The Internet Archive discovers and captures web pages through many different web crawls.
At any given time several distinct crawls are running, some for months, and some every day or longer.
View the web archive through the Wayback Machine.
Governor Schwarzenegger leaves behind a legacy of devastating budget cuts and huge tax giveaways for corporations. In the last two years alone, Schwarzenegger has slashed $32.5 billion from the state budget-- and now our schools and roads are crumbling, public safety is at risk, and vital state services have been decimated. And while state workers have endured deep wage cuts, corporations have enjoyed massive new tax breaks.
Now, Meg Whitman is on a mission to ratchet up the pain on working people in California -- above and beyond the misery that Governor Schwarzenegger has already imposed.
State Workers' Jobs In February, Schwarzenegger announced two-day-a-month furloughs for state workers, which effectively reduced worker pay but did little to help our long-term economic crisis. In fact, economists report that the furloughs will result in a loss of $503 million over the subsequent years. When asked at the time what she would do to balance the budget, Whitman said that she would double the furloughs to four days a week, even though the furloughs actually caused the state to lose money.
When Schwarzenegger increased the furloughs to three days a month (resulting in a 12.8 percent pay cut and loss of an estimated $2.1 billion in wages and benefits for hundreds of thousands of state workers), Whitman went one step further. She announced that she plans to fire 40,000 state workers because she believes the state is "over-staffed" (In fact, California ranks second to last in the number of state workers per capita, and the ratio of all government employees to population in California is 28 percent below the national average.) This mass layoff would cause unemployment in the state to spike a full percentage point.
Public Employee Pensions Schwarzenegger has made pension takeaways a major issue and has threatened to not sign a budget without reforms. But despite his rhetoric the Governor has been forced to negotiate directly with unions representing state workers to get agreement on any changes to current pension benefits and contributions.
Whitman supports Schwarzenegger's proposals, which include raising the retirement age, increasing what workers pay into the pension and ending defined-benefit pensions for new hires and sticking them in risky 401(k)-style retirement plans. But she doesn't stop there. She's willing to circumvent collective bargaining, and the elected legislature, by putting a pension cuts initiative on the ballot, and using her personal fortune to fund the ballot measure.
Ballots for the November election are already hitting voters' mailboxes - meaning it's time for progressives to make their decisions on the nine ballot propositions. And the Courage Campaign, joined by our friends at CREDO, are here to help!
As with the November 2008 election and the June 2010 primary election, the Courage Campaign - where I work as Public Policy Director - has produced a Progressive Voter Guide. This year we've partnered with CREDO to bring the guide to you. It includes Courage Campaign and CREDO recommendations on the nine propositions, as well as the recommendations of other statewide progressive groups such as the California Democratic Party, the California Nurses Association, the California Federation of Teachers, the California League of Conservation Voters - and of course, Calitics. (We'll have more on the Calitics proposition endorsements in a separate post later this week.)
You can click here to get the guide as a PDF and send it to your family and friends. You can also get a mobile version of the guide sent to your phone by texting VOTECA to 30644.
One of the primary reasons Californians - and progressives in particular - don't vote in these primary elections is a lack of information about the choices on the ballot. By providing this voter guide, we're providing information - and that translates to voter turnout.
So please download the voter guide, or get it sent to your phone, and share it with your family and friends.
At Saturday's gubernatorial debate in Fresno held by Univision, an unidentified and undocumented honors student at Fresno State asked a question about the DREAM Act that, I argued, offered the most important moment of the debate. Whereas Jerry Brown made a strong moral defense of all California's children getting the chance to succeed in school and become citizens to contribute to our society, Whitman attacked the student and essentially told her she didn't belong in school and was taking the place of a California citizen.
Today the student has spoken out about the way her question was answered, in a press release from the California Young Democrats:
In an anonymous statement provided to CYD the student said, "Ms. Whitman's response made me feel undeserving of my academic success... until I realized that I was not admitted into universities because I was undocumented but because I was a hard-working student who maintained great grades, got myself involved, and did countless hours of community service. My education is the only thing I really have in this country, besides my friends and family, and I don't understand why she would belittle my hard work and that of all other students in my situation. If Ms. Whitman cannot support young successful immigrants, how can she claim she will serve the Latino community?"
