CCDems - San Luis Obispo County Democratic Party Blog

Original Story:
Governor Seeks $6 Billion To Improve California Prison Health Care — Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is asking state lawmakers to authorize $6 billion for new prison hospitals. DON THOMPSON AP — 4/11/08
http://www.fresnobee.com/384/story/520247.html

Analysis by Mark Buchman:
OK I thought April Fools Day was April First, but it must be April 11 because this sounds doubly foolish. The AP story above quotes the Governor as calling for $6 billion for prison hospitals that won’t be finished until 2013.

Under the Governor’s prison plan there would be a new hospital bed for one out of every 16 of the 170,000 inmates.

School kids in California have the worst ratio of students to nurses in the nation, one nurse for every 750 kids. Not a hospital bed, just someone to take their temperature and get through the many mandated physical tests that schools must complete.

We know that for every dollar invested in preschool government saves $6 by the time those kids start graduating due to fewer dropouts, special education students, higher wage earners, less crime, etc.

With prisons filled with dropouts it seems we might learn that if we invested some of that $6 Billion in schools we wouldn’t need all six or seven new prison hospitals by 2013.

Yes the feds are mandating this foolishness, but I bet they would listen to an alternative that included decreasing the number of prisoners.

If you listen only to Camp Hillary and the mainstream media stories you would think that Florida Democratic Party voters are somehow getting the shaft by the Democratic National Committee for being sanctioned due to their unfortunate early primary date. Poor, poor Florida.

Well, not so fast, thank you.

You probably haven’t heard one thing about it, but the issue of Florida Democratic voters was the object of a lawsuit between Florida Democratic Party officials and the DNC and Howard Dean many months ago. To get the full story you can read the decision of the Federal District Court on the matter. http://www.slocodems.org/tmp/CourtFloridaCase.pdf

Here is what you will discover (most of this is from the court’s decision):

• The DNC has the full authority to set parameters for the timing of the Democratic Party presidential primary elections.

• The DNC in 2004 authorized a commission to study the timing of presidential primary elections.

• That commission held five meetings over ten months, hearing testimony from experts, state party leaders, elected officials, national organizations, and academics. The commission issued its final report on December 10, 2005, recommending that the earliest permissible date for primaries and caucuses remain the first Tuesday in February, with exceptions not only for Iowa and New Hampshire but also for one or two additional primary states and one or two additional caucus states. The commission included at least one member from Florida: United States Representative Kendrick Meek. The Price-Herman Study ultimately made recommendations for the timing of primary elections in the party.

• Beginning in March 2006, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee invited state Democratic parties to apply to be one of the states allowed to conduct primaries or caucuses prior to the “regular window” that would open on the first Tuesday in February. Eleven state parties applied. Florida did not.

• The Rules and Bylaws Committee ultimately recommended adoption of the Price-Herman schedule and recommended that early primary or caucus authority be awarded only to Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.

• On August 19, 2006, the DNC adopted rules implementing the recommendation. The voice vote was overwhelming, apparently with no dissents except from New Hampshire representatives. No Florida member of the DNC spoke publicly or privately against the proposal. So far as shown by this record, there was not a hint that anyone from Florida objected to the schedule.

• The rules as adopted on that date include a four-tiered enforcement mechanism. First, a state party selecting delegates in violation of the schedule (or in violation of certain other delegate selection rules not involved here) loses 50% of its pledged delegates, and certain of the state’s unpledged delegates also lose their votes. Second, the Rules and Bylaws Committee has authority to impose additional sanctions, including further delegate reductions (for a total reduction of up to 100% of the state’s delegates). Third, any presidential candidate who campaigns in a state that violates the schedule is not entitled to any pledged delegates from the state.

• But fourth, the Rules and Bylaws Committee may determine to impose no sanctions if it determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, that the state party, leaders, and elected officials took all steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state into compliance. During the remainder of 2006 and during 2007, the DNC responded to a number of Democratic state legislative leaders and governors who were considering moving state primaries or caucuses to dates prior to those allowed by the rules. In every instance the DNC said it would enforce the rules (and thus exclude delegates selected improperly). And there were good grounds to believe the DNC would do so. In repeated instances for more than 20 years, state parties from states that scheduled primaries earlier than DNC rules allowed had been required to hold caucuses in compliance with the DNC scheduling rules. This occurred in 1984 in Vermont, in 1988 in South Dakota, and in 2000 in Arizona, Delaware, and Washington State.

