Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period.
* The San Diego Republican Central Committee booted out one of its members for helping state GOP chair Ron Nehring trying to cover up his domestic violence problems.
All day I've been hearing reports that the effort to put two initiatives on the November ballot allowing voters to call a Constitutional Convention is either dying or dead. According to an email John Grubb of Repair California sent out to his list just a few minutes ago, the effort is indeed in trouble, needing an infusion of cash to stay alive:
Success is tantalizingly close. This week about 100 people were working full-time collecting signatures from our fellow Californians to put the question of the Convention on the ballot. With funding we can ramp up to 400 people. We are running a lean campaign with many volunteers and others working almost for free because they believe in the mission of the campaign and refuse to let California fail. Given our trends, this week alone, approximately 100,000 voters will put their name on a petition to enable the Convention to be called. Fairly incredible.
That said, we still have to pay rent on our offices across the state, meet payroll and print petitions for registered voters to sign. Our overall budget is $3.6 million to qualify the Convention for the ballot, a small amount considering the normal $60 million cost of a full ballot measure campaign. Donation by donation we are getting there, but not fast enough.
We are about to start spending more than we are taking in and our costs are going to grow. Without more funding, the campaign will need to end and with it, the possibility of a Convention.
Grubb goes on to tell the story of Robert Morris, a financier in colonial America who stepped in to fund and equip the Continental Army in the winter of 1776 at a moment of desperation. Grubb would like a similar wealthy white knight to appear to help fund the Con-Con campaign, but that appears unlikely.
Both Joe Mathews and John Myers are reporting that Repair California has indeed "paused" its campaign efforts as they await more funds. So far they have taken in $500,000 but have budgeted $3.6 million for the signature-gathering effort.
This news comes in the wake of reports that the signature gathering cartel has blacklisted the Con-Con petitions, making it more difficult to get the 1.2 million signatures each initiative needed to qualify for the ballot. The cartel wanted to drive up the price per signature, and Repair California didn't want to pay it.
I've been pretty critical of the Con-Con proposal as it finally emerged, but have always argued that the biggest obstacle was the broken political system itself. If the Con-Con does indeed fail to make the ballot, it would be further proof that California's political system is too badly broken to repair itself. What that portends for the future is, of course, both unclear and very deeply troubling.
UPDATE:Grubb tells KQED that the campaign can survive another 30 days, so "dead" seems to be vastly overstating matters:
The following are quote is from Grubb to my KQED colleague, Cy Musiker: "We put a pause on our signature gathering. We still have plenty of time to do it. But we're trying to wait for our funding to catch up." Grubb said that so far, they've only gathered about 100,000 signatures... a small fraction of what's needed to qualify the two initiatives (one would allow voters to call a convention, the second would actually call the convention). He also said that they can continue with "reduced" staff for another 30 days before officially calling it quits.
Today seems to be the big day to make a media blitz of sorts for the plan to repeal AB 32. Take this choice morsel from the Senate Republican caucus in their email "briefing report":
The term "global warming" has recently shifted to "climate change" (thus allowing the alarmists to blame any change in weather/climate on humans). Few deny that climate change exists; change is a defining characteristic of climate. Whether mankind causes climate change and has the ability to overcome natural forces to stop it is another story. It should be remembered that CO2 is a gas that occurs naturally in the atmosphere. It is exhaled by humans, and is absorbed by trees and plants to produce oxygen, is not toxic and in fact, is essential to life on earth. The growing body of evidence suggests that CO2 impact on climate change is marginal (if there is an impact at all). Additionally, it has been revealed that much of the data to support AGW heretofore has been manipulated, skewed and compromised to support a highly politicized environmental-industrial complex. The scientific "consensus" of AGW does not exist. The state ignores this reality at its own peril.
Except, oh, right consesus does exist. It is called the 2007 IPCC report, a report that surveyed all the literature, a great deal of scientists, and a whole mess of data. To quote the IPCC:
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
The Republicans counter back with some junk science bought and paid for by the oil companies, and just try to muddy up the waters enough so that they can pretend that the consensus is just a bunch of nerdy eggheads who don't step outside. Meanwhile, the Sacramento Bee has a profile of Asm. Dan Logue, who is shepherding the AB 32 through the initiative process. After they get done with their comparisons of Logue to Peter Falk's Columbo (the visual similarity is kind of hard to miss), they move on to the thornier issue for Logue: he hasn't the resources to get this measure off the ground.
