ultimately decide whether or not you are worthy of health insurance.

Oh, and don’t forget the study done by PricewaterhouseCoopers (sounds legit right?), paid for by health insurance companies which concludes that the costs to the average consumer for healthcare will skyrocket based on certain provisions in the Finance Committee bill. As it turns out, the study only looked at the four most costly provisions and did not include any analysis of the impact of new subsidies on insurance costs to households.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1009/PWC_statement__Not_so_helpful_for_AHIP.html

Expect to see a backlash from the other side also. Almost thirty unions are already running ads in your newspaper letting everyone know they are opposed to the Senate Finance Committee healthcare reform bill. Citing the lack of a public option and the tax on expensive policies, labor leaders plan to use the tag line “real health care reform and nothing less.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul_union_ad

Ringside Seats to Citizens United v. FEC

We don’t hear much about the Supreme Court unless there’s a vacancy. Traditionally, the court usually chooses to not hear arguments for cases that truly contentious unless they absolutely have to. Or unless they feel like choosing the next president of the United States. Arguably the most powerful of the three branches of government, the buck does not stop with the President, but with the nine Supreme Court Justices who may strike down all those unconstitutional laws that Congress and State Legislatures seem so fond of passing.

Last week, in a rare special session, the Supreme Court heard more arguments in Citizens United v. FEC (Federal Election Commission). The case was initially heard last March, but apparently has been unable to reach a decision. Citizens United brought suit against the FEC when the FEC and a federal court blocked the airing of Hillary: The Movie during the 2008 election season. You should check out the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOYcM1z5fTs, it is pretty heinous.

The FEC believes that it had the right to block the airing of the politically charged movie because of language included in campaign finance reform laws passed in 2002 (popularly known as the McCain-Feingold law). In an attempt to prevent unions or corporations from having more of a voice in elections than the rest of us, the law stipulates that any biased election message, about a candidate, financed by a union or corporation, may not be broadcast within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.

Seems fair, I guess. I mean, I certainly couldn’t finance the production of a 90 minute documentary about Hillary Clinton, or any other major politician for that matter so the producers, arguably, have more sway over the general public than I do. But is this stifling of freedom of speech?

Can I get a refresher on the 1st Amendment please? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Let’s do it again for good measure, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” I don’t believe it reads, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech unless you’re a union or a corporation.” Unless you’re going to argue that unions and corporations are not people, and the Constitution and the freedoms afforded therein only apply to individuals (While I’m sure there is a boatload of case law backing up that argument I, for one, am not going to go look for it otherwise I’d be here all week.)

For more fun reading on this issue, check out these articles:

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14416613

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/mears.election.laws.1/

Know Your Future Governator: Jerry Brown

This week in Know Your Future Governator, meet Jerry Brown (although this guy, you probably already know)!

Mr. Brown has a rather interesting history, if I may say so myself. Born in San Francisco, he graduated from St. Ignatius High School, spent a year at Santa Clara University before answering God’s call to become a Jesuit Priest. Four years later, he went back to school at UC Berkeley and afterwards attended Yale Law. His political career looks something like this:

1969: Elected to Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees
1970: Elected to be California’s Secretary of State
1974: Elected to be California’s Governor (Reelected in 1978.)
1982: Ran for U.S. Senate and lost to Pete Wilson, so he went to India to work with Mother Teresa
1989: Became Chairman of the State Democratic Party
1992: Ran for U.S. President against Bill Clinton in the Democratic primaries and won Maine, Colorado, Vermont, Connecticut, Utah and Nevada
1998: Elected to be Mayor of Oakland (Although I’m not sure he ever lived there before becoming Mayor. He was reelected in 2002.)
2006: Elected to be California State Attorney General

This is quite the record I have to admit. I know what you’re all thinking: What did he do as Governor of California in the 1970s? Most sources cite him as having a strong environmental record, including the creation of the California Conservation Corps by the former Governor and making the California Coastal Protection Act permanent law. He also takes credit on his campaign site (http://www.jerrybrown.org/about) for California producing 25% of the nation’s new jobs during his tenure. However, since that was the very beginning of the technology boom, I’m not sure I feel comfortable giving him all the kudos for that.

