By Erik Love 

Last year, on May 1, millions of people across the nation stood up and marched in support of basic human rights, especially for migrant workers.  In response to a ridiculous bill introduced by Congressman Sensenbrenner (R-WI) - a bill that would have required the deportation of any undocumented person in the US - Americans in cities large and small took part in demonstrations calling for human rights and dignity for all people.  This movement quashed the idea of summarily "kicking out" people who come to the United States looking for work and a way to support their families, people who contribute to America in essential ways even while often facing exploitative employers.

This year, the impetus for another demonstration comes from President Bush, who has proposed that all people without papers in the US will have to deport themselves and pay more than $10,000 in order to have a chance at a new "Z Visa."  This plan is perhaps even worse than the Sensenbrenner bill.  In response to Bush's draconian and unrealistic proposal -- and in response to recently escalating Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) dragnets, which serve only to frighten and dehumanize - there are renewed calls for more May Day demonstrations this year.

The call is once again for a national boycott on May 1, 2007, which will serve as a reminder that our economy could not operate were it not for the work of immigrants.  There will also be marches and speeches across the country.  The message is simple: human rights are not optional.  Everyone in the United States deserves basic dignity and a path to citizenship.

By Elliott D. Petty

When, the news fixated itself on the Virginia Tech horror, the Whitehouse quickly responded to the national tragedy.  Spokeswoman Dana Perino expressed the President's heartfelt sympathies for the families of the victims.  She also made a point to confirm the president's position for gun rights and against gun control. 

So as actual information is discovered in the Blacksburg, so to be the fiery debate over gun control in America.  President Bush told ABC News he expects a debate on gun policy, but now is not the time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I think when a guy walks in and shoots 32 people it's going to cause there to be a lot of policy debate," he said. "Now is not the time to do the debate until we're actually certain about what happened. And after we help people get over their grieving. But yeah I think there's going to be a lot of discussion."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You got that right Mr. President, but some Democrats on the hill appear to be shying away from the argument.   Even as republicans and conservatives are proudly taking advantage of their supposed "I-told-you-so" moment.

What a strategic blunder on the party of the left.  But on the bright side, if it weren't for weak-kneed democrats, Courage Campaign would not exist.  There would be no need.

This unfortunate scenario is exactly why the grassroots must take control of their party.  Democrats traditionally have been in the forefront of efforts to pass gun control legislation, but It was notably absent from the agenda Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled earlier this year when the party took control of the House and Senate for the first time in more than a decade.

As the nation mourns the tragic loss of life in Virginia, we at the Courage Campaign offer our deepest condolences to the family and friends of those whose lives were ended so abruptly yesterday. We stand with Americans everywhere who are in shock, and we are at a loss for words to express our sadness.

We also stand with the Korean American community today, which has seen some hateful reactions from those ignorant enough to connect all Koreans with the violence perpetrated by just one individual. The Courage Campaign urges our leaders to speak out against hate as our nation mourns. This is a time for peaceful reflection and healing -- not for blame and hatred.

To everyone affected by the tragedy, we offer our deepest condolences.

by Todd Beeton

Where does Jones stand on the prospect of Wal-Mart's first Orange County Supercenter? From The OC Register:

Jones said after the meeting that he has not yet made up his mind on Wal-Mart.

It's too early to decide," Jones said. "I dare not express any opinions until after I see the environmental impact report on that project."

So, in association with OC Democrats, CLUE and the Main Street Coalition, we've launched a petition drive to help make up Steve Jones's mind.

Please sign our petition urging the council's newest member to keep Wal-Mart out of Garden Grove.

Text of the petition below the fold...

By Elliott D. Petty

The number of mortgage default notices sent to California homeowners last quarter rose to its highest in nearly 10 years as home prices stagnated and rates on adjustable loans pushed higher, a report released on Monday by DataQuick Information Systems, a real estate information service.

Many analysts say a surge of foreclosures is in the making and that it will weigh an already sluggish housing market and may slow the broader state economy.

As a result, many families are in danger of losing their homes in a shaky but tight housing market. 

But flying just below the fringes of this recurring media story about major financial companies going belly up due to their poor business decisions to approve loans for people who cannot afford them is another equally important housing crisis.

The condo-conversion craze, which is displacing thousands of low and moderate-income families on a daily basis across the state. 