This is a devastating response to Whitman. The student in question is a model to young Californians around the state, regardless of their background or immigration status. Every parent wishes they could have a child who has the kind of academic success this student has had.
She should be the kind of person we build California's future around. Instead, Meg Whitman believes this hardworking and successful young student should be kicked out of school, and probably kicked out of California. Whitman doesn't see a successful student, she instead sees someone who can at best be exploited before being tossed aside.
Whitman's former housekeeper may be getting the media attention. But it is Whitman's awful, dismissive attitude towards a successful young college student that ought to define the choices Californians face in this election.
UC-Davis will be hosting a debate between Attorney General candidates Steve Cooley and Kamala Harris. As you may know, I'm on the Harris campaign, but I think the debate will be interesting even without that fact. A recent poll showed Harris with a lead within the margin, and that's pretty much where the race has been throughout.
But for those of you that haven't been following the race all that closely, let me give you a progressive perspective on the race in a tweet worthy form:
Noon: CA-AG Debate http://twt.mx/R9VE GOP Cooley will defend prop 8, no position on 23, & wants to sue over health care. Vote @kamalaharris
Of course, there is a lot about SF DA Kamala Harris that I couldn't get in there. Like her work to keep elementary school kids in school, and her work to reduce the recidivism rate by working with the business and labor communities to get young non-violent first time offenders the education and opportunities they need to get a good job.
In the first century BCE, the first Roman triumvirate was a cobbled together coalition of three men who didn't much actually care for each other. We all know the ultimate winner of the conflict that grew out of the relationship, as Julius Ceaser was able to best his foes. And Pompey Magnus, was a general whose reputation made it into the history books. But for our purposes, the most relevant of the three was a man who is still ranked amongst the world's richest men of all-time, Marcus Licinius Crassus.
How did Crassus attain all that wealth? Well, as you would expect, he was wildly corrupt, using his power and influence to attain wealth. But there was one particular source for Crassus that was a little, umm, evil. From Wikipedia:
Most notorious was his acquisition of burning houses: when Crassus received word that a house was on fire, he would arrive and purchase the doomed property along with surrounding buildings for a modest sum, and then employ his army of 500 clients to put the fire out before much damage had been done. Crassus' clients employed the Roman method of firefighting-destroying the burning building to curtail the spread of the flames.
Outrageous, right? Well, not exactly. As you can see from the Countdown clip up top, it's happening in America:
Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground last week because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee. Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their possessions in the fire, along with three dogs and a cat.
"They could have been saved if they had put water on it, but they didn't do it," Cranick told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann.
The fire started when the Cranicks' grandson was burning trash near the family home. As it grew out of control, the Cranicks called 911, but the fire department from the nearby city of South Fulton would not respond.
"We wasn't on their list," he said the operators told him. (MSNBC)
Mr. Cranick even offered to pay whatever was necessary for the firefighters' help. But no dice, it wasn't until a neighboring house caught on fire that the department began to fight the fire.
Of course, this is the point of government services. They are best done by spreading the risk across all of us. Having fire departments is an expense that for years, we have all been willing to pay through our taxes, yet now we see that these services are coming in the crosshairs for Norquistian "drown the government" calls. The irony is that the right-wing calls of property as sacrosanct comes into conflict with their anti-government tendencies.
We all lose when government is dysfunctional. And to some extent, the Tennesee community made its bed by consistently electing politicians who told the community that this is exactly what they should expect, a smaller and worthless government. At some level, you get what you pay for, and if you tell your politicians that you don't want to pay for government, that's exactly what they'll give you. A broken government. But, we're not that hard up in California, are we? Well, we're getting there:
Drivers in California who cause crashes may find their pocketbooks dented as well, courtesy of local fire departments.
More than two dozen fire agencies, struggling for ways to boost sagging budgets, have begun tallying service charges at crash sites and sending bills to drivers or their insurance companies.
Is a pumper truck called to the scene? That'll be $400. Traffic cones and flares needed? Another $20. An incident commander to oversee? That's $75 an hour.