What I find the MOST interesting about Jerry Brown and his website, is the lack of information about the issues! If you check out his website, you’ll notice that it has more than you could ever possibly want to know about his political career and who Jerry Brown is, but zero information about his views on California’s budget crisis, the economy, the drought, or education.

Granted it is extremely early in election season, but what I find the most disturbing about this are the preliminary polls. You can find these on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gubernatorial_election,_2010. Even with his lack of a plan, Mr. Brown appears to be the favorite in every single poll. I’m certainly not saying that he doesn’t have the potential to do great things, if you check out his “Fighting for You” tab on his Facebook page, http://www.facebook.com/jerrybrown#/jerrybrown?v=wall&viewas=0, it’s clear that he is all about reform. It would just be nice to know exactly what reforms we can look forward to (exactly what reforms we are in for), before we go to vote.

This Week in Health Care

Now that Congress is back in session (yup, as of yesterday, we are all screwed), the only thing anyone is talking about is health care. So guess what we’re talking about today?

The general theme is the same, but the tune is wildly different depending on who you talk to. So here are all the things you should know about the health care debate right now:

* The plan emerging from the Senate Finance Committee would create nonprofit cooperatives to compete with insurance companies instead of a government-run insurance plan (We’re going to call this the Baucus plan after the Chairman of the committee Senator Max Baucus, Democrat from Montana. More on this plan in a few bullet points.) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090908/ts_nm/us_usa_healthcare

* Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), has declared that a public option health insurance plan is pretty much essential to the passage of the health care bill in the House of Representatives.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090908/pl_afp/uspoliticshealthcareobamacongress

* The overview of the Baucus plan: The plan would cost approximately $900 billion over 10 years, paid for by Fees on insurance companies, drug makers, medical device manufacturers and insurers. Tax of 35 percent on insurance plans costing above $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families, applied to premium amounts over the threshold. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. A fee on employers whose workers receive government subsidies to help them pay premiums. Fines on those who fail to get coverage, up to $950 for individuals, $3,800 for families. Oh, and everyone HAS to get coverage otherwise you have to pay those fines. As an example, $950 fine for me would be cheaper than one year of premiums, so do I really have a strong incentive to get health care? Of course not, so in the end we'll still likely end up with large amounts of people uninsured.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_glance

If you’re interested in what the president has to say (although after the whole speech to schoolchildren debacle I’m starting to think most people aren’t… how sad when people will no longer show any respect at all to the nation’s highest office), President Obama will be addressing the country tonight and afterwards, “the country will know exactly what he thinks is the solution to controlling spiraling health care costs.” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_obama_health_care_speech

Also, for an interesting article from The Economist comparing the state of health care in the U.S. to that of health care in Britain, check this out: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14258877.

Know Your Future Governator: Tom Campbell

This week in Know Your Future Governator, meet Tom Campbell!

Currently a visiting professor at the Chapman University (Hey I went there!) School of Law, Campbell has a long history in politics, serving five terms as a Representative in the United States Congress and spent one year as the Director of Finance for the state of California from 2004-2005, the last year that the state balanced the budget without additional taxes, borrowing or dipping into reserves.

Campbell has a PhD in Economics (something that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling) from the University of Chicago and his JD from Harvard (ok, we get it, you’re a smart dude). He served as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Byron White and was mentored by Milton Friedman. Campbell taught law at Stanford University for five years, and was also Dean of the UC Berkeley Haas School of Business for five years.

Ok, with a record like that how is this guy not 105 years old? Clearly, I think we can all agree that he is well qualified. If you’re not appropriately impressed by the short list that I have presented here, feel free to check out the full list at his website:
http://www.campbell.org/meet-tom/campbell-record

Now for the important stuff!

While Tom lists out several of his platforms individually, I am going to lump a few of them together because otherwise, 1) this will get extremely convoluted and repetitive and 2) I will be late for a barbeque and I’m getting hungry.

