Category Archives: California Politics

CDP Final Update: The Sci Fi Convention Ends…

Thanks to a 10-day long internet outage at home, this got posted late. Earthlink sucks.
Well, it’s finally over. The 2006 Democratic Star Trek/Wars/Gate Convention is done, the myriad of tchotchkes, stickers, and campaign sundries are in the dustbin of history, and everyone’s going home…some happy, some sad, and some who were just happy to get all the free “stuff” at the convention.
But the unreality of the event was truly that of a Comi-Con or Star Trek convention, because for all the hype and shenanigans inside the convention, and all the fiercely passionate run ins between rival campaigns, the fact is very few actual voters know who most of the people on the June ballot are, much less who they’d actually like to see in office.
In the end, the passionate fights between the two titans of the Democratic ticket, Steve Westly and Phil Angelides, came off more like the never-ending debates of lore: Kirk Vs. Picard, Star Wars 77-82 vs Star Wars Prequels, or that big debate over Silver Surfer from a few years ago. Lots of noise and hype, but most people on the outside don’t really know what these folks are talking about. But if you dare say you’re not that interested in their cause or candidate, people look at you like you just committed a war crime.

Continue reading

CDP Update 4 – Anglides Gets Convention Endorsement with 68%!

I was a bit tired after a long day of politiciking and spinning and what not, so I’m posting a bit late – but Phil Angelides won the vote for the CDP endorsement with 68% of the vote. So my little prediction earlier was entirely wrong. I’m not afraid to admit it.
The vote itself wasn’t revealed until late last night, but you heard about it when the loud whoops and yells of Angelides’ supporters late that night. It was truly a sight, along with the legions of orange-shirted Westly supporters (most of whom were not actual voting delegates, but rather volunteers) who had a long look on their faces, and quickly disappeared from the evening festivities.
It was a true moment where spin, and betting on spin, paid off. In this case, Angelides campaign, which has run into some trouble because of Westly’s incredibly large TV buy (and resulting name ID and poll momentum) was starting to feel the pressure from the echo chamber, the press and political insiders. So the campaign made a calculated risk to put it all on the convention, and Westly’s campaign put together a well funded effort to make their presence known at the convention to try and block the 60% vote.
But Phil rolled a hard six, and won, bigtime. Westly made the mistake of not playing down expectations for himself, and by Saturday morning at the press conference, was clearly convinced “momentum” was on his side, and was predicting a win for himself. Big mistake. He should have played it cool and not been sucked into the hype. Instead now the Angelides campaign has something they can spin as a big moment for them, and Westly just spent a ton of money on 65 lb. pieces of beef for nada.
Now obviously most voters in this state have no idea who they’ll support for the Democratic nominee, and still, most people either don’t care, or could change their mind at any time. But in the neverland that is the world of spin, the insiders, the funders, and the press, Angelides stopped a tailspin for his campaign, and is flying high. Whether that means anything to the rest of us remains to be seen.
But for now, a chapter of political theater is over. What a night!

