The Camarillo Democratic Club will hold a general membership meeting Thursday, June 4.  Networking will start at 6:15pm and the general meeting will begin at 7pm.  Featured speaker will be 3rd District Supervisor Kathy Long, who will take questions from members.  Also featured will be David Atkins who is President of the Ventura County Young Democrats, a Daily Koz blogger, and co-host of “Reality Check” on radio KVTA.  The club will also honor club member and peace advocate Bill Hammaker who is turning 101 years old! Directions:  We meet in the Orchid Room, UFCW Hall, 816 Camarillo Springs Road, Camarillo at the Camarillo Springs exit from the South 101 Fwy.  For more information contact club president Sue Boloorchi at sue.boloorchi@gmail.com.

As most of us are aware, the state of California just held a special election two days ago in which voters were asked to approve measures to close our enormous budget deficit by borrowing against the lottery, stealing from children’s eduction and mental health services programs, and agreeing to a painful spending cap in exchange for moderate, regressive tax increases. Voters overwhelmingly rejected those measures, approving only one proposition denying legislators the ability to raise their own salaries during bad budget years. For more background on these measures, see here and here. John Cole also has a good, brief roundup of what’s wrong with California’s budget system.

It is important to note that both Republicans and progressives were opposed to these measures: Republicans opposed them because Proposition 1A would have extended tax increases for two years, which is anathema to the extremist minority of Republicans in the state. More generally, Republicans have no interest in seeing a reasonable budget passed: they are determined to force a cuts-only budget despite being vastly outnumbered in the legislature, or to see the state run off a cliff financially, in which case they see the opportunity to break the backs of state employee unions. A majority of progressives opposed the measures because they would fail to close the budget gap, while forcing needless and painful cuts, and capping state spending in good years in such a way that the state would be irrevocably harmed for years to come.

Predictably, Republicans are claiming victory, stating that the vote amounts to an anti-tax revolution reminiscent of their Tea Party protests. Also as predictably, the traditional media have completely fallen for this line: the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post each have articles framing this result as an anti-tax victory, even as the legislature obediently begins work on what will amount to an all-cuts budget.

The only problem is that this result is anything BUT an anti-tax revolt.

This morning California bloggers and media were treated to a conference call with Obama focus group maestro David Binder, who presented results of research done on the special election in CA, as well as the president of the California Federation of Teachers and the Assistant Director of AFSCME International. More details in powerpoint format can be seen here:

The vast majority of voters surveyed said the state should balance both spending cuts and tax increases to address the state budget shortfall. Revenue options supported by a strong majority of voters include:

Increasing taxes on alcoholic beverages (75% support)

Increasing taxes on tobacco (74% support)

Imposing an oil extraction tax on oil companies just like every other oil producing state (73% support)

Closing the loophole that allows corporations to avoid reassessment of the value of new property they purchase (63% support)

Increasing the top bracket of the state income tax from nine point three percent to 10 percent for families with taxable income over $272,000 a year and to eleven percent for families with taxable incomes over $544,000 a year (63% support)

Prohibiting corporations from using tax credits to offset more than fifty percent of the taxes they owe (59% support)

While voters strongly support these options to help California increase its revenue, voters are strongly against specific spending cuts proposed by Governor Schwarzenegger:

76% oppose cutting public school spending by $5.3 billion

73% oppose cutting funding for state colleges and universities by $1.2 billion

68% oppose cutting the state’s funding for health care services by $1.1 billion

62% oppose cutting the state’s funding for homecare services by $494 million

Additionally, only 29% of voters believe the budget should be resolved through cuts alone–including 46% of voters who opposed Proposition 1A.

David Dayen at Calitics has an excellent recap quoting a salient portion of David Binder’s memo on the results:

Contrary to what the Governor is saying after the defeat of his proposals, Prop 1A did not fail because voters delivered a message to “go all out” in cutting government spending. The all-time record low turnout for a statewide special election clearly demonstrates the lack of depth to that argument. Prop 1A did not
generate a spike in turnout and taxes were not cited as the main reason why voters overwhelmingly rejected Prop 1A. Support for a state budget that relies solely on spending cuts is very limited – even among those voting no on Prop 1a.