But Logue has not yet started gathering signatures and his drive is gasping for money - lots of it. He says he has $600,000 in commitments, but none has been collected, and $1 million more is needed. (SacBee)
Logue is facing a very steep battle here. There are many industry groups opposed to repeal, and the CalChamber has yet to come out either way. But, in terms of money, Logue is going to face the biggest test there. You see, Arnold Schwarzenegger views AB 32 as central to his legacy in California. Repeal would be the complete repudiation of what little big change he has accomplished in the state. You can be sure that Arnold will do his damndest to ensure that no big donors give to this POS.
No doubt that there is a lot of right-wing craziness out there right now. And they are certainly itching for a fight on AB 32, but whether this actually gets on the ballot to be considered, let alone passing, is an open question. Nonetheless, if you care about the climate change issue, the November 2010 election could be critical with or without this repeal. Meg Whitman has already signaled her intention to suspend AB 32 as soon as she gets a chance. The right-wingers have two cracks at the apple here, and only one needs to succeed to set our state back from our position as a leader on the fight against climate change.
Oh, and just as a toss-away in the Logue story, and a fact worth knowing about the man, the Bee mentions one of his big achievements as a Yuba County Supervisor: attracting a Wal-Mart to Marysville. I'm sure the local businesses sincerely appreciated his efforts.
Well, CTA didn't take on Prop 13, but this isn't a bad start:
On Sunday, delegates for the 325,000 member union voted to back initiatives to rescind corporate tax breaks (see initiatives #1412 and #1375), passed a year ago under cover of darkness, that eventually will cut state revenues by an estimated $1.7 billion. Backing up its vote with dollars, the CTA has committed $587,000 to gather 434,000 signatures needed to put it on the ballot. (Educated Guess)
In a time of economic chaos, why would we start with tax breaks for corporations? Good on CTA for pushing on this issue. It should be a crowd-pleaser for the left, and it seems like it should stand a good shot of passing in November. For now anyway, CTA has taken the safe route.
At the same time, they had prepared initiatives to increase the property tax rate on commercial real estate and to allow real estate values of commercial real estate to float. In other words, they were trying to split the tax roles. That measure would be much more expensive to pass, and the Cal Chamber and their cronies would fight that like a dog.
This measure, on the other hand, is a populist measure. It's hard to imagine the advertising campaign that you'd be able to say would surely defeat this one. Possible to defeat, of course. But if we're betting straight up, I'd put my money on Yes.
Keep a look out for the petitions, CTA should have no problem gathering the 700,000 or so signatures they'll need to be safe for this one getting on the ballot.
But this goes beyond Postmus's personal problems. He, and a cabal operating out of the San Bernardino Board of Supervisors, allegedly used their office to secure bribes of several hundred thousand dollars in exchange for voting to authorize a $102 million land settlement with Colonies, a developer.
Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael A. Ramos today announced the filing of criminal charges against former Chairman of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors William Postmus and James Erwin, former Chief of Staff to Supervisor Neil Derry, on "conspiracy, corruption and bribery" charges related to a $102 million land-development settlement paid by San Bernardino County.
The complaint alleges that Erwin took $100,000 for inducing the Board of Supervisors to pay $102 million of taxpayer's money to Colonies, a development company, in a fraudulent settlement and that Postmus took a $100,000 bribe for his vote to approve it. If convicted of all charges, Erwin faces a maximum of twelve years in state prison, and Postmus faces a maximum of eight years in state prison.
***
The complaint alleges those votes were obtained as part of a broad conspiracy which involved extortion and bribery, culminating in acts of public corruption that cost San Bernardino taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. The investigation uncovered four bribes totalling $400,000 paid by the Colonies to secure the settlement. (AG Press Release)
The whole tale is very sordid. The press release and the complaint (PDF ) are definitely worth a skimming. Even the SB County Young Republicans were in on the racket.