CDP Update 3 – Throwing A Wrench In the Machine

See live, uninterrupted coverage of the circus right here!
Today has been a bit less weird. I can safely say that the comic-book convention metaphor is holding, and I don’t mean that in a good or bad way, just a way.
Anyway.
Today I ran into Assembly Candidate Janet Reilly as I stopped to say hello to our esteemed Senator, Dianne Feinstein. Tons of people were mobbing Sen. Feinstein and camera-phones were ablaze in getting a shared moment with the Senator recorded for posterity.
I also had a nice conversation with Frank Russo of the California Progress Report at his booth from whence he is live-blogging the entire convention.
But my favorite moment was watching the convetion speeches of Phil Angelides and Steve Westly, and it would seem that my previous entry about the Westly beef-fueled blocking of the endorsement vote might have been premature. I spoke with several actual voting delegates who told me how they were selected and how most of them were for Angelides, parties or not. It was most notable that when Steve Westly spoke, his legions of volunteers provided the bulk of his applause, not the delegates, something KTVU reporter Randy Shandobil queried Mr. Westly about at a press conference.
I watched Westly and while he seems like a truly nice person, he also comes off as over-rehearsed and evasive as he did in 1989 when he ran for chair. I chose to throw him a curve ball that was not on any “talking points memo” for the day when the press conference started.
My question? Well, I decided to ask him about his campaign’s use of Myspace.com, which the campaign had trumpeted early on as a sign of his tech-savviness and his outreach to young people.
I asked him if this was the case, why was it that after all the hype and hullaballo, his My Space Profile was linked to only 40 or so friends, while rival Phil Angelides’ profile was linked to over 1000 people.
Now, to be sure, a MySpace profile for a politco is not a big deal, but I wasn’t as interested in the answer as I was interested in seeing how he’d handle such a wacky question, wacky questions and situations being something you need to deal with as a candidate and as Governor. I’d hoped for a joke, or something.
Instead he looked at me in that frozen smile of his and for about a second telegraphed a glare that could only be described as “What the F*CK are you asking me this for?” and then gave a weird, rambling non-answer answer.
I was kinda hoping for a sign this guy could go off script and relax, since his speech was so totally rehearsed he went off speech on less than 10 words. More importantly I was hoping for a sign that we are not repeating the mistake of nominating a Gray Davis or a Mike Dukakis or an Al Gore.
Sadly , it didn’t happen. Oh well.
Next up: The vote showdown in the convention center!
UPDATE: It seems my mayhem was not confined to La Convencion…..this accounting of MySpace.com street cred seems to say it all..

CDP Update 2 – Recipe for Derailing 60%

Last night the Sacramento Convention Center was abuzz with all sorts of politicos vying for support from delegates and others, via the time honored tradition of the “hospitality suite.” With so many open races locally and statewide in the June primary, people were in overdrive to put on the best party possible.
On this, and this alone, there is no doubt that ex dot-commer Steve Westly, who has self-financed his campaign for Governor, had one of the best parties I’ve ever seen. They didn’t just have a big room, no they had a live band, a dance floor, a carving station with huge 65+ lb.. side of beef for sandwiches, discounts on the Convention Center’s overpriced drinks, and a lot of people in orange shirts, custom made for the weekend.
It was a bit much, but the stakes are high. Phil Angelides has to roll a hard six to jump start a campaign that’s fallen behind in the polls in the wake of Westly’s TV ads, and it’s in the form of an endorsement vote today.

Continue reading

On Protests By People We Call Immigrants…

Interesting fact no one has mentioned in all the hysterics people are raising about the massive protests by people some call “immigrants” here in the US recently. (although it should be noted many people were legal residents and citizens of the US – for some reason when Californians talk about “immigration” they seem to think anyone with a Latin sounding name or who has a certain skin color is ALWAYS an alien, meant to be feared, and never ever to be regarded as a possible fellow citizen…but I digress).
Anyway, back to the point: When France’s loudmouthed and bigoted Muslim population, mostly French but culturally hating France, had their protests it was weeks and weeks of violence, destruction and the exposure of the French as totally incapable of dealing with conflict.
However, when people in this country had objections to a bill that would have made instant felons out of a significant part of the population without any plans for how to deal with that, much less the inevitable arrests of people simply because they “looked” like a felon, held huge protests here. All were peaceful, there were no violent clashes, no one looted or burned, and in the end, folks were talking and yelling and whatever – but no violence, no burning of LA, no riots.
No matter what you may think of the immigration situation, you have to admit that it’s a credit to this nation that we can still have large protests like this and not have them become violent like the French Muslims. Part of it is due to our culture, and part of it I think also has to do with the fact that unlike Muslims, Latino newcomers and Latino Americans do not have churches who advocate for the likes of bin Laden.
Anyway, I thought that was interesting to note.

A Guide to the Doofinator’s Special Election Bonanza

This is one of the easiest elections to analyze and make recommendations, for you, the reader, and all the people who call me on the phone asking me what I think about the election. Ready?
Vote NO.
That’s right – whatever it is that’s on that ballot, be it a state proposition or Yet Another Bond Issue, just vote NO. It’s easy, it’s simple, and it will send a message to the cabal of get-rich-quck consultants, the Doofinator, and The Man that it’s time to get to work to solve problems with real solutions, not this half-assed, phony baloney bullhonky they call “reform.”
Nothing on the ballot was so critical it had to pass in 2005. If we are going to spend almost a hundred million dollars for an election no one asked for, we should at least be voting on something big, something bold, something that’s based on something more than phony baloney consultant-driven initiatives desigend to get a few Republican political consultants and a few Democratic political consutlatns rich quick – while we the people have to live with the results.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Some Straight Talk from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom You May Have Missed