Voters in this election were more likely to be Republicans and less likely to be Independents, whereas Democratic voters came out in proportions consistent with past turnout. Of those that voted in this election, 43% were Democrats, 42% were Republicans and 15% were Independents or minor party voters. This past November, the electorate consisted of 46% Democrats, 32% Republicans and 22% Independents or minor party voters.

In November 2010, the electorate will be a group that is more supportive of the revenue options tested in the survey, and more strongly opposed to only using cuts to balance the state budget. While only 36% of voters that turned out for the May 19th election supported using entirely budget cuts to balance the budget, even fewer – only 24% — of non-voters felt the same way [...]

Voters simply do not trust the leadership in Sacramento, and recognize that the failed special election was just another example of the inability to bring real solutions to voters. When given two choices, four out of five voters – even among those who voted ‘Yes’ on 1A – agreed that the special election was just another example of the failure of the Governor and Legislature, who should make the hard decisions necessary to really fix the budget. Only 20% agreed the special election was a sincere effort to fix the state’s budget mess.

The fact is that Californians view this as a leadership problem–not a tax-and-spend problem. The voters’ preferences for progressive policies are clear, based on broad support for increased sin taxes and taxes on the wealthy and corporations, as well as our electing 65% of the legislature as Democrats, and our overwhelming support for Barack Obama in the presidential election. Voters did not see this special election as a good-faith effort on the part of the legislators to balance the budget, but rather as a gimmick placed on the backs of the voters.

In the defense of the legislature, however, their hands are tied by the preposterous 2/3 requirement on the budget and on revenue increases. California is the only state in the nation to require a 2/3 majority for both. It’s impossible to lead when one has no tools with which to lead.

Nothing in this state will be resolved until Californians reform our initiative process, and eliminate the 2/3 requirement for budgets and revenue increases.

It is high time that Democratic legislators abandoned fruitless efforts at “bipartisanship” and “compromise” (the provisions in this special election were the result of “compromise” between Schwarzenegger, the Democratic Majority, and a couple of “moderate” Republicans), and focus almost exclusively on ridding the state of the baneful 2/3 requirement on budgets and revenue increases, as well as a possible constitutional convention should Republicans remain intransigent.

And it is high time that the traditional media looked at actual facts when analyzing election results, rather than transcribing extremist Republican fantasies.

Recommendations from the Ojai Valley Democrats:

___________________
1A – NO
1B – YES
1C – NO
1D – NO
1E – NO
1F – YES
___________________

As some of you are aware, there’s an election coming up. May 19th you will be asked to vote on Propositions 1A, B, C, D, E & F. This is a special election called because the legislature needs your vote to change the Constitution of the State of California. This is a direct result of the budget the legislature passed in February to deal with a $42 billion deficit. Since the budget was fashioned back in January – February, the deficit has grown, some say higher than $50 billion, so this budget doesn’t even actually solve the whole budget shortfall to date. The Ojai Valley Democrats met on Monday, April 27th and we discussed in depth and voted on our recommendations, the following is what we decided.

In talking about the California budget, a little background is in order. Because of the 2/3 rules in the legislature, the Republicans have inordinate power over the budget process in California. We are continually witness to long, knock-down, drag-out fights over the budget due to the extreme power of the minority party in all things having to do with budgets or taxes. The 2/3 rules hold that a 2/3’s majority of the legislature, both in the Assembly and in the Senate, must vote to raise taxes or pass a budget. It is important in any discussion of the 2/3 rules that one understands that there are actually two rules that need to be addressed: 2/3 for passing a budget and 2/3 for taxation authority. This doesn’t get all that much attention in years where we are not experiencing a deficit, but as we are all aware, this year is different. Indeed, it is possibly so different that we have not seen its like in 70 – 80 years. This time around the minority party, the Republicans, pushed their recalcitrance so far that many publicly funded projects had to be stopped back in January before they voted on this deeply flawed budget which requires the approval of the citizens of this State via a vote on propositions 1A-F.