In case you've been on sabbatical from the real world, here's how it works, real estate investors purchase existing apartment buildings, announce their ownership alongside their plan to convert the rental units into condominium units with an eviction notice.

by Erik Love

April 15 was the deadline for the 2008 Presidential Candidates to submit their official first quarter fundraising reports.  Those of us following ATM Watch, the Courage Campaign project that monitors visits to California from the '08 candidates, are not surprised to learn that Californians gave more dollars to the campaigns than any other state.

None of the major candidates in the race is originally from California, which makes our generosity all the more impressive.  Californians donated some 20 million dollars to the presidential campaigns, with Democrats raising $8 for every $5 raised by the Republicans.  No other state gave as much to the campaigns.  

This is notable because it's been the pattern in presidential campaigns for so long -- come to California for money, but go to Iowa for votes.  ATM Watch's goal to to change all that -- to make California not just a place for political donations, but also a place where the candidates must tell us about their positions on the issues that we think are important.

Check out this interactive map to see specific California donations for each candidate in the race, and be sure to join us at ATM Watch to hold the candidates to account as they continue to visit our state.

by Erik Love

In addition to giving California more clout in the Presidential race, the move of our presidential primary election to February 5, 2008 also will give us the opportunity to reform term limits for our state legislators.  Let's take a moment to consider the new term limit proposal, which was just recently made official.

Term limits have been a controversial idea from the time they were first proposed in the early 90's, and today their novelty seems to be wearing off.  The basic idea behind term limits, as I understand it, is to check corruption and allow for a more representative legislature by making room for legislators who are women and from underrepresented minorities.  These reasons were enough to convince voters in several states across the country in the 90's, and term limits have been in place in 15 states, including, of course, California.  California's term limits are among the most restrictive, allowing for just three two-year terms in the Assembly (six years of service total) and only two four-year terms in the state Senate (eight years of service).  Across the country, term limits have become less popular in the last decade, with six states deciding to repeal or cancel their term limits provisions since 1997: Idaho, Massachusetts, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

Now, California is considering term limits reform as well.  The promise of making the legislature more representative through term limits has not panned out nearly as well as expected.  Several studies on term limits, including this one (pdf) from the Institute of Government at the University of Georgia, and this one (pdf) from the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers show that term limits have either a minimal or slightly negative effect on getting more legislators who are women and from underrepresented minorities into state legislatures.

Another unforeseen side-effect of term limits is also receiving attention lately: the decline of California's influence in Washington, DC.  Karl Kurtz notes that term limits have meant a decline in the connections between lawmakers in Sacramento and lawmakers in DC.  Why?  Kurtz explains that "with six- and eight-year term limits in the state Assembly and Senate... the turnover of legislators means that members of Congress... soon lose touch with those in the state capitol."  The lack of influence in DC translates into lower funding from Washington for critical California priorities like schools, infrastructure, disaster readiness, and anything else that requires funding.

So it's good news that a recent poll (pdf) on the term limits reform proposal show a majority of Californians are ready for a change.  The proposal's wording, which was just made official this week, is good news for reform:

LIMITS ON LEGISLATORS' TERMS IN OFFICE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years. Allows a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both.

by Todd Beeton

Yesterday, MoveOn.org held an incredible online townhall meeting with the Democratic presidential candidates on the subject of Iraq. Over the course of the forum, in the true spirit of ATM Watch, the candidates answered questions from regular voters without their having to pay for the privelege. As retiree Virginia Laddey, who attended a MoveOn house party in Orange County yesterday, said (h/t atdleft):

"I'm appalled at the money involved. That's why I like MoveOn. We get heard without having $2,300."

If you missed the townhall, the transcript is HERE or you can listen to the candidates' answers over at PoliticsTV's YouTube channel.

When we asked you for your questions for the candidates, you overwhelmingly wanted to hear their stances on Iraq. Thank you to MoveOn for allowing us to hear the candidates' answers, directlly from their mouths.

Highlights over the fold...

By Elliott D. Petty

The governor's distinct political recipe of moderate bipartisanship, big business sensitivity and a strong environmental message is one reason our governor has rebounded straight to the top of the international scene after his humbling defeat at the polls in 2005.

Schwarzenegger has been invited to address the 2007 conference of the British Conservative Party. The gathering of 10,000 in late September in Blackpool will be headed by David Cameron, the dynamic young spokesman for the political opposition to Prime Minister Tony Blair who is modeling Arnold's political appeal .

But that's not all, the San Francisco Chronicle reports Mr. Environmental will be featured on the covers of Outdoor and Newsweek magazines as an international "green" leader.  

He is scheduled today to deliver the keynote address for the Newsweek Global Environmental Leadership Conference at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.