• In January, February, and March 2007, the Florida legislature considered moving the Florida presidential primary to January 29, 2008. Representatives of the national Democratic and Republican parties made clear that if delegates were selected based on a primary conducted at that time, in violation of the national party rules, the state’s delegations to the national conventions would be reduced, in accordance with party rules. The Democratic Party rules, as set forth above, mandated a reduction of at least 50% of pledged delegates, and allowed a 100% rejection of all delegates. The Republican Party rules called for a delegate reduction of 50% or 90%—depending on whether the nonconforming date was adopted before or after the call to convention.

• On March 21, 2007, the Republican-controlled Florida House of Representatives passed by vote of 115-1 a bill moving the Florida presidential primary to January 29, 2008. The vote came after Democratic House members actively supported the measure, including in committee. In response to the House action, the DNC wrote each Democratic United States Senator or Representative from Florida urging their opposition to the proposal. So far as the DNC could determine, none was willing to raise any concern or try to intervene with state legislative leaders. On April 27, 2007, the Republican-controlled Florida Senate passed a similar bill by vote of 37-2, again with extensive Democratic support. The matter went back to the House, which passed the Senate version of the legislation by vote of 118-0. The state’s Republican Governor signed the bill into law on May 21, 2007. The bill as adopted included other election-related provisions as well; the timing of the primary was not the only issue.

• Even before final adoption of the bill, the DNC began discussions with the Florida Democratic Party about how to cope with the change in the primary date. Proposals included a party-run vote-by-mail process and party-run caucus system.

• The DNC offered to pay the entire cost of the caucus system. This was unprecedented; each state party that held caucuses in 2000 in response to its legislature’s adoption of a nonconforming primary date was required to bear its own expenses.

• Ultimately, however, the Florida Democratic State Executive Committee (“FDSEC”) determined to treat the January 29 primary as binding, in open defiance of the national rules. On August 4, 2007, the FDSEC submitted its written plan, formally declaring its intention to proceed in this manner.

• At a meeting on August 11, 2007, DNC officials apparently advised state party representatives that it was likely that if the state party continued on this course, it would lose all—not just part—of its national convention delegates. The FDSEC did not relent.

• On August 25, 2007, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee met to consider 32 state delegate selection plans, including Florida’s. The Committee heard extensive presentations by Florida state party officials. After substantial deliberation, the Committee voted over a single dissent to strip Florida of all its delegates. The Committee says it acted “lest the nominating process descend into chaos, with each state free to leapfrog other states in a never-ending cycle.”

• The rules apparently would allow an appeal to the credentials committee and ultimately to the convention itself. For the most part, the schedule has held.

• Until very recently, only Florida had elected not to follow the rules. After Florida set its primary for January 29, the DNC approved slight adjustments for Iowa (whose caucuses moved up to January 3), New Hampshire (whose primary moved up to January 8), and South Carolina (whose primary moved up to January 26). Some 20 other states were set to proceed on February 5, 2008, the earliest date allowed by the DNC rules.

• More recently, however, Michigan has joined Florida in refusing to follow the rules. Michigan’s Democratic Party has announced its intention to select delegates based on a January 15 primary.

So, please forgive me, if you can.

I have little sympathy for the folks of the Florida Democratic Party who now are making such a stink about their situation. With the exception of one other state, Michigan, and one candidate, Hillary Clinton, everyone has played by the rules which were thoughtfully created, duly adopted, and which gave every possible opportunity to the Florida party to avoid the train wreck that it insisted on creating.

Dear Chairman Dean and members of the DNC:

I think it’s just terrible that California voted WAY TOO SOON. No one really had time to organize out here for that Feb 5th debacle thingie.

So, just to make sure that we Californians get our fair voice heard, I propose that we have statewide caucuses sometime in May. And I think the national party should pay for it, too,  And if they won’t do it I think we should ask our Republican governor for the State of California to pay for it (I’m sure he would want to help!)

It’s just not fair that - even though we were given and agreed to some rules about when we could vote 18 months ago - we should actually have to live by the results of the choice we made. Hey, this primary is close and we need to make sure our votes really count! We’re California!

The only fair and democratic thing to do would be for us to have a do-over caucus sometime in May. I’m open as to what the date would be.

It’s only fair!

Additionally, I think we should open our new caucuses to anyone who shows up, expecially folks who listen to Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and who have come to their senses and will now be willing to vote for my candidate, just like in Texas…

John Barta

A very sobering op ed piece that appeared in the August 19 International Herald Tribune posted by American military personnel stationed outside the Green Zone. If only Republican Senators and Representatives would have equivalent courage to frame the debate in a similar manner as these enlisted men and NCO’s, perhaps our nation could move forward to craft a withdrawal strategy recognizing the realities of Iraq - created by Bush & the NeoConservatives - and the needs to secure some stabilization and security for the people of the region. A very good read…..