“Re-thinking” and “strategizin’ ” are popular topics amongst political types to the left of G. W. Bush. This past week members of the Young Democrats of America held their national convention in San Francisco, and the talk was punctuated with some hard realizations doing “business as usual” wasn’t going to cut it anymore. Good.
What struck me most, though was the coverage of the event in the local press barely made mention of their own mayor’s remarks, and those that did gave it short shrift, presumably because he’s not on the “politically orthodox” side of politics.
Which is unfortunate. That’s because in a time when you have so many Democratic politicians in Washington DC running around thinking they’re in charge of things, when they’re not, and you have lifetime political hacks from D.C. running around, grabbing corporate cash and attacking party chairman Howard Dean for daring to act like, well, a Democrat, Mayor Gavin Newsom’s remarks were a breath of fresh air.
Here’s a quote, from the San Francisco Bay Guardian, that’s worth a look:
“I am not popular in my party,” he said. “What’s the point of winning if you can’t advance your principles? You can’t talk in ideals unless you are willing to manifest them…We need more clarity in our party,” Newsom said. “It’s about integrity.”
You’d think a statement like that, coming from the guy who’s had to take crap from wealthy, psueudo-Democratic battle-axe Dianne Feinstein, and who decided to stand on principle on an issue that was not going to get him any points in a future political career would be applauded, if not by the supposedly progressive Bay Guardian, then at least by the allegedly powerful “liberal blogosphere.”
While I can forgive the latter for not reporting and amplifying Newsom’s remarks since there’s no way for them to know what’s up without being able to read it somewhere, I have to take issue with the Guardian, both for their burial of what would seem to be a bold, progressive statement, and for their coverage of the event in general.
It becomes obvious in a situation like this that no matter what Mayor Newsom says, because he was Not The Politically Correct Person saying said statement, they had to bury it in a half-assed piece about the YD’s.
You almost get the sense that there’s such a determination to slam Mayor Newsom as “Willie Brown, Part Deux” (even though he’s not), they can’t even concede one little piece of decent coverage.
News flash: Mayor Newsom is not perfect, lefty folks. We know that. But trying to demonize the guy and being unable to concede on principle when he’s done some great things ultimately kills La Causa a hell of a lot better than the Ghost of Satan Willie Brown could or will. It shows an inability to grasp today’s political terrain, and a desire to return to what I call the “Bad Good Old Days” – when it was easy to be on
But there’s a bigger issue. You’d think that they’d send someone to, oh I don’t know, try and cover the issues at hand at said convention, and perhaps engage in a little reporting, maybe even quoting some people and attaching names to quotes. Even better, send a young person who’se politically savvy to try and bring the perspective of the people these folks are tryin’ to reach.
Instead the Guardian sent an old college professor whose experience with the Young Democrats dates back to the 1950s. That’s great. But nowhere in this coverage does any real history of the group get told, to place anything that happened at the convention itself in context.
The author clearly went over there with a presupposed concept in mind: the tired old saw of “How the 1960s are Still The Best Years for Activism Ever” and the new hack, “Oh You Democrats Didn’t Talk About The War As Much as I Deem You Should (Even Though I Didn’t Bother to Cover Most of the Convention Anyway).”
Hmm. Sounds like a bad country song. Oh, but I digress.
But to wind it up: Not only did the Guardian make a mis-step in under-reporting their own elected officials’ statements at a natinoal convention in their home town, they also blew a chance to do some real research and come up with a story that might have told the reader a little more about the proceedings and asked some hard questions.
Instead, we got yet another iteration of the old “60’s Great/Today Bad” rhetoric that makes me literally ill every time I hear it. The 60s have been over for some time now, folks. Smokin’ pot and marching a lot may have been the way to go back then. But to make a difference today, one has to get with the times, not try and re-enact the 60s the way those Civil War buffs do so on battlefields in the South.
UPDATE: It seems in my haste to post something, I made the mistake of not noting Pat Murphy’s coverage of said convention at his local news website, SF Sentinel that included coverage of Mayor Newsom’s remarks.
Many people have opinions of Pat Murphy’s work – whatever they say, I still find it a good local resource for many events that don’t always get covered by the Big Papers In Town, and Pat’s never shy about his opinions, or labeling them as such. Kudos to Pat for covering more of the Mayor’s speech.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Stem Cell Con Job or Why Are We Scrambling to Let A Deadbeat In Our Community?

