FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 26, 2009Statement from Los Angeles County Young Democrats President Katherine Hennigan Regarding Proposition 8 Ruling
LOS ANGELES- Los Angeles County Young Democrats (LACYD) President Katherine Hennigan released the following statement today in reaction to the California Supreme Court’s ruling to uphold Proposition 8.
“As a representative of the Los Angeles County Young Democrats, I am extremely disappointed in today's ruling. LACYD is one of California's largest groups of civic-minded young professionals and we stand firm in our belief that it is not the will of the people to uphold laws that violate any basic civil liberties. We are committed to continue our role in the fight to right this wrong and to ensure equality for all.”
Founded more than 30 years ago by Congressmembers Henry Waxman and Howard Berman, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, and others, Los Angeles County Young Democrats is the largest organization in Southern California focused on giving young people a voice and a vehicle for activism in local, state, and federal political issues. With a membership of more than 500 and dozens of local, state, and federal candidates either members or helped into office by the organization, LACYD remains at the forefront of keeping Young Democrats engaged, informed and heard on issues of importance to young people. For more information, please visit www.lacyd.org.- # # # -
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Statement from LACYD President Katherine Hennigan Regarding Today's Proposition 8 Ruling
The following statement was released today by Los Angeles County Young Democrats President, Katherine Hennigan:
Monday, May 25, 2009
LA Times Article About Tobacco Tax Raises Questions
I posted a link to a Los Angeles Times article earlier today because the topic of the article is SB 600 (Padilla), a bill that would increase the tax on tobacco by $1.50. The Los Angeles County Young Democrats support SB 600 because it would raise money for the state at a time when California desperately needs the cash. The bill would raise this money by taxing smoking- something that is literally killing people. If the additional financial burden provides any further incentive for anyone to quit smoking, than the bill is working. This bill will raise money in the short term (through the tax), it will save money in the long term (healthy populations cost the state less money in health care costs and people will be healthier if they are financially forced to choose to quit smoking) and it will save lives. All and all, SB 600 is a good bill that LACYD is proud to support.
Along with shining a spotlight on this important legislation, the Times article was interesting because of the quotes in the piece from representatives of the tobacco industry and other opponents of the bill. The most prevalent message I could see being pushed by the opponents of this bill was that taxing tobacco disproportionately affects low-income and minority communities because these are the people that buy tobacco products.
There was one other part of the article that captured my attention. I was surprised to read the following quote from the piece:
If this is true, than money raised for First Five Commissions was being spent, not on the programs and children it was intended to be spent on, but on political ads. This would mean that the opponents of 1D that were steadfast in their efforts to block an attempt to use unused Prop. 10 money to help prevent catastrophic cuts to other services, did so with motives not articulated during the public debate. They opposed Prop. 1D in order to ensure that every Prop. 10 dime went to the programs helping children for which the money was intended. Oh, and political ads- you can't forget the political ads that were apparently bought and paid for with Prop. 10 money.
Why did we not hear of this during the campaign? Apparently there were "reports" about this- why were those headlines not appearing in television ads or mailers? Was this done and I missed it entirely or was this an oversight by the strange bedfellows assembled to pitch these doomed measures to the public? I know it doesn't matter now, I am just honestly curious.
Feel free to contribute to the comments section and let me know if you saw any ads or even a single mention of the way Prop. 10 funds were being used during the Prop. 1D campaign.
Along with shining a spotlight on this important legislation, the Times article was interesting because of the quotes in the piece from representatives of the tobacco industry and other opponents of the bill. The most prevalent message I could see being pushed by the opponents of this bill was that taxing tobacco disproportionately affects low-income and minority communities because these are the people that buy tobacco products.
"There are more smokers among people of color, and they will have to pay the extra tax."So what opponents of the bill are saying is that cigarettes, which have been repeatedly scientifically proven to kill people, are being disproportionately used by low-income and minority communities. And that this is a reason NOT to create incentive for people to stop using this harmful product? To some degree, I get the Libertarian "it is your right to slowly poison yourself" argument (I don't see the logic in it, but I get that the argument exists) but this is just crazy. Spokespeople for the cancer lobby and their allies in this effort are arguing that we should not tax a (miraculously legal) poison because it may convince a targeted population of low-income and minority groups to stop harming themselves. I am glad to see the spokespeople aren't stupid, they are just Kaiser Soze-level evil.