Roseville, Woodland and at least a half dozen smaller Sacramento area fire districts have imposed such fees in the past year. The city of Sacramento expects to start this fall. And, beginning July 1, Placer County Fire will charge non-local drivers or their insurance companies for crashes that require fire agency response.(SacBee 6/25/2010)
We shouldn't be surprised at just how far our own government has come to resemble the lack of structure that the Romans faced 2100 years ago. That's exactly what much of the state is asking for here too. Of course, this is just a more dramatic example, but the same situation is cropping up in the context of health services, where we are telling people that we won't provide them in-home services anymore, or cutting off prescription coverage, or eliminating MediCal coverage. These things matter, and they are a matter of life or death for some in our state.
There isn't a fire crew going around trying to buy up "fire sales" that I have yet heard of, but is that really that far away?
A broader goal would be more privatization efforts and more private ownership of land. Private firefighting firms would have a financial interest to promote prevention, and more private ownership of land would mean better-maintained property. Private owners are far better at protecting their property than public owners, who follow an entirely different set of objectives.
Some victims of the California fires may wish they had their own firemarks. During this week's wildfires, "there were a few instances where we were spraying and the neighbor's house went up like a candle," Crays said.
As Brian points out, this is a replay of the end of the Roman Republic, when a group of wealthy oligarchs in the Senate destroyed the public commons for their own wealth, collapsing the political system and leading to a dictatorship that, eventually, produced feudalism.
Publicly funded fire protection has worked extremely well for a century. There's no good reason to end it - unless you believe cutting taxes for the wealthy is more important than preventing people's homes from burning down.
(News from the Yes on 19 Campaign. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
It sure feels like the tide is turning among voters when it comes to Proposition 19, The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010. On Thursday, the PPIC released a poll showing the initiative leading 52-41 with only 7% undecided. Since the last PPIC poll in May, Prop 19 leaped from a 1-point lead to an 11-point advantage.
On the heels of the Field Poll that Brian Leubitz wrote about last week (Yes - 49, No - 42, Und - 9), we here at the Yes on 19 campaign see a clear trend developing. As voters tune in to the upcoming election, they begin to realize what an incredible opportunity California has to lead the nation in ending cannabis prohibition by voting yes.
What had been billed as the "third debate" between the candidates for governor, Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown, has now seemingly been canceled. From Carla Marinucci:
The big radio debate between California gubernatorial candidatees -- Democrat Jerry Brown and Republican Meg Whitman -- which had been scheduled Tuesday at 10 a.m. on the Ronn Owens' show has been cancelled, the station says.
Sterling Clifford, Brown's spokesman, said the debate was only a "discussion" between the two candidates, and "by mutual agreement,'' the two have decided not to pursue it.(SF Gate)
No word yet of any additional joint appearances, but if this is it, then this is it. Back in 2006, we had only one debate, so I'm sure we'll something about a step forward for democracy for the Whitman camp. Although, with Brown seemingly opening up a lead in the polls, perhaps a change in position might be brewing on debates?
UPDATE: As pointed out in the comments, there is one more debate scheduled for Oct. 12 in San Rafael at Domincan University. It is scheduled to be moderated by former NBC News Anchor Tom Brokaw.
First, let's state this clearly: Prop 26 goes where even Prop 13 dare not tread. The measure moves any regulatory fee which doesn't exclusively benefit those being charged the fee out of the realm of majority votes at the state and local level to the 2/3 super-majority, right up there with the rest of our broken system. And as Jean Ross points out in CalBuzz today, it protects polluters:
The court found that such fees were regulatory fees - not taxes - and could be imposed by a majority vote. Sinclair built on the logic of a prior appellate court ruling that ruled that, "A reasonable way to achieve Proposition 13's goal of tax relief is to shift the costs of controlling stationary sources of pollution from the tax-paying public to the pollution-causing industries themselves."