Public corruption is a terrible crime, no matter if it's a sketchy Republican like Postmus or William Jefferson. It erodes the faith of the people, and makes the country more difficult to govern. It steals from us all, and loots the money intended to serve the community. In this case, the corruption stole millions from the parks, schools, and other important county programs.
Congrats to the AG's office and to SB DA Mike Ramos. If he is able to win a statewide primary, that guy is going to be a strong Republican candidate for whatever office he chooses to pursue.
Remember all those experts who were scared of appearing on YouTube? Well, I don't know if they knew this when they were lining up to be deposed, but depositions become part of the public record, and fortunately for us, we have said depositions. And even more helpfully, we have clips on YouTube of Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, you know the people who believe that men are constantly and subtly being discriminated against.
Anyway, these folks go around doing expert testimony for social conservative causes. Apparently hiding their faces while doing so. Perhaps Paul Nathanson should have hidden more than his face during the Iowa same-sex marriage, Varnum V. Brien, and just gone mute. It would have done more benefit for the opponents of marriage equality. Nathanson's testimony Varnum was so ridiculous that the court struck it from the record stating that his testimony was "not based on observation supported by scientific methodology or . . . on empirical research in any sense."
Forgetting my legal training, and just looking at a quick behavioral and textual reading of this testimony, it is clear that neither of these two witnesses would have done a lick of good for the Prop 8 defense. As we go through these clips, you'll know exactly what I mean. Let's start with Paul Nathanson (transcript here):
Q - Let's try to break that down into two parts. First, you recognize that gay couples are today raising children, correct?
A - Yes.
Q - And you believe that enabling those gay couples to marry would enhance their ability to be good parents to the chi-
A - Yes.
Basically, this guy admits something that David Blankenhorn ended up admitting on the stand: lack of marriage equality harms children being raised by LGBT parents. While the defense completely failed to prove that there was any damage whatsoever from marriage equality on the children of straight parents, over and over again, event the defense's own witnesses acknowledged that there was real and serious harm done to not only LGBT couples, but their families. Meanwhile, Nathanson is looking unhappy and snippy. All in all, he was just another Blankenhorn debacle waiting to happen. And, I think even the defense would privately admit that could have gone better.
And Katherine Young would not have been much better. See the thing is that with these scientists, they've actually read these studies, and understand the background. This is where Boies picked apart Prof. Miller. Miller had to eventually admit that his position was contrary to the great bulk of research in the field. And Miller's testimony, at its best, could only go to a small portion of what they were trying to show. Young wound up admitting a gold mine's worth in her deposition. It's almost hard to pick out selections from the transcript of Young's deposition.
Q - My question is, is it your view that because something was the norm in the past, it should be continued in the future? ...
A - Just because something is a norm, it doesn't necessarily mean it is an appropriate norm, and it has to then be reassessed in the contemporary context to see if t norm should remain.
***
Q - And you believe that allowing gay couples to marry will increase the durability of those gay couples relationships, correct?
A - Okay. I'll say yes.
***
Q - Okay. And increasing the durability of those relationships is beneficial to the children that they're raising, correct?
A - On that one factor, yes.
While Young does come across looking annoyed, she doesn't seem quite so smug as Blankenhorn and Nathanson, so point for her on that. However, the factual admissions she makes were just too much for the Prop 8 defense to consider putting her on the stand.
At any rate, both Nathanson and Young hardly look fearful of appearing either on YouTube or on the witness stand. This was a purely tactical decision masquerading as something else. After all, they have written several books together about how men are an oppressed minority, they are hardly afraid of spouting controversial opinions in public. The reason these two didn't testify has nothing to do with being scared, and everything to do with the fact that they were simply bad witnesses.
There have been few more vocal and persistent critics of Senator Abel Maldonado than this site, myself in particular. As one of his constituents I have always regretted the fact that he (theoretically) represents me in the State Senate, and have eagerly awaited the day when the Central Coast could replace him with someone who better reflects our values, like John Laird.