There was one other part of the article that captured my attention. I was surprised to read the following quote from the piece:
[Frank Lester, a spokesman for Reynolds American Inc.] also said California voters are "dubious" about how past tobacco taxes have been spent. He cited media reports about the use of Proposition 10 tobacco proceeds, approved by voters in 1998 for childhood development programs, to pay for political ads promoting another ballot measure.My question is this- where was this information when we were trying to get 1D passed in the May 19 Special Election? (For those of you with short memories and who have not frequented this blog, Proposition 1D would have allowed the legislature to take money that was raised by Proposition 10 to help reduce the state's budget deficit and prevent cuts to services across the board. Prop. 1D would only have taken surplus money that is not being used and would not have affected any existing programs. The measure failed miserably last Tuesday.)
If this is true, than money raised for First Five Commissions was being spent, not on the programs and children it was intended to be spent on, but on political ads. This would mean that the opponents of 1D that were steadfast in their efforts to block an attempt to use unused Prop. 10 money to help prevent catastrophic cuts to other services, did so with motives not articulated during the public debate. They opposed Prop. 1D in order to ensure that every Prop. 10 dime went to the programs helping children for which the money was intended. Oh, and political ads- you can't forget the political ads that were apparently bought and paid for with Prop. 10 money.
Why did we not hear of this during the campaign? Apparently there were "reports" about this- why were those headlines not appearing in television ads or mailers? Was this done and I missed it entirely or was this an oversight by the strange bedfellows assembled to pitch these doomed measures to the public? I know it doesn't matter now, I am just honestly curious.
Feel free to contribute to the comments section and let me know if you saw any ads or even a single mention of the way Prop. 10 funds were being used during the Prop. 1D campaign.
LACYD Endorses Environmental Legislation, Anti-Tobacco Bills
At our May Board meeting, the Los Angeles County Young Democrats Executive Board voted to uphold the Legislative Committee’s recommendations and formally support the following bills. All of the following bills are currently moving through the California State Legislature.
Senate Bill 17 would advance California’s clean energy policies by improving reliability and efficiency in power distribution through the deployment of smart grid technology.
The historic greenhouse gas legislation, AB 32, gives the California Air Resources Board (CARB) the authority to collect fees through market mechanisms such as auctions, and through a schedule of fees. CARB must spend the revenue to further the purposes of AB 32. This revenue can be used to invest in energy efficiency, clean energy resources and enabling infrastructure, new technologies and new jobs that will put California on the path to a clean and prosperous future.
SB 31 will give CARB additional guidance on how this revenue should be used. SB 31 will ensure that revenue collected pursuant to AB 32 will be invested in ways that will reduce GHG emissions, protect the health and safety of Californians, and put us on the path to a new green economy.
SB 565 would require the State Water Resources Control Board to develop a plan to ensure that at least 50% of wastewater that is annually discharged into the ocean, as of the year 2009, is recycled and put to beneficial use by the year 2030. The bill would fund the development and implementation of that plan by requiring the state board to impose a fee on each person discharging wastewater into the ocean.
SB 600 advances California’s tobacco prevention and cancer research efforts and generates a significant amount of revenue by increasing the state’s tobacco tax an additional $1.50 per pack. This bill was the subject of a recent Los Angeles Times article.
SB 601 seeks to strengthen existing law governing the issuance of tobacco retail licenses by establishing restrictions on license eligibility and prohibiting tobacco from being sold within 1,000 feet of schools.
SB 602 seeks to strengthen current tobacco laws aimed at reducing illegal sales of tobacco products to minors by requiring the state tobacco licensing authority to revoke or suspend retail tobacco licenses upon a recommendation of tobacco enforcement agencies.