On the budget & tax reform: First, CA should be able to pass a budget with a simple majority (YES PLEASE!) provided expenditures have not increased more than inflation and population growth from the prior year. A greater increase should require 2/3 of the votes. Also, if the budget deadline passes and no budget has been agreed upon, we need a provision to continue the previous year’s budget so state citizens do not go without necessary services. Don’t forget the old Republican mantra: no new taxes. In fact, Campbell wants to lower taxes by constraining spending. How does he plan to do that? The infamous line-item veto. I have to say, I do not feel comfortable that a Governor can go through a budget passed by my state representative and cut out certain things that HE (and maybe not anyone else) thinks are unnecessary. Last, but certainly not least, Tom wants to completely overhaul our income tax system and make the state income tax a straight percentage of whatever you pay in federal income taxes. Hmmmm…..

On growing the CA economy, innovation and competitiveness: Campbell believes that it should be written into state law that mortgage writers and lenders in CA have to offer the best terms available to the purchaser, rather than the most lucrative. (Good luck convincing all the legislators’ bank buddies to go along with that.) To preserve California’s innovation and competitive edge, Tom is strongly against cutting any more into education, including K-12, community college, and the UC and state school. (I think I love this guy.)

On education: See above! He also suggests programs to increase parental involvement and mentorship such as one that is currently implemented between the Haas School of Business and the city of Oakland. He also cites a Pleasanton program which embeds character education into the curriculum as a way to keep public school’s safe. To attract and retain good teachers, he suggests relaxing the certification standards so professionals with masters or doctorate degrees could also be eligible to teach elementary or secondary schools. Also, he wants to increase bonuses for good teachers and reduce class sizes even further.

On immigration: Besides imposing severe sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants, Campbell wants to implement an e-verify system to make it easier for employers to ensure that their employees are legal. With the system, an employer can simply log in and make sure that the employee’s name matches the social security number he or she gave.

On water: Clearly, we need more storage water to buffer California when we are in serious drought (like right now). He does not claim to have all the answers on this issue, but believes that we can solve this problem by possibly raising dams, developing on-stream storage, and recharging aquifers. He also suggests desalination, which is currently too expensive because of the high amounts of energy needed. Campbell believes that California should lead the way in designing innovative solutions to solve this problem using alternative energy sources as well as finding new ways to desalinate ocean water without harming the environment.

I confess, I never thought these words would come out of me when discussing a political candidate, but this guy really seems to have a plan. I strongly suggest checking out his website www.campbell.org, if you’re even remotely interested because I only skimmed the surface here. He goes into great detail on all the issues including exactly what he sees as the problem and what he thinks could be a possible solutions. Happy reading!

The Tenthers

I don’t know about you, but I am sick of health care. I’m tired of hearing about it; I’m tired of arguing about it. I don’t see why we’re making such a big, hairy deal out of having a public option. Keyword: option, it’s not a takeover. All I can say is that when a mother can’t get health insurance for her 15 month old baby because he’s needed two heart surgeries since he was born and will likely need another one, and we’re actually arguing over whether or not we need a public option in this country, we have clearly lost all of our compassion and humanity.

So instead of talking about health care, which is the only thing congress is talking about this week, we’re going to talk about a small movement that some liberals have fondly nicknamed the “tenthers” (like the birthers, I know, sad attempt at political humor).

To make a long story short, tenthers basically believe that President FDR illegally expanded the federal government’s power to unconstitutional levels by instituting programs such as Social Security. According to tenthers Social Security and other programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, federal education funding, the Veterans Affairs health system and the G.I. bill are all illegal under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

What exactly does the 10th Amendment say you ask? Boy, I’m glad you did (happy to facilitate a U.S History 101 course). The 10th Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Now, I know what you’re thinking: What the hell does that mean?

Basically, (in my own non-legal terms) the 10th Amendment is to ensure that the states retain their sovereignty, autonomy, and basic rights and that the federal government only retains control over powers specifically mentioned in the constitution. Tenthers argue that since the constitution does not specifically mention health care, Medicare, Medicaid and the possible public option, are all illegal. However, the Commerce Clause of the constitution gives congress the power to regulate interstate commerce and is broadly interpreted to give Congress the power to implement all these programs.