Conversely, if the state can't impose the fees on "pollution-causing industries" to recoup the cost of environmental monitoring and remediation, those costs will be shifted to taxpayers as a whole. Or, in an era where budget crises have become the status quo, programs that enforce environmental, food safety and other laws will be scaled back, if not eliminated. Which may be the true goal of the backers of Proposition 26. (CalBuzz)
While Prop 23 is getting all of the attention, Prop 26 is just as, if not more pernicious. If it passes, it makes the implementation of any new environmental legislation difficult if not impossible. Local environmental innovation will be stifled, and the polluters, through their Republican cronies, will be able to block any fee. Sounds great, doesn't it.
But like Billy Mays used to say (RIP, Billy), "But wait, there's more." Prop 26 would also kill the so-called "tax swap". As it stands now, if the state takes in no additional revenues, and just adjust taxes to make the system more equitable, there is no supermajority requirment. As Jean Ross points out, we could close some corporate tax loopholes to reduce the personal income tax on the middle class without a 2/3 vote in the legislature. That would be ok if and only if, under Prop 13, we net no additional revenue. It's not really an overwhelmingly powerful budget balancing tool, but it does allow some additional flexibility.
However, Prop 26 requires a 2/3 vote for any measure that increases tax for any taxpayer in the state. So, if it reduces taxes for 3 million people, but raises taxes on one dude? Yup, 2/3 vote. It's an unwieldy system to say the least.
It is just one more step on the road to totally break our state, and while Prop 23's defeat is critical, it is hard to argue that Prop 26 is any less important. The reach would be enormous and long standing, and could throw our system into further chaos.
The proposition ads are now all over the teevee, and there are some that at least attempt to hew to the truth, and some, well, not so much. Take the majority vote measure, prop 25. After the broken government crew tried to get the ballot language changed because they didn't like the fact that it says it doesn't affect taxes, they pretty much ignored the judges decision in their ad. I'll save you the whole script, which you can check at the Bee's adwatch, but here's the relevant portion:
Narrator: We all want an on-time balanced budget, but Prop. 25 will just make things worse. Twenty-five makes it easier for politicians to raise our income taxes, sales taxes and taxes on our homes - so they can spend even more.(SacBee)
So, an appellate court says this is not the case, yet ad ignores that? Right, sounds like a textbook ad from the Norquistians out there. From the Bee's ad-watch:
"In our view, Proposition 25 cannot be interpreted to operate as an end-run around the two-thirds vote requirement for raising taxes," the appellate court wrote.
It is likewise inaccurate to imply that Proposition 25 would supersede the two-thirds vote requirements for property taxes set forth in Proposition 13.(SacBee)
Of course, from a long-range standpoint, we need to do more to really restore democracy in the state. However, we need to start by Passing Prop 25 and defeating Prop 26.
Most of the coverage of yesterday's debate in Fresno between Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown has focused on Whitman's false accusation that Brown was somehow involved in the housekeeper scandal. But there was a far more meaningful moment later on, pertaining to immigration, that showed a huge contrast between the candidates and the cruelty of Whitman's approach. If it gets the attention it deserves, it might even cost Whitman the election.
The exchange in question came when Univision went to an audience member to ask about the DREAM Act. She was a student who graduated first in her class in high school and is now an honors student at Fresno State, triple majoring! in poli sci, Spanish, and Latin American Studies. As a former college professor myself, I can tell you that these are the students you dream about having in class, the ones that make teaching worthwhile.
She explained that she was brought to California by her parents at a young age - in other words, that she was undocumented. (Which is probably why she did not give her name.) Her question was whether the candidates supported the DREAM Act, to let students like her get an education and, I'm paraphrasing, "contribute to the economy here."
Brown's response was direct and solid: he supports the federal DREAM Act, would sign the California DREAM Act, and believes it is our moral obligation to ensure that all our children, whether undocumented or not, got the opportunity to succeed, including getting a good education in California public schools, UC and CSU included.
But it was Whitman's shocking response that, as far as I am concerned, ought to be a game-changer in this election. Here's how Calbuzz quoted Whitman:
Here is the challenge we face: Our resources are scarce. We are in terrible economic times and slots have been eliminated at the California State University system - I think they're down by 40,000 students. Same is true at the ... the University of California system. Programs have been cut, and California citizens have been denied admission to these universities and I don't think it's fair to bar and eliminate the ability of California citizens to attend higher universities and favor undocumenteds.