SB 602 also seeks to prevent the proliferation of tobacco retail outlets in California communities by allowing over-concentration to be a condition for license denial.
SB 603 caps the number of new retail tobacco licenses that may be issued annually and requires tobacco retailers to pay an annual license renewal fee.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Press Release: Bass, Steinberg Move Quickly to Head Off Cash Crisis, Make Budget Process More Transparent
Editor's note: The following press release, distributed yesterday, describes how the legislature will approach the unfortunate task of figuring out exactly which essential services the state can no longer afford in the wake of this week's election results.
SACRAMENTO – Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) held a news conference today to announce measures that will help quicken the process to solve a looming $21 billion state budget deficit and head off a cash shortage for the state expected in July. Additionally, they announced measures to make the process more transparent than in previous years and include more legislators and public input in the process.
“The budget process will be completed quickly to help prevent a potential cash-flow shortage in July and to reassure the federal government and private investors that California is a safe investment,” Bass said. “This conference committee will be different than in the past. It will include more members’ points of view and it will be far more open to the public and transparent than in previous years.”
“Beginning today, the Legislature will work diligently in an open, transparent process to balance our budget and address a looming cash shortage in July,” Steinberg said. “I have great faith in the Senate and Assembly conferees to get this job done in the most responsible way possible.”
Measures to make the budget conference committee process move quickly and be more open include:
- The announcement that the budget conference committee will be made up of five legislators from both the Assembly and Senate instead of the usual three. Assemblymembers Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa), who will chair the Conference Committee, Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), Bob Blumenfield (D-Woodland Hills) and Senators Denise Ducheny (D-San Diego), Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga) Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) and Mimi Walters (R-Laguna Hills) will sit on the committee. Assembly Republican appointments to the Conference Committee are still being finalized.
- Plans in both houses to quickly move a spot budget bill (SB 61) on Thursday morning (May 21) that will be used to establish a budget conference committee
- Conference committee hearings on the governor’s May Revise proposal, unlike previous years. The conference committee will essentially be tasked with closing the $21 billion budget gap
- May Revision hearings directly in Conference Committee, rather than first being heard in subcommittee
- Conference Committee reconciliation of differences in actions taken by the Senate and Assembly Budget Subcommittees in their hearings since the budget was enacted on February 18. There are not a lot of significant issues (given that the 2009-10 budget was already enacted). Most of the work and actions of the budget subcommittees in each house have been on proposals that were rejected in the February budget deal “without prejudice” (i.e., Gov’s proposals that didn’t actually deal with closing the budget gap), as well as some special fund issues, and oversight issues.
- Public and Televised budget conference committee meetings
- Conference Committee public testimony, particularly on May Revise proposals, as well as other suggestions on how to close a $21 billion budget gap, unlike past years
- Budget conference committee focus on cash shortage issues
The budget conference committee schedule will be as follows…
- May 21 - Conference Committee will begin with overview of the budget from the Department of Finance and Legislative Analyst’s Office
- earlier than usual, and May Revision will be heard directly in Conference Committee, rather than first being heard in subcommittee
- May 22 – Hear from the State Controller and State Treasurer on the state’s cash issues. (and DOF and LAO).
- May 25-28 – Conference committee will use its meetings to get public testimony. Each day will be a different subject (i.e., education, HHS, etc.), and the schedule will be published in the Daily File. This will give the public a chance to comment on the Gov’s May Revise proposals, as well as suggestions for how the Legislature and Governor should close the $21 billion budget gap.
- June 1 – Traditional Conference Committee action hearings begin to review the specific proposals of the Administration, and getting the LAO critique. Conferees will also consider the suggestions of citizens and groups who provided testimony during the public testimony days (week of May 26).
- The goal is to have the conference committee finish its work by mid-June and put out proposals to the floor to amend the 2009-10 budget package, and to get those passed and in law prior to the start of the fiscal year (July 1).
Below are links to audio from today’s news conference.
Speaker Bass’s entire opening statement to the media at today’s post-election/state budget news conference. (4:12)
http://democrats.assembly.ca.