I don’t know what is more irritating to me, as a taxpayer, to observe and make me cringe when it comes to the so-called “Stem Cell Research Initiative” voters, in their inimitable wisdom, passed in 2004 here in California.
Part of it is the actual law itself – but also, the way both the press and so-called “leaders” of local governments have chosen to overlook serious problems with this law.
Instead, they’ve chosen instead to shower an institute funded with $3 billion dollars of credit card spending with yet more “free” (aka “taxpayer funded” goodies). All for a scientific institute that is to be headed up by…a real estate developer with no experience in science, let alone stem cells.
Let’s start by taking a look at the law itself. Now, throughout the campaign, voters heard endless, heart-tugging emotional stories of those afflicted with terrible diseases. The initiative’s backers skillfully manipulated people, who want to do things to help others, to vote for this new law. People against the law were dismissed as ultra-right religious extremists (even though opposition came from people of diverse political views).
Like so many other initiatives, any real examination of the ramifications of the law were never fully examined. Then the thing passed. And suddenly, after the dust settled, we started to see a wave of “mea culpas” from the press like this one in the December San Francisco Chronticle, and another in the Bay Guardian.
Among the little details: the initiative is using borrowed money, $3 billion worth, and part of that has to go to paying of the debt created by the borrowing right away. So first thing we’re seeing these guys spend money on isn’t life-saving research – it’s bond debt. Out of $300 million in borrowed money in the first few years, as much as $200 million could go to…debt service. To paraphrase the Chronicle – this is like using part of a home loan to make the house payments. Now there’s a responsible way to manage money!
If the institute wants to stop spending money on stem cell research, they can. And if they want to spend it on wild parties, they can. And if you want to call your elected officials to bitch and demand a stop to such shenanigans…you can’t. They wrote the law so it’s almost impossible to enforce the same kind of oversight we demand on every other state program.
Best of all, the guy who wrote this thing, with all its faults, and vague promises of how the taxpayers will make their money back, just happens to be the guy in charge of the institute now and responds to queries about how he’ll run things with the words “trust me.”
That inspires a lot of confidence. Especially since he’s the one that wrote so many poison pills in the law that keep anyone from stopping him from using the state credit card any way he wants. No wonder he was the Governor’s choice for the job – we all know how much Gov. Doofinator loves spending on the taxpayer’s credit cards!
Now, I am sure the reporters here are congratulating themselves on a job well done for ‘exposing’ the innards of this law. But I have to wonder -where was all this investigative journalism before the people voted on it and why did so many people including celebrities, politicos, and pundits, sign on to this thing without reading the fine print?
It gives me little satisfaction to say “I told you so!” in this instance – I’d rather people have been a little more responsible, used their votes a bit more wisely, and demanded real answers to some questions before voting.
Now, it’s bad enough that voters passed a law with more loopholes, giveaways, and outright deceit as this one – but it is worse to see what so-called “leaders” of California’s cities are doing now to attract the Big, Taxpayer Funded Headquarters for this thing.
Reading the “bids” taxpayers’ representatives in cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and elsehwere are simply astonishing. We have a situation where cities, in a desperate bid to get the institute in their home towns are trying to out-do each other with offers of free office rent, free gym memberships, free this, and free whatever. Anything at all to get the $3 billion dollar credit card in their home town.
Now, what’s really pathetic is that once again local elected officials are doing two dumb things local electeds do really well – make “investments” in vague promises, and never tell anyone where the money is coming from to pay for said “investments.”
The first is one we hear a lot. Whenever some large, and usually dumb, idea is presented to the public, elected officials use their favorite word when they want to “invest” in a vague promise with your money. They use the word “encourage.” Whenever you hear this word, you need to get out a guard dog and put it next to your wallet – because it usually means someone wants to take money away from you and piss it away on something really dumb or give it away to someone who already has billions of dollars.