In fact, it's my strong dislike of Maldonado and his conservative politics that partly explains my support for his nomination to fill the vacant post of Lt. Governor. As we all learned a year ago, Maldonado has done massive damage to the state from his post in the Senate. His blackmail led to the removal of some needed tax solutions from the budget, and wound up placing the top-two primary on the June ballot, Prop 14, which if approved will increase the power of corporate money in Democratic primary elections.
My opposition to Maldonado and his politics leads me to conclude that the deal being placed on the table for Democrats - that we should confirm him to a short stint as Lt. Governor in exchange for the opportunity to win back a blue district represented by a right-wing Senator and help achieve a 2/3rds majority - is a deal we absolutely ought to take. Calitics said as much in our open letter to the Senate Democrats in November when the nomination was announced. And we stand by it.
Not all Democrats agree. Several Democratic Assemblymembers are pledging to block Maldonado's nomination, with Pedro Nava being perhaps the most outspoken. Late last night, Nava sent an email to his list pointing out Maldonado's flawed and out-of-touch politics and asking people to contact their legislators to block Maldonado's confirmation:
Right now, I want to share with you an urgent matter facing California. Recently, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger nominated Senator Abel Maldonado to fill the vacancy of Lieutenant Governor, a mere heartbeat away from the Governor's office. It is vital to the future of California that we do not confirm a candidate whose record does not reflect our state's values.
The state legislature must now determine whether or not to confirm Senator Maldonado. This means that your local Assemblymembers and Senators will be voting on his appointment this week. I urge you to take action now to oppose Senator Maldonado's confirmation by contacting your legislators.
Senator Maldonado voted against legislation to protect consumers, healthcare coverage, the environment and the rights of women, seniors and workers. These issues are of great significance to Californians and Senator Maldonado's views simply do not represent everyday working families.
The email also included a link to an an exhaustive list of Maldonado's votes on key issues, illustrating his right-wing record.
Nava is absolutely right that Maldonado's "record does not reflect our state's values." Which would seem a pretty damn compelling reason to get him out of the Legislature and into an office with very little power, where he can do very little damage, and where he'll be subject to not one but two statewide votes this year (the Republican primary in June and the general election in November) where Californians can show they reject Maldonado's values by rejecting Maldonado himself.
Democrats should not be afraid of Maldonado. Dean Florez, Janice Hahn, and even Gavin Newsom were he to jump into the LG race could beat Maldonado. In exchange, Democrats can make Monterey County ground zero in the fight for 2/3rds in the State Senate. California Democrats should be in the business of expanding the field of opportunities to win more seats and enact our agenda, not hiding in fear of a Latino Republican deeply unpopular with his own party base.
Further, Democratic Assemblymembers have every reason to want to see Maldonado out of the Senate. In the last year or so, the Assembly has generally produced better policies and votes on issues such as offshore drilling and the state budget. The Assembly has had to fight rear-guard actions against things the Senate has foisted upon them - but that could come to an end if Dems win a 2/3rds majority in the Senate.
So I don't really understand why Nava is so fired up about blocking Maldonado's nomination. I share Nava's outrage at Abel's politics, but confirming him still seems like the most obvious thing in the world to do right now.
* Sarah Palin made a stop in California, and had enough time to thumb her nose at scientists. Apparently, broad consensus on climate change isn't enough for her. She needs they apocalypse to occur before she'll consider climate change real. In which case she'll be called up to heaven, natch, so it won't much matter to her.
* Jim Lacy, Dana Point right-winger extraordinaire, is busy these days. He's trying to recall Asm. Diane Harkey for some ethics issues. I'm sure it's not that hard to find something juicy on Harkey. And in his spare time, he's working on an Impeach Obama site. Fun Stuff!
One of the reasons that many minority groups opposed Prop 11 in 2008 was because they worried that minority voices would not be heard. The Prop 11 folks offered many reasons why that wouldn't be the case, yet when you peruse the numbers, there's not much to be encouraged about there. Some things that jump out:
* White men are vastly over-represented. Despite the fact that white men represent less than 25% of California, they are over 50% of the pool of qualified applicants. 52.3% to be precise.