Historically, the Supreme Court rarely finds laws unconstitutional for violating the 10th Amendment, and the opinions tend to be only cases when the federal government has attempted to force participation of the state.

Now, do I think that these tenthers have a point? Well, no, not really. But, I do think that our federal government is out of control big. I’m not going to lie, I don’t have a solution, but I actually agree that we could probably stand to do away with a federal program or two and let the states handle it if they see fit. I just really wish these people could find a better (dare I say more thought out?) way to express that idea.

Know Your Future Governator: Steve Poizner

This week in Know Your Future Governator, meet Steve Poizner!

Currently Mr. Poizner is our elected Insurance Commissioner and, as such, oversees everything insurance in our great state of California from car insurance to health insurance (yipes, I see this getting ugly). Mr. Poizner is also a very successful businessman and entrepreneur. His latest company SnapTrack established the great idea of putting GPS receivers into cell phones so you won’t get lost as long as you have your phone.

Now for the juicy stuff, the issues! Steve’s pet issues include economic growth, education, government reform, water and fiscal accountability.

Straight from the Steve Poizner for Governor website: http://stevepoizner.com/

On economic growth: Mr. Poizner believes we must overhaul our tax and regulatory structure. Currently, California is ranked as one of the worst states to do business in.

On education: Apparently Mr. Poizner spent a year teaching at a public school so he considers himself an expert on the subject. (Wow, a whole year! Don’t hurt yourself!) He believes that we should shift control of the classroom, facilities and budget back to the local level to improve accountability as well as grade-level proficiency.

On government reform: It appears that Steve wants to completely dismantle the current structure in Sacramento (with its 300 boards and commissions, 11 agencies, and 79 departments) and rebuild it to be more efficient. His most specific suggestion for reform: a part time legislature. Rather than having full time assembly-people and representatives, make them part time. Giving them less time to pass laws will focus their efforts on what’s truly important and giving them less money will give them incentive to have other, “real world” jobs so they can actually appreciate their constituents’ issues.

On water: I’m glad Steve brought this up; I think this is one of the more important, but least discussed issues facing our state today. His long term policy solutions of empowering local agencies to innovate or build new infrastructure and increasing surface and groundwater storage to provide stability during droughts are all well and good. But, I’m not going to lie, two of his short term solutions make me cringe. 1) Calling for the “flexible” application of the endangered species act during times of drought. I’m still not sure how that would actually help our water problem. 2) Utilizing the governor’s executive power to get water where it needs to go. Personally, I am highly suspicious of any policy that gives one person all the power.

On fiscal accountability: The only thing I actually got out of this section was that, well, we need it. Thank you Captain Obvious. The other interesting statistic he cites is that the CA legislature approved a tax increase for 95% of Californians. While this sounds terrible, I’m pretty sure he’s talking about the temporary 1% sales tax increase passed in the original budget for the year (back in Feb/March of 2009) which is scheduled to expire on July 1, 2011. But I do generally agree, yay for fiscal accountability.

Again, what does this sound like?

“I will not fail you. I will not disappoint you. And I will not let you down. For two months, I've been speaking out about the needs of bringing back fiscal responsibility to this state, bringing back the positive business atmosphere, bringing back businesses, bringing back jobs, and bringing back our education.” -Governor Schwarzenegger in his 2003 victory speech.

So Mr. Poizner, let’s talk…

HOW will you overhaul our tax and regulatory structure. I agree it needs to be done, but what exactly will you be changing?

HOW are we going to shift back control of our classrooms to the local level and still ensure that poor and underprivileged areas get the resources they need to give those kids the education they deserve? (I’m assuming that when you shift control back to the local level you shift the funding back to the local level also.)

WHAT makes you think that by calling legislators “part-time” will make them run out and get another, regular part time job? As of 2007, CA legislators make the most money of any state legislature (followed by Michigan, the only state which seems to be doing worse than California). http://www.empirecenter.org/html/legislative_salaries.cfm Even if you halved their salaries (which I doubt they would be too keen on and I’m pretty sure they would have a vote in the approval process), they would still be making over $55,000 a year. For something really nifty, check this out: http://www.capitolweekly.net/salaries/index.php?_c=y8cnuzmg4kh5nt

HOW do you plan to convince the rest of Sacramento to go along with your government reforms?