In this case, cities are giving away all kinds of free things, including hundreds of thousands of square feet of real estate, money to pay for fancy offices, and money for things like gym memberships to get the Big Headquarters of the so-called “California Institute for Regenerative Medicine” aka “The $3 Billion Credit Card You Have to Pay For.”
Every single time you read what elected officials have to say when asked why they’re giving away money in a time of budget crisis to this thing, they all say something along the lines of how spending this money is an “investment” that will “encourage” businesses to open up shop near said institute, and thus, trickle down the effect of all that spending into local tax coffers, and of course, “create jobs.” Now, there’s nothing in any of these deals that guarantees any of that. But you never hear that part. No one asks, and no one tells.
If there is one thing I wish I could accomplish in politics, it would be to spend the next ten years on a long rage PR campaign to put a stake in the heart of political “junkie logic” like this in public discourse. Why? Because it is 100%, pure, unadulterated bullshit. Let’s see why.
Now, let’s use our friend “metaphor” to deconstruct the political junkie logic in an easy to understand way, and see why any local elected official that engages in said logic needs to be asked to leave town:
Suppose you were asked to take a good portion of your take home pay and put it in an investment your new friend wants you to make. No one can show you the potential rate of return. In fact, no one can show you that there’s any return at all. Worse, when you ask how the investment will work, you’re attacked as being a coward, a liar, or just plain crazy. “Can’t you see how your ‘investment’ will ‘encourage’ people?” they say?
You keep asking “But if I give you my $40,000 of savings, how will I make the money back?” and your new friend keeps saying that your money won’t directly benefit you back – but it will encourage others to give money to you since you’re such a great person for making this investment, and you want to encourage others to do the same so you get your money back. You have no guarantees, and the person taking your money could disappear tomorrow -and you’d be left with nothing.
Now, if this sounds more like a “con” than a sound investment, you’d be right. If you did something like this, you’d go to jail. If you’re an elected official, you’re praised as someone who “creates opportunity” and is “pro-business.”
Meanwhile the countryside is littered with abandoned office space and industiral plants businesses got at the taxpayers’ expense, all in the name of “investing” in the community and the vague promise of “jobs” in the future. And guess what? Most of those elected officials got promotions from the voters anyway!
In the case of the Stem Cell Mafia Institute, the “winning” city may find itself in for a rude shock should they “win” the right to have this debt-creator in their backyard, paid for by more of their citizens’ money. See, there’s no rule in any of that well-written law that the money has to be spent locally. In fact, they’re mandated to spend money where research is being done now – anywhere. Even out of state.
And no company has put up its stockholders’ dividends or its own profits up and said “Hey, I’ll move to the city where the Institute is!” – because most companies aren’t so stupid as to invest in fairy tales. There’s also no guarantee that in the future the Stem Cell Mafia won’t come back and say “give us more or we’ll leave” after the big investment.
So while we can’t figure out how to pay for a few cops in L.A., we can find money to give away $177 million to a billionaire for speculative development, and we can find millions more to “give” to a taxpayer-financed credit card agency with no real fiscal oversight. We can’t vote ourselves taxes to pay for roads, schools, and whatnot but we can vote to borrow money and entrust it to a guy with no scientific background and let him play with it as he sees fit.
It’s time to end the madness. If there was even a small amount of common sense, civic leaders across California would not be letting themselves be played like this. They’d instead suggest that if the Stem Cell Mafia wants to pitch its circus tent in their neighborhood, they’d have to have written guarantees that they’d employ local people at decent wages.
They’d have to guarantee that the states taxpayers, who are paying for the credit card debt keeping the lights on, would share in the patents and royalties generated by any research. And they certainly wouldn’t’ compete against each other like hookers at a street corner – they’d work together, since all of California voted for the initiative, and all of California should benefit.
I realize what I just said was a fairy tale as well. But hey! A person has to dream, right?
(note: this article was originally published on March 29, 2005. However in the ensuing upgrade from one platform to another, it was lost. It is being republished as current events warrant a trip in the Political Wayback Machine.)