* Republicans are also over-represented. They're nearly 40% of the qualified applicants. Far more than Democrats, despite the registration advantage for Democrats
* Asians, Latinos and African-Americans are also under represented.
This panel is going to end up to be very expensive and be unrepresentative of the state as a whole. Yet, we are stuck with this system until we can repeal it. So, for the time being we need to make sure that we bring a robust and diverse mix of progressives into the application pool. The process for applying is relatively simple, but many activists will find they are disqualified. So, find some progressive friends, and make them apply.
The Deadline has been extended to February 16. That's ONE WEEK from today!
Here's the application site. Go there now, and tell all of your friends to go there. We desperately need more progressives on this panel. And hey Greens, how about it? Apply, it'll be a blast!
We are not going to say anything about that," Pugno said. ... "In many ways, the sponsors of Prop. 8 have been put at significant disadvantage throughout the case. Regardless of the reason for it."(SF Chronicle)
But, Andy Pugno had no reason to make the full-throated accusation. After all, his audience now is a more subdued one made up of judges. And, he doesn't need to rile up the base, after all, that's what the National Organization forAgainst Marriage (NOM) is for. And boy, do they have a doozy on their hands here. They hit all the points in a letter they sent out to their email list:
The letter, from NOM's Executive Director Brian Brown, reads pretty much the way you'd expect from NOM. There's Pugno's "we don't know if it's true, but he's really mean" line, but they quickly get to the red meat "activist" line:
We have no idea whether the report is true or not. But we do know one really big important fact about Judge Walker: He's been an amazingly biased and one-sided force throughout this trial, far more akin to an activist than a neutral referee. That's no secret at all.
I'll forgive Mr. Brown for missing my earlier post on what being a judge really means. While it sounds cute to say "neutral referee" or that they are "calling the balls and strikes," being a judge does require some judgment. It requires analysis that will vary from judge to judge. But don't worry, there's more to be horrified over:
But the most egregious, and damaging, of all of Judge Walker's rulings was his determination to violate federal rules to broadcast his show trial worldwide. The US Supreme Court eventually blocked Walker's efforts (and rapped his biased knuckles sharply!) finding that he improperly changed the rules "at the eleventh hour" in violation of federal law. (Unfortunately, however, but by the time the Supreme Court issued a permanent stay two days into trial, the supporters of Prop 8 had already lost two-thirds of their expert witnesses who feared retaliation from the publicity).
This is really the heart of where the pro-Prop 8 people are going with this. It's all about the YouTube. Their witnesses were so scared of appearing on YouTube that they couldn't possibly testify. Terrified, I tell you! But, when it comes down to it, what they were scared of was cross-examination. After seeing David Boies destroy both witnesses who did agree to hop on the stand, you can't blame them. Take LSU Professor Loren Marks. He doesn't seem so shy to appear on YouTube. Here's one of his appearances on the video sharing site.
You can go through their full original witness list here, and you won't find many wallflowers. You have Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young who together wrote a very public report in Canada about how society is now holding down men. Seriously, they wrote a book called Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men. And they've had no problem in running around to every possible open mic, camera, or group of accumulated sexists waiting to get the good news that they can go back to fighting for the rights of the downtrodden male gender.
And if you'd like, you can see clips from depositions of these folks on YouTube right now. If you watch those videos, you'll see that the reason that they were pulled from the witness has less to do with YouTube, and more to do with the testimony that they were prepared to give.
But this isn't really about the facts, is it? It's not about Judge Walker, and his sexuality. After all, you certainly didn't hear any complaints from either side about Ron George being straight. No, this is about NOM, and ProtectMarriage, and their ilk trying to do everything they can to play the public against the courts. They are setting this up for the next round. Oh, and trying to raise a few bucks along the road.
* Patty Berg is officially out of the Insurance Commissioner Race. She hadn't been really campaigning, and her campaign account shows less than $3,000. Her listed consultants are now informing reporters that she is officially out of the race.
There, I said it. Former Asm. John Laird is neither flashy nor overly charismatic. But when it comes to quietly doing the work of the people, nobody works harder, knows his stuff better, or really understands the budget better than John Laird. And honestly, we really need him in the Senate.