That will be followed Thursday by a major speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City, an esteemed opportunity usually reserved for national leaders or top foreign policy experts.

In May, he plans a three-day Canadian trip, visiting Ottawa, Vancouver and Toronto to talk about environmental issues.

Later in the year, the governor is scheduled to travel to India, where he will promote California products and a message that business development and environmentalism can work hand-in-hand in developing nations.

His most stylish appearance will come on Earth Day, April 22^nd on an upcoming episode of MTV's hit show Pimp My Ride.  The governator teams up with rapper Xzibit to "pimp" a '65 Chevy Impala.

Schwarzenegger, Mad Mike and the crew of Pimp My Ride give the Impala an ecological make over on the show's season premiere, which features the Impala getting an 800 horsepower Duramax diesel engine that will run on biodiesel fuel and educating viewers during the show about the benefits of ecological friendly cars.

You'd think he was running for president.

by Todd Beeton

Remember the good ole days of gas under $3/gallon? The surge in prices of late has certainly been dramatic, rising $.64/gallon on average nationwide in just a month (the nationwide average is now $2.80, cheap by California standards!) So, what is responsible for the rising prices?

DOE's Energy Information Administration...said that the recent price surge was attributed to higher crude oil prices, unplanned refinery outages and an increase in demand as well as a decline in gasoline imports.

They also expect prices to top out this summer at $2.81/gallon, which may be cold comfort but there is some good news to accompany the skyrocketing gas costs: alternative energies previously thought to be cost-prohibitive aren't looking so expensive anymore. As a result, innovation is really booming.

Take plug-in hybrids.

Like a traditional hybrid, plug-ins have both electric motors and batteries as well as a gasoline engine. The gas engine kicks in when the car is moving about 20 to 25 miles per hour.

But what's special about the plug-ins is that they run partially on electricity taken from your home. And while the hybrid's plug-in relative costs about $3-4,000 more than the regular hybrid, the fact is, with gas prices what they've been, these vehicles are becoming more and more practical.

From yesterday's San Jose Mercury:

A study by the Washington-based non-profit Electric Power Research Institute projected that if gas prices nationwide hovered near $3 a gallon and electricity costs averaged 8.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, plug-in hybrids make more economic sense than conventional cars. San Jose's average gas prices are $3.28 a gallon. And PG&E said its plug-in hybrid costs 2 to 4 cents per mile to operate, compared with a typical car that costs 8 to 20 cents per mile.

By Elliott D. Petty

Thanks to the hardened hearts of Ralph's, Albertsons and Vons (Safeway) thousands of hard-working grocery workers are facing a repeat of the four and half month strike and lock out which forced many workers to lose their homes and life savings so they could fight for good pay and health benefits.

The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor said its more than 800,000 members would honor picket lines should thousands of Southern California grocery workers go on strike or be locked out over a contract dispute with three national supermarket chains.

They are also prepared to mobilize for demonstrations, boycotts and food drives to aid grocery workers on the picket lines.

by Todd Beeton

L.A.-based blog Wilshire and Washington picked up ATM Watch yesterday, which was then quoted in today's National Journal. W&W wrote:

Politico/producer Rick Jacobs' progressive group Courage Campaign has launched a new feature and separate website of its ATM Watch, in which readers can submit questions that they think should be addressed by campaigns as they roll through the state. The ATM Watch is designed to track candidates and their movements, measuring whether they actually are interacting with voters and doing the honest to goodness business of campaigning. Jacobs, who chaired Howard Dean's efforts in the state for the 2004 race, only to see California play little role in the primary outcome, enlisted Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez to launch the endeavor. Among his issues: global warming, fair immigration and tax disbursement. "This is the time to ask the tough questions that most affect Californians," Nunez says.

So I'd like to welcome our new readers. As the paragraph above states, our goal with ATM Watch is to get the presidential candidates to engage with regular California voters, not just donors who can afford $2,300 for the privelege. How do we do that?

Well, as you can see down the left side of ATM Watch, we've been tracking the candidates and blogging about it, which you'll find by scrolling down the blog, which runs down the center of the page. Once Q1 ended, there's been a dramatic slowdown in withdrawals from the ATM, er, I mean visits to California but we're sure it will pick up as Q2 fundraising gets under way. In the meantime, please let us know what issues and questions you'd like the candidates to address. Just click the ASK IT button to the right and fill out the form with your question. We'll get them to the candidates and get some answers, even in the form of a response video from the candidates themselves. In addition, if you'd like to tell us about your own experiences seeing the candidates, go ahead and click the BLOG IT button, which will allow you to join our ATM Watch group and blog all about the candidates. We'll post the best user blogs on the front page. And if you have video you'd like to link here on the front page, you can upload it onto You Tube and tag it (instructions are HERE.)

