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

Description and Background

In 2007 the Ventura County Democratic Central Committee officially recognized the Hon. Jack O’Connell’s service to Ventura County and the state of California. This year’s $1,000 scholarship will be awarded in the field of Public Service or Education at the Labor Day Picnic on September 7, to be held at Freedom Park in Camarillo.

After growing up in Oxnard, graduating from Oxnard High School, receiving his B.A. degree from California State University Fullerton (CSUF) and his secondary teaching credential from CSU Long Beach, Jack O’Connell returned to teach government classes at Oxnard High School. His political career began with his election to the Santa Barbara County School Board. Starting in 1982, Jack served six terms in the Assembly and was Speaker pro tem. He then was elected to two terms in the State Senate. He was elected as State Superintendent of Public Instruction in 2002 and overwhelmingly reelected in 2006. In 2007 he was inducted into the Ventura County Educators Hall of Fame. His lifetime commitment to education as a teacher, legislator, and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction makes Jack the ideal person to be honored by our scholarship program.

Eligibility and Requirements

• Resident of Ventura County
• Registered (or registration-in-process) for Fall Semester 2009 at any public college or state university in California
• Graduate of a Ventura County high school
• 3.0 GPA (do not send transcript, but it should be available on request)
• Registered Democrat or Intent to Register as a Democrat when eligible
• Career Goal: Public Education or Public Service
• The successful scholarship recipient will e-mail the Scholarship Committee a brief follow-up describing his/her college experience at the end of the first quarter/semester.

Application Procedure

Download the PDF on the 2009 JOC Scholarship link at www.venturacountydemocrats.com. Mail the application with the two letters of recommendation and your essay to:

VCDCC Scholarship Committee
P.O. Box 1587
Camarillo, CA 93011

Applications must be postmarked by July 17, 2009. (Please note that you may need to include extra postage.) If you need further information, please leave a message at 805-477-1777. Prospective recipients will be notified the first week of August and arrangements will be made for an interview. Following his or her selection, the winner will be honored at the Democratic Labor Day Picnic on September 7, 2009.

Download the Application.

On April 8th the club took up the issue of Proposition 1A on the May 19th ballot, which is, in fact, a constitutional amendment. Our speaker was Paul Chatman, President of the Ocean View School Board.

According to Paul, the language in the proposition is unclear, making an already complicated proposition more confusing. In essence, Proposition 1A does three things:

1- It requires that a percentage of state revenues be set aside each fiscal year in a “budget stabilization fund” (Rainy Day Fund) until the fund reaches 12.5% of the state general fund. (Note: Whether this would be done in a deficit year is unclear.) California already has a Reserve fund but 1A changes how large the fund must be and how, when and for what it can be used.

2- Prop 1A is presented as a spending cap because until the target amount in the Rainy Day fund is reached, the amount spent cannot exceed the budget from the previous year plus factors for inflation and population increase. Pending that outcome, the fund could only be used for emergencies (fire, earthquake, etc.) or bond repayments and repayments of funds to Education, which latter caveat ties it to Proposition 1B, a repayment formula to begin in 2011. Even if 1B passes, it cannot be implemented if 1A fails. In addition, 1A does not actually limit state expenditures from other pots of money or other tax or fee increases.

3- Prop 1A extends for 1-2 years the recently passed two-year-only tax increases: the state income tax increase of .25% is extended thru the 2012 tax year; the vehicle license fee increase which went to 1.15% of vehicle value through 2013; the 1% sales tax increase through 2012.

Chatman made other important points. He says that 1A extends the piecemeal budgeting for which California is infamous, that it is really a short term fix, which is again typical of California’s budget process, and that it ties the hands of subsequent governors and legislatures. He indicated that the reasons for this are first, that term limits mean present members of the legislature have no reason to care how these “fixes” affect the maneuverability of their successors. Second, the prevalence of safe districts leads to fewer moderates on either side and third, the need for a 2/3 majority to pass a budget means a minority of legislators can hold the budget hostage. This, in turn, leads to the kind of ballot box budgeting represented by the May 19th propositions.