So, as the Calitics editorial board has pointed out before, the Legislature should approve the nomination of Sen. Abel Maldonado to Lt. Governor. And while the race is going to be competitive, Laird has the horses to win the race:
Laird, a Santa Cruz Democrat, said Monday that the poll gave him a lead "in the low single digits." Respondents were asked twice about the theoretical match-up, first near the beginning of the call with pollsters, then again "after every conceivable thing was thrown and him and me both," Laird said. He said the lead grew slightly after potential negatives were given to respondents. (CapWkly)
This is a winnable race. And a winnable race for a solid progressive that will work his ass off to improve this state. For me, it's an easy call what you do here. But some see otherwise, saying that it's too big of a risk, that it gives up too much. Here's Asm. Pedro Nava:
I will be voting "no" to confirm state Sen. Abel Maldonado to the second-highest constitutional office in California, a heartbeat from the governor, that of lieutenant governor.
Much has been made of his congenial personality, his friendly demeanor and his one vote to increase the minimum wage. But in order to take Sen. Maldonado's true measure, you need to examine over 150 votes on issues of great significance to all Californians - laws that impact farmworkers, health care, civil rights, labor, women, consumers, seniors and the environment. (SacBee)
Look, if given the choice, I doubt there are too many people that would vote for Abel Maldonado for dog catcher around here. Yet, that isn't what this is about. This is a confirmation hearing, not a test of whether you like the guy. Clearly, progressives aren't going to like him, but the same was said of Bruce McPherson when he took over the (arguably more important) SecState gig. The Assembly confirmed him then, including a vote from Asm. Nava. As Sen. Steinberg mentioned last week, this is a vote about whether Maldonado is competent to assume the LG job, and it's hard to argue that Maldonado is any more or less competent to assume that rather powerless gig than any of the candidates in the race for 2010.
Sen. Maldonado's votes are bad. Very bad. So, let's get him out of the Senate where he is casting those votes and into a short stint as LG.
SD-15 needs John Laird. California needs John Laird. A few months of incumbency in a rather banal gig is a risk worth taking. The calculus doesn't actually seem that hard. Confirm Maldonado, and let's get to the business of electing Sen. John Laird.
I'm no fan of the current con-con initiative that's being circulated, but if this is true, it is deeply troubling:
Repair California, the Bay Area-based business group behind two initiatives that would convene a Constitutional Convention, has accused five firms of blacklisting their petitions, shouting down their volunteers, destroying valid signatures and intentionally submitting fake signatures.
"We have had hundreds of reports from all over the state," said Repair California spokesman John Grubb. "I even received a death threat."
*** *** ***
But The Economist magazine quoted Fred Kimball, owner of Kimball Petition Management, in its online edition, saying he opposed the Constitutional Convention measures and was blacklisting signature-gatherers who carried those petitions. Most are contract workers who carry multiple petitions.
The industry leaders fear a Constitutional Convention could result in reforms or the elimination of the initiative process that would hurt their business. (CoCoTimes)
Even if you are highly motivated, have great grassroots and financial networks, it is now exceedingly difficult to qualify an initiative without using paid gatherers. If the firms are blacklisting your petition and not allowing people they pay to carry yours, it is nearly impossible.
And this right here is the long-awaited logical conclusion of where the initiative process has taken us. Now not only does money play the most important role in initiatives (see PG&E;'s Prop 16), but the signature gatherers are now acting as a gatekeeper for innitiatives they don't like.
The process is now clearly morally and politically bankrupt. If ever there was a reason to fix the initiative system, look for this as Exhibit One.
There may be no better illustration of how corrupt our politics have become than the efforts of the Mercury Insurance Group to change a landmark consumer protection law that they are apparently violating on a regular basis. In 1988, California voters passed Proposition 103, a sweeping reform of the state's auto insurance industry. 22 years later, as insurance companies have become one of the nation's most reviled villains thanks to the murderous practices of health insurers, Mercury has put Proposition 17 on the ballot, which would raise auto insurance rates for many Californians.