Calbuzz omitted the first part of Whitman's response, which was a very condescending "I'm glad you were able to get a good, free education in California's K-12 public schools," but the blockquote gives you the gist: Whitman attacked this successful young student, saying she shouldn't even be allowed to attend Fresno State, and accusing her of taking someone else's place. In other words, it's this young woman's fault that some other Californian can't attend a CSU.
My jaw just about hit the floor when I heard Whitman say this. And I have to imagine everyone in the audience and watching at home had a similar reaction.
Every parent - whether Latino or not, whether documented or not - dreams of their child having the kind of success that this young woman is having. And when they watched Meg Whitman belittle and attack this woman for her success, saying that it was not only undeserved but that it was hurting others, their only reaction would be negative. Whitman's attack on Brown over the housekeeper issue may have been entertaining television, but it was Whitman's attack on one of California's best and brightest that will cost her a lot of votes.
That exchange was also revealing in how the two candidates treat the issue of immigration. Brown was very strong and clear that he did not support - at all - any form of immigrant-bashing. He didn't justify this by pointing to the economic contributions of immigrants, but by speaking a very clear and compelling moral language about our obligations and duties to our fellow Californians. He slammed Whitman for opposing a path to citizenship, which he said would force the deportation of 2 million people living in California - something Brown called "immoral."
For Whitman herself, like the rest of the California Republican Party, the undocumented are perfectly acceptable when they can be exploited for their cheap labor and living with the constant threat of deportation - but the moment they have anything approaching success, they're suddenly a threat to California and must be dealt with harshly.
Whitman's personal approach to immigration therefore matches Republican anti-immigrant policy quite well - exploit immigrant labor as long as you can, and get rid of them when you no longer need them. Brown made an extremely strong and powerful attack on Whitman's support for a guest worker program, explaining how it would allow workers to be exploited unfairly. In fact, Brown deserves kudos for his deeply progressive framing of the immigration issue.
Still, it was Whitman's shocking attack on the Fresno State student that was the most important moment of this debate. Let's hope it gets the attention it deserves.
Back when Jacques Chirac was president of France, the media began calling him "superliar" as a result of his frequent inability to tell the truth about the numerous scandals linked to him.
It might be time to apply the label to Meg Whitman.
Earlier this week Meg Whitman changed her story suddenly on the issue of her housekeeper. On Thursday morning Whitman denied that either she or her husband had seen a letter from the Social Security Administration informing them there might by a problem with Nicky Diaz Santillan's paperwork. When Gloria Allred produced the letter in question, with Whitman's husband's handwriting on it, the Whitman campaign suddenly changed tune, claiming that Whitman's husband never told Meg about the letter. Uh-huh.
That was bad enough. But at today's gubernatorial debate in Fresno, Whitman told a whopper of a lie in response to a question about the housekeeper scandal - claiming that Brown put her up to it:
"The Nicky I saw at the press conference three days ago was not the Nicky that I knew for nine years," Whitman said. "And you know what my first clue was? She kept referring to me as Ms. Whitman. For the nine years she worked for me she called me Meg and I called her Nicky. "You should be ashamed for sacrificing Nicky Diaz on the altar of your political ambitions," Whitman told Brown.
Let's be very clear here: there is no evidence whatsoever that Brown was involved in this, certainly not that he "sacrificed her" to win the election. Whitman's accusation here is one of the most stunning lies ever told at a debate in California. It certainly earns her the title of "superliar."
But Whitman told the lie because she thinks she can get the media to simply play along with it, repeat it uncritically as a "he said, she said" story and not tell the public that in fact Whitman has no basis to make this baseless charge against Brown, and that she is saying this only to try and minimize the damage to her own campaign.
Indeed, the LA Times story I just quoted, by Michael J. Mishak and Seema Mehta, takes a "he said, she said" approach and does not tell readers anywhere that Whitman's claim is baseless.
Let's hope that the California political media does the right thing and tells the truth about the story, instead of letting them be used as tools by the Whitman campaign.