1A seeks to put an arbitrary cap on spending, similar to what the Governor wanted with Prop 76. It is written in such a way that it is not a straight-up cap, but the effect it would have were it to pass is the same. Of all the propositions, this is the biggest one and it is unacceptable. The Ojai Valley Democrats voted unanimously for a NO vote on 1A.

1B is a $9 billion dollar one-time giveaway to get the California Teacher’s Association’s support for 1A. 1B will run out by about 2014. 1A on the other hand will be a permanent feature or the Constitution and it will ensure that California’s schools will continue to be underfunded into the future. The feeling during our discussion of this proposition was that we needed to vote for any and all funding for schools. The reality is, if 1A goes down to defeat, 1B will never be funded and will not happen. We have already made our recommendation that 1A be defeated, but as a form of insurance in case 1A somehow passes, we decided that 1B should be a Yes vote. Money for the schools is money for the schools, even if it is a one time bribe. The Ojai Valley Democrats voted for a YES vote on 1B with only one member voting no.

1C has been referred to as a “Payday loan” which seeks to “securitize” future lottery revenues. The idea is that we would be able to raise $5 billion dollars with these instruments. It’s worth noting that the number one financier of this proposition is the manufacturer of the lottery ticket machines. The Ojai Valley Democrats voted unanimously for a NO vote on 1C.

1D and 1E are an insult, pure and simple.

In 1998 we voted on Proposition 10 that funded the First Five program which provides “educational and health care programs for children under 5 whose families are otherwise unable to afford those services.”(from the blog Calitics) This proposition accomplished these worthy goals by taxing tobacco sales.

In 2004 we passed Prop 63 to address the disastrous underfunding of mental health services in this state ever since Ronald Reagan was Governor. Prop 63 created “a 1% surcharge on incomes over $1 million”(Calitics) to accomplish this worthy goal.

Both of these programs have been extremely successful and they both have their own sources of funding. They even run slight surpluses. 1D and 1E are blatant raids on these two successful programs. The legislature, hamstrung by the 2/3 rules, is desperate to find revenue anywhere they can. They have targeted the “reserves” that these two VERY successful programs are supposed to have. Robbing both of these program’s “reserves” would only provide about $1 billion dollars to the general fund; this at the expense of the mentally ill and young children. Ojai Valley Democrats voted unanimously for a NO vote on 1D. The Ojai Valley Democrats voted unanimously for a NO vote on 1E

1F would block any pay raises for elected officials if the budget were in deficit. It’s hard to argue with that. Of course, this would have a vanishingly small impact on the overall budget. It’s actually kind of ridiculous when we are contemplating a $50 billion dollar budget shortfall. The Ojai Valley Democrats voted for a YES vote on 1F with only one member voting no.

Now, if the vote goes as we recommend statewide, it is important to realize that the legislature will be right back where it was in January when they were fighting with the minority party for a budget. The difference will be that the deficit will have grown even bigger. The Republicans will renew their threats to drive the whole state off the cliff. I wouldn’t be surprised if the bridge project on the East End of Ojai gets stopped again, along with all state funded construction projects. There is even a very ugly possibility of California defaulting and going bankrupt.

The real culprits in this situation are the 2/3 rules that give inordinate, undemocratic power to the minority party. We need to stand up and point the finger at the Republicans and dare them to destroy the largest economy in the entire United States. If they choose this incredibly irresponsible option, we need to hold them accountable by any legal means necessary. These may include recall proceedings on reckless, recalcitrant Republican Senators who vote NO and refuse to compromise on their already demonstrably failed ideology. Further, we need to target the 2/3 rules and eliminate their undemocratic influences. It is irrational to cling to the failed anti-tax, free-market ideology of the likes Grover Norquist. Our own State Senator, Tony Strickland, won his Senate seat by the thinnest of margins, yet he ignored at least 50% of his constituency and stood against passing a reasonable budget. He and his cohorts are asking us to change our Constitution with these propositions because they refuse to deal responsibly with the budget. How much longer should we allow this type of bullying? How much longer will we countenance the 2/3 rules on budgets and on taxation authority to the detriment of our state?