Schadelmann’s All-Star Guide To The 2004 Election!

Voting in California takes some effort. Not necessarily to drive to the polls, wait in line, or fill out the mail ballot and find the post office, but to simply wade through a pile of initiatives, everyone’s favorite tool of democracy, in a timely fashion.
Every year people call me and ask how to vote on these things – and every year it seems we not only get more of these initiatives, but we get dumber and dumber ones as well. So as a public service to my fellow Californians, here’s the Schadelmann.com All-Star No-Nonsense Guide to the 2004 Election, with notes as needed:’
President: John Kerry. Yes, I know he isn’t perfect. Guess what? I don’t care! At least he doesn’t think he’s perfect, like the guy in office does now. (I’m waiting for the press conference where Bush says he’s “better than Jesus” like John Lennon did…)
US Senate:Is there a race for Senate? Sure there is. I’m voting for Barbara Boxer, mostly because she autographed a newspaper I had from a rally I ran for her in Santa Cruz, and got her picture taken for free with my mom and dad when they visited Washington DC in 1994. What have you done for me lately, Mr. Jones?
US Congress:I can’t imagine there’s a district in Southern California where the person they drew the district for is going to lose. So you can pretty much vote for anyone and the “right” person will still win.
Rep. Jane Harman lives just a few blocks away from me, so I’m voting for her so I can tell people a Member of Congress lives just a few blocks away from me. And she seems nice. Her campaign is actually running a credible effort too, which is rare these days. Good job!
California State Legislature: The same reasoning applies here – the person they drew these districts for is going to win, barring some bizarre circumstances, so again, you can pretty much vote for whomever you want, and the “right” person will win. Have fun with it. Write in me for State Senate somewhere. Or your dog. Whatever.
Initiatives
Proposition 1A – Local Taxes and The State – NO: This is one of those initiatives I’d like to believe does what it says, since it’s in line with something I believe – that the State shouldn’t be taking locally collected property taxes away from local authorities. It’s wrong, and it denies local authorities, and the citizens who elect them, control over their own money.
That said, it’s unclear that this will accomplish a worthy goal: keeping local money local. After reading so many analyses that aren’t clear as to the details (where the Devil usually resides) I can’t really endorse this as a result. Which sucks, because I don’t know if anything better will come along, but I’m tired of voting for good-intentioned, hastily written laws that end up not working.
Proposition 59 – Open Government – YES: This is an easy call. When you pick up the newspaper and have to read yet another scandal involving Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, or another example of how people who work for the public want to keep the public uninformed as to what they’re doing, it’s clear that this law, which would clarify and codify the concept of open government, is needed.
Proposition 60 – Equal Ballot Access – YES: This is a simple law – it asserts the rights of people to nominate candidates of their party, and see the winner of the party’s primary appear on the fall ballot. This allows all parties to compete for your vote on the November ballot. You’d think such a simple, open, and small-d democratic concept would be a slam dunk for passage – but the People Who Know Best are slamming this concept with Proposition 62. Vote “yes” and stick it to The Man.
Proposition 61- Children’s Hospital Bonds – YES: Normally I despite “bonds” because they’re sold to the public as “more money for (fill in the blank here)” but no one ever talks about the huge interest payments that make these things cost way more than what they give to (fill in the blank here). At the same time it is really hard to say “no” to children’s hospitals, which serve anyone, and if you’ve ever met someone whose kid had heart trouble or leukemia, you know the work they do is great. So vote yes, despite the bond’s inherent weakness as a funding mechanism.
Proposition 62 – Special Interest Primary Elections – Hell NO: Longtime readers know full well what I think of this special-interest funded nonsense, designed to rig elections and allow political consultants and their pals in wealthy industries to play shenanigans with the political system.
Vote “no” and stick it to The Man. You can read back issues on this topic here, here, and here.
Proposition 63 – Funding for Mental Health – YES: The state of California, in one of its stupider moves, decided to dismantle our mental health system and devolve it back to the counties, and the effects are pretty clear.
We’ve traded any sort of system for getting people the help they need so they’re not shouting at a wall somewhere on the street for one that doesn’t work – in our state’s case, letting everyone loose on the street where many mentally ill people now live. This initiative, like most, isn’t perfect, but at least it tries to get some money where it’s needed, and help cut down the cost of other problems, like homelessness, and crime, in the process.