So welcome to ATM Watch where we'll track the candidates and make sure they talk to you, regular California voters. This year, we're determined to make California more than just an ATM for the presidential candidates. Help us make sure we succeed.

by Erik Love

This weekend, Los Angeles was the site of the largest protest in the country since last year, as more than ten thousand people took to the streets to demand a humane and just immigration policy.  The protesters denounced President Bush's newest immigration proposal, which would require undocumented workers to leave the country, pay more than $10,000 in fines and fees, just to get a chance at becoming documented workers.  "I don't know why they don't want to give us papers, when we are working and trying to be good citizens," said Carlos Gonzales, LA resident, to the Times.  The protest is set to expand in the coming weeks, as activists gear up for May Day 2007 with calls for another general boycott to demand human rights and to highlight the positive impact that migrant workers have on our state.

And today, California's voice on immigration gets even louder as the Field Research Corporation released the results of a new poll indicating that wide majorities of Californians favor human rights for immigrants.  The bilingual telephone survey of 570 registered voters across the state shows that 83% of California voters want a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.  The full report (pdf) indicates that there's growing opposition to Bush's Wall along the border with Mexico, with nearly 60% opposed to its construction.  Also important to note is that only registered Republicans (68%) consider undocumented immigration to be a serious problem, with only 35% of non-partisan voters and just 40% of registered Democrats calling the problem "very serious."  In other words, only dedicated conservative Republicans appear to think that there's a "crisis" in immigration, while the majority feels that this is a less serious problem that can be solved by simply giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship while enforcing strict penalties on exploitative employers and effectively patrolling the border.

California continues to lead the way on immigration.  Despite the reactionary opinions of a few right-wing radicals like the Minutemen, most Californians realize that the "problem" with undocumented workers is that it's unfair and inhumane to ask them to live and work in the US without papers.  The current system allows for terrible human rights abuses that makes the lives of too many people close to slavery.  The political trade winds from California are clearly blowing in the direction of progressive reform for immigrants to our nation of immigrants.

By Elliott D. Petty

The Charter Schools vs. Public Schools debate is an issue that is only beginning to get the attention it deserves.  For the last several weeks, the LA Times has seemingly written incessantly against the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) for yet again refusing to charter one of those evil little Green Dot Public (Charter) Schools.

Of course, LAUSD are not the only folks hostile to Green Dot.  Infamous are the public arguments between Green Dot founder Steve Barr and United Teachers of Los Angeles president A.J. Duffy.  In fact, Barr has left a trail of detractors in neighboring school districts like Inglewood, whose schools I should have attended as a teenager.

To be fair, he has his friends too, progressive standard Tom Hayden and former president Bill Clinton.

I for one firmly believe the Charter School movement (as exemplified by Green Dot) will be the single largest impetus for positive change in the failing public school system.

Standardized tests won't do it, Teach for America recruits good people but doesn't address structural problems.  Increased funding only seems to reach the district bureaucracy and contractors seeking to take more money out of the classroom.

But small classrooms, safe schools, high academic expectations, teacher accountability and parental involvement appear to provide a good mix for improving public education.  Yes, charter schools are part of the public school system.  Taxpayers fund them.  Save for the additional funding raised from private sources.

by Todd Beeton

This story is pretty disturbing for a few reasons, not the least of which is how personal the attacks levied against Speaker Nunez by the church have been.

When Nunez decided to co-sponsor this year's model of The Compassionate Choices Act, which would allow allow the terminally ill to hasten their own deaths with lethal prescriptions, Nunez stated he was "ready to buck my church." Well, as George Skelton says, the church is bucking back.

On Monday, Cardinal Roger Mahony said the following during a worship service at Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels:

"We should be troubled that Fabian Nuñez, who has worshipped here in this cathedral as a Catholic, somehow has not understood and grasped the culture of life, but has allowed himself to get into this other direction, the culture of death."

On top of this, Monseignor John Moretta, who reportedly also railed against Nunez's support for the bill from the pulpit, sent Nunez a letter, which contained this pleasantry:

"I would wish you a happy Easter, but that is a celebration of life. You are attaching your name forever to death."

Nunez's response:

"I have a lot of respect for the cardinal, but I'm deeply disappointed in his comments. Those comments hit me pretty hard. They weren't just harsh. They were extreme and dogmatic.