The View from Iraq - The Perspective of American Soldiers

The Iraq War remains the issue that continues to divide Americans. This was the case during the 2002 run-up to the March, 2003, invasion, and throughout the occupation of this nation. It’s all too apparent, there are NO good solutions to a very bad and difficult situation in an area that has such a tremendous impact on the price of energy. I’m angered by the Republican spin machine twisting the debate into meaningless sloganeering such as “Support our Troops”, “We must fight terrorists over there so we don’t fight them here”, “We must achieve Victory or it will have bad consequences for our military’s future”, and “Stay the course”. All of these soundbites are meaningless and fail to even start to address the establishment of a meaningful policy that extracts our military from a hopeless mission, and builds policy that once again can make the United States a respected nation in the international community.

While people may have different opinions on what ought to be the next step(s), the facts associated with our present occupation of Iraq are painfully obvious: a) >2 American soldiers lose their lives daily, b) another 8+ soldiers are wounded for every KIA, c) our national treasury is drained at the rate of $10 Billion per month, and d) calamity and chaos visits upon Iraqi citizens daily - murder and killings, casualties, economic disruption to their society, lack of civil services and deliverable infrastructure, and massive displacement of their citizens - showing no signs of reversal or abatement whatsoever.

I implore the Democratic Party not to shirk its obligation to force a change in the United States policy concerning the Iraq War. Americans are looking for leadership and we are counting on our political leaders to demonstrate real courage during the most contentuous and polarized time facing this country since the Vietnam War. Today, the stakes are much higher for our future as a nation.

I consider myself very fortunate and able to earn from my employment, but I find myself drifting, psychologically speaking, a feeling things really are not as prosperous in the United States as President Bush asserts. It’s a difficult thing to put one’s finger on, but I suspect many Americans in the middle class are feeling their standard of living being eroded by events they don’t fully comprehend.  The statistics on those categorized as “poor” or lower socio-economic classes are even more disturbing - they have watched many of their gains from the 1990’s be totally dashed away.  The recent debacle on Wall Street with a liquidity crisis arising from the sub-prime mortgage market rolling over into other financial markets - only to be bailed out by massive injections from the Fed over the past week - may be the tip of the iceberg. I suspect eachof us has their own sense of the economy starting a downward slide. The question collectively facing Americans is whether our elected leaders are paying attention to the looming crisis.

 The Center for American Progress published an economic shapshot dated August 14, 2007.  A review of the statistics affecting economic growth are very disturbing - especially if you’re in the Middle and Lower socio-economic classes. (All of these items may be viewed by visiting the website www.americanprogress.org and reading the post by Christian Weller.)  Real job growth has been anemic; the economy needs to create at least 125,000 new jobs monthly just to absorb new entrants into the workplace.  Moreover, the pressure to outsource employment either abroad (”globalization”) coupled with rising costs of employment (specifically health care benefits) has forced American companies to seek methods to cap labor costs. With all of the productivity gains of late, has the average American worked reaped any boosts in their net take home pay?

The bastion that fueled much of the growth of peoples’ sense of increased welath - their home values - seems now to be tapped out, and in many cases, a ”flat” real estate market or declining valuation of homes has caused people to alter their future expectations.  Large numbers of Americans are facing the unpleasant prospect of seeing their property value fall as adjustable mortages liabilities rise, or faced with the propsect of being unable to sell their property.

Yet, in light of these disturbing trends, President Bush and the Republicans drag out the issue of tax cuts. Providing tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans seems not only to be political folly, but fiscally irresponsible.  Frankly, given the lack of candor by the Bush Administration on so many key aspects of our country, I wonder how much of the economic data is accurate. After all, if the intelligence concerning Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were so skewed and cherry-picked to lead a nation into a war that never should have been declared in the first place, how can Americans believe anythingfrom the Bush Adminstration any more?  

The recent collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, flooding in the Midwest, the Iraq War, and a deteriorating infrastructure seem to be metaphors for our political leaders refusal to invest in the things that mattered the most to the very future prosperity of ALL Americans. The last six years of the Bush Adminstration and the rubber-stamping of stupid policy choices by a Republican-controlled Congress has been ruinous to our nation, the exception being if you’re part of the top 2% of our economic pyramid.