Speaker Bass says the voters sent a message by defeating the budget related measures on yesterday’s ballot. (:39)
http://democrats.assembly.ca.
Speaker Bass says there is no doubt spending cuts will be part of the budget solution. (:24)
http://democrats.assembly.ca.
Speaker Bass says there will not be any additional federal money coming to deal with the state’s financial crisis. (:16)
http://democrats.assembly.ca.
Speaker Bass says eliminating the two-thirds budget vote requirement is something to consider in the future, after the current budget crisis is resolved. (:10)
http://democrats.assembly.ca.
Speaker Bass says the sale of state assets will not happen fast enough to deal with the current budget problem. (:14)
http://democrats.assembly.ca.
Speaker Bass says Democrats are also looking for more ways to improve the economic climate, such as the housing and entertainment industry tax credits. (:20)
http://democrats.assembly.ca.
Pro Tem Steinberg says the vote shows people want the legislature to do the job and it will be done. (:39)
Pro Tem Steinberg says there will be serious cuts but the majority party will try hard to uphold Democratic values. (:41)
Pro Tem Steinberg says there are three reasons the legislature must act quickly. (:32)
Click onto the following link for pictures of today’s news conference:www.asm.ca.gov/speaker/media
Website of pro Tem Darrell Steinberg: http://dist06.casen.govoffice.
Website of Speaker Karen Bass: www.asm.ca.gov/speaker
###
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
big, BIG trouble
It appears that irony knows no bounds when it comes to California politics. Yesterday, an electoral landslide was supposed to send a clear message to our state legislators. The only message that got through was that those without something better to do than vote in the election (according to the paltry 22.4% statewide turnout reported by the Secretary of State, there were a lot of better things to do yesterday) are mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore. As emotional and powerful as that message is supposed to be, it certainly loses its effect when it lacks anything resembling a mandate for legislators to go back and fix this budget mess in a manner of which Californians approve. With the thorough crash and burn of Propositions 1A-1E (none of the measures were able to muster more than 38% of the vote) our legislators should understand that Californians are not happy with how things are being done in Sacramento. Unfortunately, voters failed to send anything close to a clear message about how they would prefer thing be done.
As a result of yesterday's special election, California lawmakers must return to a bargaining table that must seem all too familiar by now, to hammer out a deal that closes an unfathomably unreasonable $21 billion budget gap. They are going to have to negotiate a compromise that is tolerable to Republicans who are frequently threatened by their own party if they appear to be amenable to even the slightest rational increase in revenue generating taxes. They are going to have to strike a deal that is tolerable to Democrats, who were sent to Sacramento to protect (and hopefully improve) the services government provides for Californians. They are going to have to agree on a budget, which in the past has proven, shall we say... difficult. They are going to have to do this absent any lucid direction from voters.
In addition to Tuesday's election kicking our budget crisis from the frying pan, directly into the fire, the message sent by the few voters who actually showed up to vote is dangerously ambiguous. Because of the confusing and occasionally counter-intuitive nature of the ballot measures, voters were not able to send a clear message to legislators regarding how they want them to approach the daunting task of resolving the unending budget fiasco. For instance, a voter who voted "no" on the measures because they were displeased with the way the initiatives were placed on the ballot, could have their "no" vote interpreted as a vote against the extension of tax increases. A voter who was voting to protect money set aside for First Five Commissions and Prop. 63 Mental Health services could have their vote interpreted as a vote in favor of cutting state-funded services across the board. Yesterday's rejection of these convoluted and complex initiatives allows legislators to manipulate the "message" they were supposed to be receiving into whatever mandate they would like, in order to justify the actions they are about to take to deal with the budget deficit. As confusing as the text of the ballot measures was, the unclear message sent by the overwhelming denial of the initiatives is equally baffling. Worse, it is dangerously malleable.
Those that voted yesterday tried to send a message. I am afraid, however, that the only message that will get through will be whatever those that got us into this mess in the first place want it to be. Simple put- we are all in big, big trouble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)