Reappointing Ben Bernanke

It is a basic rule of economics that the markets abhor uncertainties. In ambiguous times, the markets will do wild and unpredictable things, swinging one way and then another. In fact, you could even argue that, when it comes to economic markets, uncertainty begets uncertainty. And then it all just gets crazy out of control!

In a show of certain certainty and unambiguous un-ambiguity, President Obama nominated Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to a second term at the Federal Reserve yesterday.

The markets, of course, love it. Or they at least don’t hate it. And why would they? We’re talking about a Fed Chairman who threw billions of dollars at failing institutions like AIG and Bank of America, leading to announcements of $1.8 billion in quarterly profits at AIG only a few weeks ago, and $4 billion in profits for 2008 at Bank of America. Sure, sounds absolutely ducky for Wall Street. Back here at the corner of Main Street and Taking-It-Up-The-Ass-Between-Bank-Fees-And-Healthcare Street, national unemployment is still at an almost all time high of 9.4% for July 2009, we’ve lost almost 2.9 million jobs in the last six months alone, and GDP has declined in all three of the preceding quarters.

Do I agree that it appears as if the “Great Recession” (totally lame name if you ask me) is drawing to a close and the economy may even turn around sometime soon? Sure, it looks like that could possibly be the case. (I am feeling awfully optimistic today though. Try me again in a few days and I may have changed my mind.) Am I going to give Chairman Bernanke credit for steering us out of this mess and keeping us out of another Great Depression like everyone else seems to be doing? God no. (I said I was feeling optimistic, not that I was feeing nice.)

What prevented a run on the banks this time around? Don’t get me wrong, we came close, but the public still had confidence (see paragraph #1) in a very important institution: the FDIC. No matter how bad it got, we always believed that we could get our money back. So do I think that Chairman Bernanke prevented the failure of so many banks and kept the economy from totally tanking? No, I think that credit should go to the consumer and its confidence in the FDIC. Thank you FDR and the 73rd congress.

For these very reasons, as it turns out, some people in Congress are less than thrilled by his reappointment also. However, the senate will, more than likely, reconfirm Chairman Bernanke for the standard reasons:

You don’t change horses in midstream.
Better safe than sorry.
Don’t rock the boat.
Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.

Should we look forward to four more years of Bernanke? Or should we take the Senator Ron Paul (L-TX) approach who said about the reappointment, “Chairman Bernanke’s reappointment is rather irrelevant. Our current monetary system is unmanageable, and changing the individual in control will not change the long-term outcome.”

To read a more scandalous (scathing) article on the Federal Reserve, check this out: http://www.minyanville.com/articles/fed-bernanke-bubble/index/a/24208

Know Your Future Governator: Meg Whitman

Welcome to the Know Your Future Governator series. The five part series (for now) will cover the five candidates who have more or less thrown their hats into the ring for the California Governor’s race of 2010.

So far the candidates are:

For the Dems: Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown
For the Reps: Meg Whitman, Steve Poizner, and Tom Campbell

This week in Know Your Future Governator, meet Meg Whitman!

Most well-known as the former CEO of eBay, Ms. Whitman took the company from a 30 person start up to a major internet corporation with over 15,000 employees. Since her resignation in November 2007, she has been actively involved in the political arena.

As a former consultant of Bain & Company, Whitman supported former Bain & Company CEO Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign in 2008 and was on his “National Finance Team”. After Romney left the race and endorsed Senator John McCain, Whitman followed suit and joined the McCain presidential campaign as a national co-chair, even giving a speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention.

Check out her speech on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWuL_SgdQww

So where is Meg on the issues? Her three major platforms appear to be jobs, spending and education (I’d like to give her an air-five for at least making education a priority before I even start tearing anything apart).