 Yes, I’m fortunate to provide for my family’s needs and to set funds aside for my future needs, but I feel so many of our fellow Americans are in a much tougher position. It truly is a time for change to bring in politicians who are willing to represent ALL Americans and not just those who ask for our votes and then disregard our needs to repay the loyalty of the special interest groups located on K Street.

Center for American Progress - August Economic Snapshot.pdf

(more…)

The Two Faces of Dick Cheney. This would be embarrassing to most folks, but to a sociopath like Dick Cheney it is probably meaningless.

Here is a video of Cheney after The Gulf War explaining all the reasons we should not have removed Saddam from power as we were pushing him out of Kuwait in that war. It’s amazing how well he predicted then what would happen ten years later when he engineered the 2003 invasion.

Listen and cry.

Recently, I was struck by the comments of Republican candidate Mitt Romney who responded to a question from an Iowa voter regarding why Romney could be so in favor of continuing the policies of George Bush’s Iraq War and yet have five sons, all of military eligible age and fitness, who have opted not to serve our nation during this conflict that Bush has described as the greatest challenge to our nation’s very future survival. Romney’s reply was, “One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I’d be a great president.” Somehow, the response seemed quite shallow to me, and when I viewed the Romney campaign web site and saw the “Five Brothers” blog, it conjured up another five brothers, all from Iowa who answered the call to service when our nation faced the very threat to its survival.

For all who recall history, and who see the veiled reference in Romney’s sons “Five Brothers” blog as the “Band of Brothers” association from WWII, I would urge Mitt and his sons (Tagg, Josh, Matt, Craig, and Ben) to pay homage to the five Sullivan brothers (Albert, Francis, George, Joseph, and Madison) from Waterloo, Iowa, who lost their lives while serving on the USS Juneau during WWII. Mitt Romney and, the present Bush Administration, share this hypocrisy of sending other children off to fight in a war of choice that has made our nation less safe, has wasted resources that could have been applied to rebuilding our infrastructure and providing improved heath care to American families. Yet, when confronted with this disparity and inconsistency of using the lives of children from other parents, all we hear is the reference to the “volunteer armed forces” and the freedom for each person to choose. Again, a mixing of half-truths because Americans see NO evidence of leadership by example from the Right, and the willingness to encourage their children to fight in a conflict and possibly lose their lives, or be permanently disabled.

Herein lies the hypocrisy of the Republican Party and the Neoconservatives who advocate ruinous policy choices. We have seen it in the absence of the Bush Twins from military service; the same can be said for Cheney’s daughters. With the exception of John McCain’s son Jimmy, a 19 y/o Marine with orders to deploy to Iraq, none of the other Republican candidates seem willing to place their children’s lives on the line to support a policy that has failed its mission objectives and offer no good choices today. This glaring aspect seems to go unheeded and under-reported by our media.

The Republican power stealing machine is setting its sites on California as the key to creating a national win for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008. The plan is to change California election law so that its presidential electoral votes are split between the parties based on congressional district wins instead of winner-take-all statewide. The Republican machine will tout the initiative as one of “electoral fairness” and “proportional representation” in the tally of California’s electoral college votes. Of course, what the initiative does NOT say is that the Republican Party supports “winner-take-all” electoral college votes in all the states where Republicans hold majority status, such as Texas, most of the Midwest, and all of the Deep South. The plan comes down to “What’s mine is mine, and what is yours we’ll share.” This is the basic Republican Party philosophy, n’est pas?

If successful the plan would lead to approximately 20 of California’s presidential electoral votes going into the Republican column in 2008. This is the equivalent of the entire Ohio electoral college vote. So, if the Republican plan succeeds, California becomes the next Ohio.

The “voter” initiative process is key to these types of shenanigans because there is no limit on the money that can be raised from Corporate America and Big Money America when it is spent on”voter” initiatives. You can count on many tens of millions of dollars being poured into a slick and misleading campaign once the initiative is qualified for the ballot - and it will be qualified unless a strong counter campaign is immediately begun.

The initiatives are currently going through the early ballot qualification process. They were created by the same firm that led the Davis recall election and Schwartzenneger’s recent series of ballot initiatives. The initiatives will undoubtedly be circulated by the same band of itinerant signature gatherers that have been used by the Republican Party in the past. The Republican machine contracts with bounty hunters who temporarily move into California from Florida during the petition gathering process. It will probably be the same crew or crews that were used in Florida and Ohio in 2004 and California in 2006.

Mainstream media is currently reporting on the issue:

L.A. Times at TinyURL.com/367zbp

CCDems (Central Coast Democrats) Blog was born on July 30, 2007

We hope that your shared thoughts will stimulate and inspire others!