Several years ago Mercury Insurance wanted to raise rates on customers who had a lapse in their insurance coverage. In 2005 California courts prevented this from happening. In Nevada, rates increased by 73% on customers with even a day's lapse in coverage. Mercury wants to do this here in California, and authored Prop 17 to change Prop 103 to allow it.
A high-profile California insurance company that is backing a controversial insurance measure on the June ballot has engaged in practices that may be illegal, including deceptive pricing and discrimination against consumers such as active members of the military and drivers of emergency vehicles, according to a state report obtained by The Chronicle.
The report, obtained through the state Public Records Act, alleges that Mercury Insurance Group may have violated Proposition 103, the landmark consumer protection law approved by voters in 1988. The measure limited the cost of policies and made civil rights and antitrust laws apply to the insurance industry.
The report referenced in the article shows that Mercury is the embodiment of the "evil insurance company" trope that has been so widely discussed in recent years. They're charging higher rates in violation of the law until they get caught and slapped on the wrist by Steve Poizner, the state's Insurance Commissioner and wannabe governor.
And what does Mercury do with those ill-gotten gains? Turn around and spend it on getting Prop 17 on the ballot and approved in order to legalize some of their most odious and destructive practices.
Mercury and Prop 17 are just one way in which the June election will be a battle over corporate power. Prop 16 is another effort by a large corporation, PG&E;, to change laws and undo democratic rights that have obstructed their pursuit of limitless profits. And Prop 15 offers a chance to fight back by creating a publicly funded election for the Secretary of State races in 2014 and 2018 as a proof of concept to show that clean money can work in California - and that it is desperately needed.
The financial news in recent weeks has been dominated by concerns about the possibility of "sovereign default" in several key Eurozone countries. Often known as the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain, sometimes called PIIGS when you throw Italy into the mix), their high levels of unemployment and debt are claimed to be a ticking time bomb for the euro currency and the European Union as a whole.
In recent weeks Greece has been forced into promising "austerity" - meaning huge budget cuts - in an effort to bring its debt levels down. Portugal is exploring similar options after a debt sale didn't go as well as expected, and now Spain is expected to follow suit with the Socialist government proposing its own spending freeze.
The parallels to California are obvious, but that doesn't mean they'll always be drawn properly. One observer that does so is Gregor Macdonald, who points out that California's problem is owed largely to overdependence on cheap oil:
I've identified seven large US states by four criteria that are sure to cause trouble for Washington's political class at least for the next 3 years, through the 2012 elections. These are states with big populations, very high rates of unemployment, and which have already had to borrow big to pay unemployment claims. In addition, as a kind of Gregor.us kicker, I've thrown in a fourth criteria to identify those states that are large net importers of energy. Because the step change to higher energy prices played, and continues to play, such a large role in the developed world's financial crisis it's instructive to identify those US states that will struggle for years against the rising tide of higher energy costs....
The seven states to make my list are California, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, and New Jersey. Each has a population above 8 million people. Each has had to borrow more than a billion dollars, so far, to pay claims out of their now bankrupt unemployment insurance fund. Also, each state currently registers broad, underemployment above 15% as indicated by the U-6 measure for the States. And finally, each state is a large net importer of either oil, natural gas, electricity, or all three of these energy sources....
21st century energy prices overlaid on a 20th century economy? That's no fun at all. The mainstream economics profession, perhaps unsurprisingly, still does not pay enough attention to the interweaving of long-term stagnant wage growth, higher energy inputs, and the resulting credit creation that OECD countries took as the solution to resolve that squeeze....
My seven states of energy debt represent a full 35% of the total US population. As with other US states, they face looming policy clashes between protected state and city workers on one hand, and the growing ranks of the private economy's underemployed on the other. The recent circus at the LA City Council meeting was a nice foreshadowing that the days of unlimited borrowing by governments-against future growth based on cheap energy-is coming to an end. Washington can print up dollars and fund these states for years, if it so chooses. But just as with the 70 million people in Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, the 108 million people in these seven large states are probably facing even higher levels of unemployment as austerity measures finally slam into their cashless coffers, and reduce their ability to borrow.
Over the flip I explain what all this means, and why Europe's response to the problems with the PIGS shows why California and the US should not repeat it.