Proposition 64 – Make Large Companies Unaccountable for their Misdeeds – NO: This piece of special interest funded legalese portrays itself as something that will help small business defend itself from “frivolous” lawsuits. As a small business owner myself, I’m sure I could be persuaded to support such a concept.
Too bad this is just an attempted to weaken the laws in California that keep large companies accountable when they pull shenanigans. But rather than go on and on about this noise, check out this amusing video which does a far better job than I, mostly because they’re riffing on the old Schoolhouse Rock videos from the 1970s.
Proposition 65 – Local Taxes and The State II – YES: This was the initiative local authorities drafted before the compromise 1A was created. Just to have a little fun, vote “yes” and see what happens. Reading through the analysis is long, complicated and not a lot of fun. Don’t we pay people to do this for us in the Legislature?
Proposition 66 – Reform Three Strikes – YES: In the clamor for “tougher laws” California came up with the cutely named “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law. There wasn’t a whole lot of reasoning as to why three felonies merited life imprisonment, versus two, or four, or 3.1416. It polled well and we passed it.
Since then we’ve had plenty of violent felons go on to commit lots of crimes, while some idiot who shoplifts beef jerky at a 7-11 gets a life term. This law would fix some of the problems with the law so that it makes more sense and gets more real criminals behind bars.
Proposition 67 – Telephone Taxes for Emergency Care – NO: This is one of those laws I don’t like, since they’re taxing telephones to pay for emergency care service, when that should be paid for in a more sensible way, but when I read who’s opposing this, I don’t like them either. I’d rather vote “no” and force the Legislature and the Governor, who are paid to solve these problems, come up with a more stable plan.
Proposition 68 – The Larry Flynt Gambling Initiative – NO: The card clubs and racetracks who were paying for this campaign have pulled their support, since their own polling showed this poorly-created law going down to defeat.
Like good gamblers, they decided to leave the table and not keep putting their money down on a bad bet. California needs to realize that gambling money is not “free” money, and getting our government addicted to the expansion of gambling in the long run is a bad idea, especially since California has no law-enforcement system comprable to Nevada’s to police gaming in this state.
Proposition 69 – The DNA Database Act – NO: I’d like to believe that a massive database of every person who’s gotten a traffic ticket’s DNA would help law enforcement. But when you consider that this is the same government that finds new and exciting ways to screw up records and files, you have to wonder if this is such a great idea.
Proposition 70 – Yet Another Gaming Initiative – NO: Despite the fact that I’m generally very sympathetic to Indian gaming, I’m voting “no” on this one. The concept overall is very good – the tribes would voluntarily pay the same top tax rate California’s corporations pay, on their profits.
But until there’s a more sensible and powerful enforcement of gaming law on and off Indian lands, and until the State gets serious about being a gambling state and building up the infrastructure needed to keep gaming clean, like they do in Nevada, I’m not supporting this or any other initiative for a while.
Proposition 71 – That Stem Cell Thing – NO: Far be it from me to cast my lot with the Holier Than Thou crowd, or for being against research that would help people in the future. That said, I’m not wild about having a lot of money given to a few biotech companies who can spend this as they please, without a lot of oversight. Plus this uses the much-maligned “bonds” to fund this activity. We need a better way to fund real research in this state and this country, and this doesn’t fix the “big picture” problem we continue to have. Vote “no” and force them to come up with a better idea.
Proposition 72 – Health Care Reform, Part 1 – YES: We’ve given private business a chance to do things their way, and frankly it’s no longer working. More people pay a lot more and get a lot less for what they spend on health care. The Usual Suspects are trotting out tired catch-phrases like “rationed health care” and “bad for business” but we already have a system that’s doing both.
When people can’t afford to go to the doctor and let their problems get worse, that’s rationing. And how is it good for business when you have employees that have to take their kid to the emergency room instead of a regular doctor? It’s not perfect, but it’s a start. Vote “yes” and once again, stick it to The Man.
That’s all for now. Have fun!
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