At the same time, we know that California is in dire straights. The Rainy Day fund established by Proposition 1A, and 1B would, beginning in 2011, restore most of the educational funding by directing that 1.5% of the fund go to education. The proponents claim it would stabilize the budget process and ensure the state puts aside money for “a rainy day” and does not spend wildly in good revenue years.

Because of its complications, the fact that it locks in formulas in a constitutional amendment that is difficult for the electorate alone to change, because it does nothing to address problems like the need for infrastructure spending and because it does nothing to address the dysfunctional budget process itself, many of the usual political allies are split on whether to support it or not. The California Teachers’ Association supports it. School administrators also support it. But the California Federation of Teachers opposes it as does a large faction of SEIU and the League of Women Voters.

A lively discussion following Paul’s presentation made it clear that the GOOD Club is, so far, also of two minds on Propositions 1A (and the other ballot measures). At the May 13th meeting we will hear more about it from Scott Frisch who will also address the other propositions.

by Ruth Capelle and Lauraine Effress

On April 8th the club took up the issue of Proposition 1A on the May 19th ballot, which is, in fact, a constitutional amendment. Our speaker was Paul Chatman, President of the Ocean View School Board.

According to Paul, the language in the proposition is unclear, making an already complicated proposition more confusing. In essence, Proposition 1A does three things:

1- It requires that a percentage of state revenues be set aside each fiscal year in a “budget stabilization fund” (Rainy Day Fund) until the fund reaches 12.5% of the state general fund. (Note: Whether this would be done in a deficit year is unclear.) California already has a Reserve fund but 1A changes how large the fund must be and how, when and for what it can be used.

2- Prop 1A is presented as a spending cap because until the target amount in the Rainy Day fund is reached, the amount spent cannot exceed the budget from the previous year plus factors for inflation and population increase. Pending that outcome, the fund could only be used for emergencies (fire, earthquake, etc.) or bond repayments and repayments of funds to Education, which latter caveat ties it to Proposition 1B, a repayment formula to begin in 2011. Even if 1B passes, it cannot be implemented if 1A fails. In addition, 1A does not actually limit state expenditures from other pots of money or other tax or fee increases.

3- Prop 1A extends for 1-2 years the recently passed two-year-only tax increases: the state income tax increase of .25% is extended thru the 2012 tax year; the vehicle license fee increase which went to 1.15% of vehicle value through 2013; the 1% sales tax increase through 2012.

Chatman made other important points. He says that 1A extends the piecemeal budgeting for which California is infamous, that it is really a short term fix, which is again typical of California’s budget process, and that it ties the hands of subsequent governors and legislatures. He indicated that the reasons for this are first, that term limits mean present members of the legislature have no reason to care how these “fixes” affect the maneuverability of their successors. Second, the prevalence of safe districts leads to fewer moderates on either side and third, the need for a 2/3 majority to pass a budget means a minority of legislators can hold the budget hostage. This, in turn, leads to the kind of ballot box budgeting represented by the May 19th propositions.

At the same time, we know that California is in dire straights. The Rainy Day fund established by Proposition 1A, and 1B would, beginning in 2011, restore most of the educational funding by directing that 1.5% of the fund go to education. The proponents claim it would stabilize the budget process and ensure the state puts aside money for “a rainy day” and does not spend wildly in good revenue years.

Because of its complications, the fact that it locks in formulas in a constitutional amendment that is difficult for the electorate alone to change, because it does nothing to address problems like the need for infrastructure spending and because it does nothing to address the dysfunctional budget process itself, many of the usual political allies are split on whether to support it or not. The California Teachers’ Association supports it. School administrators also support it. But the California Federation of Teachers opposes it as does a large faction of SEIU and the League of Women Voters.