(Note: the debate is happening right now in Fresno; it will be televised on Univision stations across the state at 4PM. Click here to watch it online.)
(California's late state budget has been hurting child care providers, holding up reimbursement checks for time they'd already worked. Yesterday, some of the affected educators and caregivers held a press conference where family child care provider, and SEIU member, Tonia McMillian told her story.)
Hello, my name is Tonia McMillian, and I'm a licensed home-based child care provider in Bellflower. I care for 11 children, many of whom receive state subsidies to help their parents afford child care. The current budget delay has presented a mix of emotions for me and the families that I care for. For the first time in my 15 years of child care service, I have been forced to face the reality that I might have to shut my doors.
This is really classic GOP. Insensitivity bordering on the farcical, connecting dots that aren't really there and a whole lot more. Really good stuff. Here's the story, apparently an aide to Asm. Hector De La Torre had some documentation problems. Mr. Hogue, who is something of a nativist from his perch in Sacramento minor radio personality land, decides that this is a great opportunity to bash Jerry Brown.
Why? Well, because Asm. De La Torre has endorsed Jerry for the governorship. So, you know, every Democrat's problems are Jerry's problems now. But it gets better. Hogue tries to increase the connection by showing that De La Torre was quoted on Brown's website. The only problem? It was actually Asm. Kevin De Leon who was quoted. Hogue has since changed the site, so here's a screen grab that I took:
As I said, the post is still up, but it has now been changed. Unfortunately, they didn't really clean up after themselves, and now it just doesn't even make sense:
Southern California Latino leaders today joined together to announce their support for Jerry Brown's campaign for Governor and decry Republican Meg Whitman's anti-Latino positions and deceptive campaign tactics.
I guess when you are trying to spin this hard, sometimes you are going to confuse yourself. Or maybe to Hogue "Hector de La Torre" = "Kevin De Leon"? Who knows, but this immigration story just continues to control the media narrative.
Over the flip, find a screen grab with more of the post.
I'm probably giving these right-wing immigrant-hating folks more attention than they deserve, but the American Legal Immigration PAC, based in North Carolina, is calling for the arrest of Meg Whitman and her former housekeeper, Nicky Diaz Santillan, for violation of immigration laws:
In response to the explosive revelations that California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman employed illegal alien Nicky Diaz for nine years, ALIPAC is asking Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest and charge both Whitman and Diaz for numerous immigration and employment law violations.
This is something of a stunt by the bigots, but it does indicate the broader unease starting to be felt by Whitman's anti-immigrant base. They've never quite been happy with her stance, as her meltdown on the John and Ken show indicated.
Whitman was always in a precarious position on this issue, partly through her own doing, partly because of the nature of today's California Republican Party. That party has become not only virulently anti-immigrant, but anti-Latino. They see themselves as a white people's party, defending the state against "Mexifornia."
Whitman could not hope to win the nomination or keep her base engaged for the general election without appeasing this anti-immigrant base. Yet Whitman also cannot hope to win the general election without getting Latino votes. Whitman has tried to reach out to Latinos, but that effort is always compromised by Whitman's need to keep her base happy, a base that doesn't like her appeals to Latinos - John and Ken criticized her for having Spanish-language ads.
This isn't to let Whitman off the hook, of course. But her experience shows that the California Republican Party has decide it is better to be unelectable than it is to be open to the fact that California is - and has always been - home to a significant Spanish-speaking population who deserve the same rights and prosperity as the rest of us.
Instead of confronting this squarely, the right-wing is now trying to say "Dems do it too," lamely pointing to someone who worked for Assemblymember Hector de la Torre and who was later deported and trying to pin this on Jerry Brown - as if he personally knows the immigration status of every single person in the state of California.
It's a pathetic attempt to deflect attention from the fact that this scandal has exposed Whitman as a liar and shown that she really can't have it both ways on immigration - either she sides with justice and fairness, or she sides with the immigrant-hating base in her own party. So far she's chosen the latter, and now she's reaping what she sowed.
Most of the coverage of yesterday's debate in Fresno between Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown has focused on Whitman's 