What’s The Difference Between a Fee and Tuition?

Gov. Doofinator (AKA Pete Wilson II) is at it again. Not content to push a phony credit card bond (with plenty of help from alleged Democrats like Steve Westly), now we’re getting the usual “fee hikes” at the University of California, California State University, and community college campuses. (Prison guards will get their raises, don’t worry!)
However, many reporters often make a mistake when covering these issues and it’s not just a matter of semantics – it’s a matter of accuracy. Specifically, whenever “fees” are raised, they often use the term “tuition” interchangeably as today’s LA Times story does here.
The reason this is important is quite simple- the laws governing the creation and management are very specific – California residents cannot be charged “tuition” (i.e. money paid to cover the costs of their education) at any California school. The only people who pay “tuition” are out-of-state students at any of these schools.
Now to some people this may still seem like a semantic difference, but it’s critical that those watching budget shenanigans know why it’s important. Whenever “fees” are jacked up at a UC campus for example, not a dime of that money covers the actual cost of educating the people who are attending the school. Instead, the schools transfer the payment of the university or college’s basic functions away from the state and on to the students and their parents.
Guess what one of those expenses is? Can’t guess? More money for aid for students who can’t afford to go to college! (and the bureaucracy that runs it!) If that cycle of silliness doesn’t boggle your mind, I have a job for your as Governor Doofinator’s budget guy/gal.
So once again the point needs to be clear – the money that folks are being asked to pay is not part of any “tuition” – and those covering such issues should know the difference since recognizing this fact makes the big picture issue a lot different than the one painted by Gov. Doofinator and his Wilsonian cronies.
Once again, we have one of the famous “California disconnects” in public policy. We pass bonds to build buildings at colleges, yet not a dime of that (expensive) money pays for the teachers or books that go in them. We raise the cost of attending the college buildings, but again, the increased out of pocket expenses do not cover the cost of the teachers or the books that are part of the education one is paying for.
Thus, when you attend a California school, you will end up spending a lot more time waiting for the classes you need to graduate. That means more money borrowed to spend more time in school, while those who can afford a 4 year stint at Yale or Stanford can get their degree and get on with their lives.
Which brings up one other point – whenever these “fees” are raised, the inevitable comparison comes up that although the cost is more, it’s still “cheaper” than an Ivy League school which is considered comparable. This may have held water 20 years ago, but nowadays it is kind of like raising the price of a Camry 40% and saying “well it’s still cheaper than a Mercedes Benz.” Which of course, is true, but is it a value anymore if the price is inflated? Or does one start looking elsewhere for a better deal.
Frankly after years of paying for prison guard raises over school, and the sheer incompetence of UC’s management of the weapons labs here and in New Mexico, I believe that comparison could be questioned. More to the point – with the eroding course offerings at all levels of the education system and the difficulty in getting classes needed to get out in four years, such a comparison at the undergraduate level may not hold any longer.
More importantly, the point of a public university system, built and paid for by the citizens of California, is meant for their free use first. A vibrant, active, and accessible education to those smart enough to qualify, allows our state to have people capable of creating the businesses and coming up with the new ideas we’ll need to stay on top.
Otherwise, we will continue the slide towards becoming a Third World country – something I’d rather not see. A college education is no longer a “luxury” or an “extra” as it was in the Industrial Age. If you want a job or a future with any hope of more than minimum wage and no benefits, you have to go to college. Just ask the grocery workers who went on strike. Or the blue collar workers on the permanent unemployment line.
More important, the taxpaying citizens of California built these colleges with the idea that anyone smart enough to get in could go to school. This has been the social contract between the state and the people for over 100 years. Making the comparison in cost to other states or private schools is a betrayal of that contract – not everyone can pick up and move to Michigan, New York or some other state to get an education – nor should they.
Generations of prominent Californians were able to get their education at community colleges, state Universities, and UC campuses for a minimal cost. It’s time to end the circus, and find a better way to maintain a free, quality education for those smart enough to deserve one.
PS: I recently read a very interesting story about an immigrant who came to California in the late 60s, who was in need of some improvements to his education if he was to succeed in his chosen field. Because Santa Monica College was available to him, he was able to take some classes and improve both his language skills and his knowledge of his new adopted homeland.
He has since gone on to be a tremendously successful businessman, and a leader on the national stage. You can guess where this is going…yes, in fact it was Arnold Schwarzenegger. (insert Paul Harvey-esque music here)
Hmm…

© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com