___________________
1A – NO
1B – YES
1C – NO
1D – NO
1E – NO
1F – YES
___________________

On Friday, May 22, Venturans for a Just Palestine will present a fundraiser and forum hosted by Cynthia McKinney, who was on board the ship Dignity,  the Free Gaza Movement’s humanitarian aide boat loaded with three tons of medical supplies, when it was deliberately rammed in the dead of night and left to sink by Israeli gunboats.  The incident occurred when the ship was still in international waters.

The “Let Gaza Live!” fundraiser will begin at 5:00 p.m. on Friday, May 22nd at the North Oxnard United Methodist Church, 2300 Gonzales in Oxnard.  There will be a dinner featuring Arabic food and music before the educational forum presented by McKinney, Palestinian Muna Coobtee of the National Council of Arab-Americans, Yael Korin and Paul Hershfield, co-founders of the Campaign to End Israeli Apartheid, and other speakers.

Tickets for the benefit and forum are $30 at the door or $25 purchased in advance.  Price for the forum only is $10, with no one turned away for lack of funds.  Tickets can be purchased by calling (805) 643-6864 or (805)641-9033 or by e-mail at ventura4ajustpalestine@gmail.com.

WHERE:  Thousand Oaks Inn

            75 West Thousand Oaks Blvd.

            Thousand Oaks, CA  91360

            (Behind Dupar’s)
 

COST:       $12 per person for Buffet Lunch (Pay at the door)  - Includes tax and gratuity

SPEAKER:    Dr. Michaela Crawford Reaves, Associate Professor at CLU

TOPIC:  “Social Gospel to Social Security:  Frances Perkins”

        Frances Perkins was the Secretary of Labor for the 12 years

        of Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency, and the first woman to hold

        a Cabinet post.  In light of the current economic situation, what

        better time to learn about Frances Perkins!

FOOD: 

Vegetable Lasagna

Chicken Cordon Bleu

Twice-baked mashed potatoes

Fresh grilled vegetables

Dinner Rolls

Dessert: Black Forest Cake  

Reservations are a must. Please  RSVP by Tuesday, May 19, 2009: 805-675-8785.

Clearly state your name, phone number, e-mail address and the number of people in your party.  Also call if you need to cancel.

Democratic Club of the Conejo Valley will be tabling at the Oaks Mall on May 16, 12-4 pm. Come on all you social types—we need you to help us register voters and persuade others to join our progressive movement. Contact Mary Freed at 805-795-3887.  To build our membership, please bring a friend to our meetings.

Organizing for America (OFA), the current incarnation of the amazing Obama political machine, staged an event in Ventura on Saturday afternoon, May 9th.  This event was part of what is being billed as “California Listening Tour Events,” which are mirrored across the nation.  The amibiguity of the title, suggesting as it does that the Obama administration is listening to us the people, was soon apparent: We were there primarily to listen to them and to propose ways in which we could support their agenda.  The OFA faithful are of course the same organizers who were so spectacularly successful in electing Barack Obama to the presidency.  Although there was mention of a connection to the Democratic National Committee, it looked a whole lot more like the separate political party it seems to be.

Event participants were divided into discussion groups, which is the stylized format for this sort of ersatz grass roots oganizing, and told to talk about  how “to take action locally in support of OFA’s mission,” to “think creatively about how we can illustrate and support our national organizing campaigns,” and to offer up the resources we “have in our community to assist our goals as OFA volunteers.”

Although, as with the Borg, resistance is futile, some of the discussion participants proffered notions about ways in which the Obama administration might honor his campaign promises. The OFA faithful, however, did their best to quash such suggestions.  Any outbursts about such subjects as single-payer health care were sternly dealt with by reiterating that we were there to support the OFA mission, not to suggest what it should be.  An inventor who had brought schematics for clean energy devices was told to put them away because we were there to support the OFA mission.  A genuine community organizer who had years of experience with programs providing low-cost housing and shelters for the homeless and the mentally ill suggested that one approach might be for the current administration to support existing community programs, but this bit of common sense did not qualify as support of the OFA mission.