A lively discussion following Paul’s presentation made it clear that the GOOD Club is, so far, also of two minds on Propositions 1A (and the other ballot measures). At the May 13th meeting we will hear more about it from Scott Frisch who will also address the other propositions.

by Ruth Capelle and Lauraine Effress

The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 will provide $787 billion to
provide a historic opportunity to stimulate the economy and improve education. On 2/24/09
President Obama stated, “In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell
is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity, it is a
prerequisite. The countries that out teach us today, will out compete tomorrow.” The
Federal Government has earmarked over $100 billion to be invested in education over a
two year period. On April 1, $44 billion were released to governors to provide support
at the local level for stabilization and student programs. In addition, this summer and
Fall, another $49 billion will enhance programs such as Pell grants, Title 1, technology,
vocational rehab, teacher quality and incentive funds.
How will this affect a local high school district such as ours? Consider that the
guiding principles of stimulus money as directed by the Department of Education in
Washington include to spend the money quickly and create jobs, ensure transparency and
accountability, invest one time funds without incurring continuous costs, and advance
effective educational reform. Sacramento has cut education since 2002. They have funded
local agencies with a deficient factor. An example of a factor is that in 2008, the OUHSD
was funded at 92%. Local districts had to make up the shortfall. OUHSD will receive $8.3
million from the Feds for two years. Most of this money is restricted. In order to keep
jobs, the district must use Impact Aid money. This fund totals $5.5 million for 2009.
After all the cuts from 2002 to the present, our local agency must cut at least another
$3 million for 2009-2010.Oxnard Union High School District has over 16,000 students and
1600 employees, with an operating budget of $135 million.
These are historic times and far-reaching decisions will have to be made. School Districts
are in the process of improving revenue. I will try and research another source of income
for the state, the oil extraction tax, that passed both the senate and the assembly on
12/08/2008 and ascertain if this tax could help balance the budget.
Dick Jaquez

The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 will provide $787 billion to
provide a historic opportunity to stimulate the economy and improve education. On 2/24/09
President Obama stated, “In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell
is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity, it is a
prerequisite. The countries that out teach us today, will out compete tomorrow.” The
Federal Government has earmarked over $100 billion to be invested in education over a
two year period. On April 1, $44 billion were released to governors to provide support
at the local level for stabilization and student programs. In addition, this summer and
Fall, another $49 billion will enhance programs such as Pell grants, Title 1, technology,
vocational rehab, teacher quality and incentive funds.
How will this affect a local high school district such as ours? Consider that the
guiding principles of stimulus money as directed by the Department of Education in
Washington include to spend the money quickly and create jobs, ensure transparency and
accountability, invest one time funds without incurring continuous costs, and advance
effective educational reform. Sacramento has cut education since 2002. They have funded
local agencies with a deficient factor. An example of a factor is that in 2008, the OUHSD
was funded at 92%. Local districts had to make up the shortfall. OUHSD will receive $8.3
million from the Feds for two years. Most of this money is restricted. In order to keep
jobs, the district must use Impact Aid money. This fund totals $5.5 million for 2009.
After all the cuts from 2002 to the present, our local agency must cut at least another
$3 million for 2009-2010.Oxnard Union High School District has over 16,000 students and
1600 employees, with an operating budget of $135 million.
These are historic times and far-reaching decisions will have to be made. School Districts
are in the process of improving revenue. I will try and research another source of income
for the state, the oil extraction tax, that passed both the senate and the assembly on
12/08/2008 and ascertain if this tax could help balance the budget.
Dick Jaquez

Title: Progressive Film Series: \”The Corporation\”
Location: North Oxnard United Methodist Church, 2300 W. Gonzales Rd., Oxnard
Description: This must-see Canadian documentary puts the reigning institution of our time, the corporation, on the psychiatrist\’s couch. Diagnosis: criminal psychopath.
Start Time: 19:00
Date: 2009-05-08

Title: Progressive Film Series: \”The Corporation\”
Location: North Oxnard United Methodist Church, 2300 W. Gonzales Rd., Oxnard
Description: This must-see Canadian documentary puts the reigning institution of our time, the corporation, on the psychiatrist\’s couch. Diagnosis: criminal psychopath.
Start Time: 19:00
Date: 2009-05-08

There’s really nothing like taking Republican callers on a radio show: sure, the monumental stupidity burns something awful, but sometimes you can get real moments of clarity. One of those moments came today during my weekly radio show today on KVTA 1520, as caller after conservative caller applied the logic of household budgets to the disaster that is the state budget.