"I support the 'culture of death?' I don't even support the death penalty."

by Todd Beeton

As David Binder and Juls have written recently, the amount of support the proposed Feb 5, 2008 term limit initiative finds among voters depends largely on how the question is asked. A new Survey and Policy Research Institute Poll (SPRI) confirms this further and breaks down the results of three polls and analyzes the wording of the question in each:

SPRI asked voters the following question:

Under current law, an elected official may serve up to six years in the California Assembly and up to eight years in the California State Senate. That's a total of 14 years in the state Legislature. Would you vote for or against a ballot measure that would reduce the number of years an elected official may spend in the state Legislature to 12 years -- but which would allow that official to spend all 12 years in either the Assembly or the Senate?

The result was 51% in favor, 36% opposed and 13% undecided or refused.

PPIC’s question asked:

Under current term limits, a legislator is allowed to serve six years in the State Assembly and eight years in the State Senate. Would you favor or oppose a change in term limits that would allow members to serve up to 12 years of total legislative service in either branch?

The result was 29% in favor, 66% opposed and 5% undecided.

The question by David Binder Research asked:

This initiative would change California’s law regulating term limits for members of the California State Assembly and State Senate. Currently, an individual is allowed by law to serve no more than six years in the State Assembly and no more than eight years in the State Senate – for a total of 14 years. This initiative would reduce the total number of years a person can serve in the state Legislature from 14 years to 12 years and it would also allow legislators to serve all 12 years in either the Assembly or the Senate as long as voters re-elect them for each term. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this initiative?

The result reported was 59% in favor, 33% opposed and 8% undecided or refused.

In other words, as Steve Maviglio writes, if voters think the law will further limit the terms of legislators, they're more likely to support it and if they think otherwise, less likely. Which brings us to the problem with ballot initiatives in the first place -- that a law's passage depends on how it's framed and is susceptible to the easily influenced biases and whims of the electorate. I'm glad most of these things go down. As much as people like the idea that we're able to make laws, as though that's somehow super-sized democracy, I think deep down most people know that really, making laws should be the job of the legislators, whom we entrust to do just that.

Title and summary of the initiative should be coming from the Attorney General's office in the coming days.

by Todd Beeton

Over the past few weeks, it's become quite evident that John Edwards is running for California...and he's running for it hard. The interesting thing about how he's doing it is that, against all conventional wisdom, he's managed to mount an inexpensive stealth campaign made up of campaign stops both conventional (rallies at colleges) and unconventional (an appearance at a Santa Monica Democratic club, a visit with Fresno farm workers and a recent Q&A with reporters in San Francisco, which I diaried with a link to video HERE) in between stops for California campaign cash.

The latest sign that Edwards absolutely thinks California is within his grasp is the release today of the endorsement of John L. Burton, former Democratic congressman, assemblyman and, until 2005, President pro tem of the state senate. He is a beloved liberal who was described in the following way by The Los Angeles Journal upon his retirement in 2005:

"Gone will be the Senate's most vehement partisan for social services for the poor, the Senate's angriest voice against tax breaks for businesses and the wealthy, its loudest voice for protection of workers, its fiercest pro-labor advocate and its disciplinarian."

Sound like anyone you know?

Remarkably, Edwards's California strategy may be paying off already. According to the latest Survey USA Poll, out today, Edwards surged 7 points since the previous poll was released on March 6. Here are the numbers (3/6 results in parentheses.)

Hillary Clinton 43 (44)

Barack Obama 25 (31)

John Edwards 17 (10)

Bill Richardson 4 (4) 

That movement is pretty stunning and, I'd argue, is not attributable exclusively to the positive response of "some people" to the courage and character John and Elizabeth displayed when they announced her cancer had returned. Edwards has his eye on California all right and it's beginning to look like California just might have its eye on him.

by Todd Beeton

Prior to California's moving its presidential primary up to February 5, 2008, skeptics said it wouldn't change things -- that there's no way candidates can campaign in California as they do in New Hampshire and Iowa, it's just too big and unwieldy. So imagine my surprise at seeing the following paragraph in an ABC 30 KFSN story describing a press event John Edwards held in San Francisco last week.

For half an hour, Edwards answered every question until there weren't any more. It's not the kind of time local reporters generally get with a presidential contender. It's reminiscent of sit-around and talk about anything sessions that candidates have at high school gyms in Iowa or at soda shops in New Hampshire.

The entire Q&A, unedited, can be viewed HERE (scroll down to the bottom of the page.) Excerpts and my take over the flip...