These Obamania events are certainly interesting phenomena, but they are also vaguely disquieting in their similarities to other paths taken by the zealous, and where they have lead.

Community service is a dominant theme in the Obama administration, and the organic garden on the White House lawn points up one form such service can take.  In Oxnard an enthusiastic group of experienced gardeners, peace activists, political progressives, church members, permaculture proponents, City Corps teens, and assorted others have coalesced into diggers and planters, weeders and waterers, who are converting an acre of open field adjoining the North Oxnard Unified Methodist Church on Gonzales into a community garden.  Unlike projects in which garden plots are parceled out to individuals, this garden has been designed according the precepts of permaculture, a gardening plan in which space is shared by different varieties of fruits and vegetables for more efficient land use, and in which the gardeners work together, taking up whatever tasks need doing.

Produce from the garden project will provide the Ventura County Food Bank and the local Mixteca community with organic fruits and vegetables.  Mixtecas will also have garden space to grow the medicinal herbs favored in their culture.  Work in the garden takes place any time people show up, but is particularly scheduled on Tuesday afternoons from 4:00 to sundown and Saturdays from 9:00 to 3:00.  Anyone who wishes to participate is urged to join in.

Funding for the garden is through donations.  A Progressive Film Series to benefit the garden project is being sponsored by Progressive Democrats of the Central Coast and by Ironweed Films.  The first film, The Corporation, was shown on Friday, May 8th at the church. A raffle for 12 documentary DVD’s donated by Ironweed Films was won by Vern Norvstrup who donated them to the church library.  Proceeds from the film showing and raffle were donated to the garden project.  The next film, Microcosmos, a visually stunning exploration of nature at its smallest, will be presented on Friday, June 5th.  The film series is an opportunity for community members to enjoy great documentary films and pay the water bill for the garden at the same time.

I attended the California Democratic Convention this past weekend of April 24 through 26, in Sacramento. There was much electioneering on both sides of Proposition 1A as well as several groups with a focus on each of the propositions, especially 1 B, 1D, and 1 E. Labor unions in attendance were on both sides of 1 A, particularly SEIU against and the California Teachers Association in support. The arguments against 1 A were phrased as the “Republican tyranny” and “does not fix fundamental budget problems” and “removes flexibility from the budget process.” In favor of A simply as this “will save our state from going off the cliff economically” and “will save our public services,” “without 1A ’s passage, there will be billions of cuts in public services.”

Unanimously all Democratic leaders vociferously urged a vote in support of 1 A. During the debate, there were passionate and angry speeches pro and con. The result is reflected in voting which showed that less than two thirds of the voting delegates favored Proposition 1A, with the endorsements set out below from the California Democratic Party website: at

http://www.cadem.org/site/c.jrLZK2PyHmF/b.947937/k.CC3A/Home.htm

NEUTRAL — Proposition 1A State Budget. Changes California Budget Process. Limits State Spending. Increases “Rainy Day” Budget Stabilization Fund. SUPPORT — Proposition 1B Education Funding. Payment Plan.

SUPPORT — Proposition 1C Lottery Modernization Act. Issues bonds to be paid by future lottery funds.

NEUTRAL — Proposition 1D Protects Children’s Services Funding. Helps Balance State Budget.

NEUTRAL — Proposition 1E Mental Health Services Funding. Temporary Reallocation. Helps Balance State Budget.

SUPPORT — Proposition 1F Elected Officials’ Salaries. Prevents Pay Increases During Budget Deficit Years.

As of today, I decided to support Proposition 1 A and the others, actually except Proposition 1 F. I think the propositions are confusing and have decided to put some trust in the legislators that I know and trust: Senator Fran Pavley, Assemblymembers Julia Brownley and Pedro Nava, our own local representatives.

Once it happens we have to be ready to react to protect our main constituents, working people, the disabled, seniors, students, immigrants because the results will be very difficult no matter what happens.

Carmen Ramirez