Straight from the Meg Whitman for Governor website: http://www.megwhitman.com/index.php

On jobs: Ms. Whitman says that she will 1) Streamline the permitting and approval processes to make it easier for businesses to expand or locate in California 2) Eliminate inefficient and unnecessary regulations that increase business costs, decrease competitiveness and threaten California jobs and 3) Lower taxes to give businesses the incentive to invest, innovate, hire more workers and prosper

On spending: she promises to 1) Commit to at least $15 billion in savings and efficiencies within 4 years 2) End runaway spending by implementing a sustained government spending freeze 3) Reduce the size of government while making it more responsive and productive

On education: Meg claims that she can 1) Give students and parents more choice and control by expanding charter schools 2) Reward success by giving more pay to high-performing teachers 3) Make California’s schools the nation’s leaders in Math, Science and the other bedrock skills needed to succeed in the 21st century economy

This is all very well and good and everything, but sounds like politics as usual. Take a look back to Arnold’s victory speech when he won the special election against Gray Davis in 2003:

“I will not fail you. I will not disappoint you. And I will not let you down. For two months, I've been speaking out about the needs of bringing back fiscal responsibility to this state, bringing back the positive business atmosphere, bringing back businesses, bringing back jobs, and bringing back our education.”

And how has that worked out for us?

On the other hand, Meg Whitman has something the current governator was seriously lacking when he first took the job: managerial experience. She did amazing things for eBay and I have no doubt that Ms. Whitman could run our state government just as well as the next guy (or gal).

For now though, while there’s still some competition out there, I ask that she get specific.

HOW are you going to streamline the permitting and approval processes to make it easier for businesses to expand or locate in California? Which regulations will get cut to eliminate inefficient and unnecessary regulations that increase business costs, decrease competitiveness and threaten California jobs?

HOW will you reduce the size of government while making it more responsive and productive?

HOW will “success” be measured in order to reward teachers and increase their pay?

HOW can we make California’s schools the nation’s leaders in Math, Science and the other bedrock skills needed to succeed in the 21st century economy?

The Christian Mafia - Sending us to Swim with the Fishes?

And today, something more than just a little creepy.

After the extramarital affairs of Senator John Ensign (R – NV), Former Congressman Chip Pickering (R – MS), and Former Senator (current Governor) Mark Sanford (R – SC) came to light, people have become more curious about the link between them all – C Street House.

So what is this place anyway? A house run by, and lived in by members of a Christian Conservative organization that calls itself “The Family” (or sometimes "The Christian Mafia"). The members historically include at least a dozen Congressmen at any one time. Currently, Joe Pitts (R-Penn.), Frank Wolf (R-Va.), Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.), Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), Ander Crenshaw (R-Fla.), Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.), and John R. Carter (R-Texas) are all residents of the C Street House.

According to Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family, “[The Family is] the oldest Christian Conservative organization in Washington and it goes back seventy years to when the founder believed that God gave him a new revelation saying that Christianity had gotten it wrong for 2,000 years. And that what most people think of as Christianity as being about helping the weak and the poor and the meek and the down and out, he believes that God came to him one night in April 1935 and said what Christianity should really be about is building more power for the already powerful. And that these powerful men, who are chosen by God, can then, if they want to, dispense lessons to the rest of us through kind of trickle down fundamentalism.”

To see more of the disturbing interview, go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGWu-kBLDu8

The Family also organizes the National Prayer Breakfast held on the first Thursday in February each year under the name “The Fellowship Foundation”. The National Prayer Breakfast is widely attended by most members of Congress, the President (who is also usually a speaker), and many foreign diplomats. Read more about Abraham Vereide who initiated the prayer breakfast idea, and is the founder of International Christian Leadership, The Family, and The Fellowship Foundation (technically all the same organization) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Vereide.

Let’s also not forget that the C Street House is actually owned by yet another organization, Youth With a Mission, who aren’t actually youth as far as I can tell. The group, who charges far less than market value for rent on the C Street House (seriously, these guys are paying even less than half of what I pay for rent on my apartment), has recently gone public with plans for Christian world control. Oh, how I wish I were kidding. The Youth With a Mission founder, Loren Cunningham, explains the 7 mountains of culture and how Christians must reclaim all 7 mountains in this video: http://www.reclaim7mountains.com/.

So you tell me, is fostering members of The Family within their own enclave part of reclaiming one of the mountains of culture? Because that’s certainly what it looks like from where I’m sitting.