There’s this consistent talking point in right-wing circles about “responsibility” when it comes to the state budget. Specifically, people feel that if they can balance their own expenditures and income in a checkbook, that the CA Legislature should be able to do the same. It stands to reason, in their minds, that if they’re going into more and more debt every month, they have to cut back on expenses–and therefore, by analogy, the Legislature should be forced to do likewise.

The problem is that government isn’t a household we live in: it’s a product we pay for. We can collectively spend as much as we want on it. Unlike a household budget, the overall income isn’t fixed: it’s up to us as citizens to determine the price we are willing to pay. Government exists to provide for the public safety, and to provide services that would be impossible or too expensive to pay for individually. As a people, we have a choice in the marketplace of government services: we can choose to drive a broken-down beater, or we can choose to drive a nice car that will reliably get us from point A to point B. When we as a people go to the ballot box, what we’re doing is going to the government store to, in essence, choose the government we want to buy.

Instead of looking at each party as a budget manager, it’s really more appropriate to look at them at car salespeople. By electing 63% of the legislature to be Democrats, the people of California have spoken: we choose to have a quality–and by and large, we choose to pay for it. But because of the 2/3 rule, a small minority of Republicans are denying us our economic choice and forcing us to buy a lemon: we’re going to drive a broken-down beater, they insist, and they’ll blow up the car if we say otherwise.

Of course, the only reason we’re in this position in the first place is the rank irresponsibility of Republicans for the last three decades, who have managed to convince just enough voters that we just strip out a few options and do the financing right, we can drive that dream car we’ve always wanted at bargain basement prices. Pretty soon the car breaks down or gets repossessed–but hey, we saved a few bucks in the meantime! The issue at hand isn’t a question of responsible vs. irresponsible budget managers; it’s about honest brokers vs. charlatan scam artists on the marketplace of government services.

There’s really nothing like taking Republican callers on a radio show: sure, the monumental stupidity burns something awful, but sometimes you can get real moments of clarity. One of those moments came today during my weekly radio show today on KVTA 1520, as caller after conservative caller applied the logic of household budgets to the disaster that is the state budget.

There’s this consistent talking point in right-wing circles about “responsibility” when it comes to the state budget. Specifically, people feel that if they can balance their own expenditures and income in a checkbook, that the CA Legislature should be able to do the same. It stands to reason, in their minds, that if they’re going into more and more debt every month, they have to cut back on expenses–and therefore, by analogy, the Legislature should be forced to do likewise.

The problem is that government isn’t a household we live in: it’s a product we pay for. We can collectively spend as much as we want on it. Unlike a household budget, the overall income isn’t fixed: it’s up to us as citizens to determine the price we are willing to pay. Government exists to provide for the public safety, and to provide services that would be impossible or too expensive to pay for individually. As a people, we have a choice in the marketplace of government services: we can choose to drive a broken-down beater, or we can choose to drive a nice car that will reliably get us from point A to point B. When we as a people go to the ballot box, what we’re doing is going to the government store to, in essence, choose the government we want to buy.

Instead of looking at each party as a budget manager, it’s really more appropriate to look at them at car salespeople. By electing 63% of the legislature to be Democrats, the people of California have spoken: we choose to have a quality–and by and large, we choose to pay for it. But because of the 2/3 rule, a small minority of Republicans are denying us our economic choice and forcing us to buy a lemon: we’re going to drive a broken-down beater, they insist, and they’ll blow up the car if we say otherwise.

Of course, the only reason we’re in this position in the first place is the rank irresponsibility of Republicans for the last three decades, who have managed to convince just enough voters that we just strip out a few options and do the financing right, we can drive that dream car we’ve always wanted at bargain basement prices. Pretty soon the car breaks down or gets repossessed–but hey, we saved a few bucks in the meantime! The issue at hand isn’t a question of responsible vs. irresponsible budget managers; it’s about honest brokers vs. charlatan scam artists on the marketplace of government services.