A Progressive Challenge to Jane Harman
by Norman Solomon
Common Dreams: May 12, 2009
There are many reasons why progressives will mobilize behind the campaign of
Marcy Winograd, who announced on Monday that she'll challenge incumbent
Congresswoman Jane Harman in the 2010 Democratic primary.
Some will speak of Harman's pro-war record. Some will recall her support for
warrantless wiretapping, followed by her irony-free indignation when it
turned out that NSA snoops had taped her own phone conversations. Some will
recount Harman's long public silence after being briefed on torture by the
U.S. government.
And then there's the extensive evidence that Rep. Harman has gone over the
top to do the bidding of the Israeli government and some of its most extreme
supporters in the United States.
But what may be most significant about Winograd's race to unseat Harman in
2010 is that it reflects -- and is likely to help nurture -- a growing
maturity among progressives around the country who are tired of merely
complaining about centrist Democrats in Congress.
Winograd, a high school teacher in South Los Angeles, is a longtime activist
who founded the LA chapter of Progressive Democrats of America. Back in
2006 -- after less than three months of campaigning -- she won 38 percent of
the primary vote against Harman.
The launch of Winograd's new campaign (www.Winograd4congress.com) has come
more than 12 months before Election Day. And the candidate's kickoff speech
Monday afternoon laid out a tapestry of compelling reasons behind her second
run for Congress.
At the Venice Pier in the northern end of California's 36th congressional
district, Winograd sounded the unabashedly progressive notes that have
animated her activism over the years.
Speaking of widespread economic woes in such areas as Torrance, where
foreclosures have skyrocketed, Winograd declared: "It doesn't have to be
this way. It is time to say NO to government waste, to trillion-dollar war
budgets for endless occupations that breed more terrorists, to countless
no-bid contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan that drain our treasury of
hard-earned taxpayer dollars. Halliburton gets rich, while the working
family in Torrance watches their home slip away."
Congresswoman Harman provides a particularly spectacular example of an
officeholder who has boosted militarism while helping to undermine civil
liberties and human rights. But, in essence, on the Hill she's
run-of-the-mill.
As a matter of routine, most members of Congress avidly serve corporate
interests and the warfare state. They benefit when progressives leave
electoral battlefields to others while complaining bitterly about
corporatists and warmongers atop Capitol Hill.
Strong progressives like Marcy Winograd belong in the United States
Congress. Movements that learn how to propel more candidates like her into
office -- while defeating the likes of Jane Harman -- will gain strength for
the long haul.
Norman Solomon is a journalist, historian, and progressive activist. His
book "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death"
has been adapted into a documentary film of the same name. His most recent
book is "Made Love, Got War." He is a national co-chair of the Healthcare
NOT Warfare campaign. In California, he is co-chair of the Commission on a
Green New Deal for the North Bay; www.GreenNewDeal.info
***
http://www.sheilakuehl.org/sheila-s-essays/props-1d-1e-and-1f
Props 1D, 1E and 1F
by Sheila Kuehl
May 5, 2009
This is the second of two essays presenting the contents of, and analyses
on, the six propositions on the May 19 ballot. Props 1D and 1E have
absolutely nothing to recommend them. Prop 1F was a throwaway so that
the last Republican to vote for the budget could say he extracted some
cosmetic punishment for the legislature. I recommend a no on all of them.
Details below.
What I Think (a recap from the last essay)
It seems pretty obvious that, whether the propositions pass or fail, they
create a significant, but different, problem for the state. The total
monies brought into the current budget by all the propositions together
is about 6 billion dollars. However, over $5 billion of that revenue
comes from the sale of the lottery. This makes Props 1D and 1E virtually
unnecessary. Prop 1A brings significant monies in three and four years
out from the current budget, but creates a badly-thought-out spending cap.
The problems created by the passage of the propositions simply to gain
a small amount of one-time money and a bigger theoretical rainy day fund
in the future are, in my opinion, too much of a price to pay. Therefore, I
intend to vote no on all of them, except maybe the lottery proposal
contained in Prop 1C. Unfortunately, there is no right answer, so long as
we must garner a few Republican votes to pass a budget and raise a tax.
I apologize for the fact that the descriptions of the propositions are a bit
simplified, but I hope you might find them helpful.
Proposition 1D
In 1998, voters adopted Prop 10, which increased the tax on tobacco
products and set up the California Children and Families Trust Fund in the
California Constitution. 20% of the monies (generally called First Five
funds) were targeted for specific programs related to school readiness,
child care, research on school readiness, and related administrative
expenses. 80% of the new money went to newly established county
commissions to spend on early childhood development programs.
Prop 1D would redefine and expand the purposes for which these tobacco
tax monies may be used to include direct health care services, human
services, services by county welfare agencies to families at risk and early
education services. This is a big change and allows the state to simply
scoop the designated funds into the gaping maw of the state budget deficit.
In addition, Prop 1D would redirect up to $340,000,000 and no less than
$275,000,000 of "unencumbered" funds in the First Five Accounts to health
and human services programs for children up to five years of age, including
adoption assistance, child welfare services, foster care, kinship
guardianship assistance payments and direct healthcare services. This
transfer would continue at a rate of $268 million for the next five budget
years. The State Controller is also authorized to use any of the monies in
the Fund for "loans" to the general fund.
My Opinion on Prop 1D
Former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan wrote in the LA Times, "Then
there's Proposition 1D, with its clunky and dishonest title: 'Protects
Children's Services Funding. Helps Balance State Budget.' How does it
'protect' children's services funding? By taking $1.6 billion currently
committed to children's health services and preschool and throwing it into
the budget mess."
When the voters approved Prop 10, they correctly identified a gaping hole in
programs for children from 0-5 in terms of health, readiness, education,
child care, etc. Taking this money and adding it to the General Fund makes
no sense, except to fill a budget hole with anything you can put your hands
on. And, since there are many, many good, ongoing programs already set
up under the First Five Commissions, it turns those programs into one-time
programs, when we really need continuity in this area. In addition, the
amount is so small, compared to the budget gap, and so large, in terms of
the good it can do county by county, I believe this proposition deserves a
resounding No.
Prop 1E
This is another fund grab that takes a 1% income tax increase the voters
imposed on those with earnings over one million dollars, moves it from its
original purpose of augmenting mental health services in the state, and
dumps it into the general fund, in order to help balance the budget.
In 2004, voters adopted Prop 63, the Mental Health Services Act, to
augment mental health monies being spent by the state, which were
woefully inadequate. The proposition was quite specific that the funds
could not be used to supplant existing state or county funds for mental
health and that the state was required to continue to provide the same
level of funding in the general fund for these purposes and not use
Prop 63 funds for existing programs.
Prop 1E removes those proscriptions and requires the diversion of
$226,700,000 of these funds into the Early and Periodic Screening,
Diagnosis and Treatment Program in the State Department of Mental
Health, until 2011. Although this is a good program, it will simply
gobble up these targeted monies into routine work and leave nothing
for the augmented programs begun under Prop 63.
My Opinion on Prop 1E
There is hardly a more needy set of programs than those devoted to
improving the mental health of Californians. At least we could be certain
that Prop 63 monies were going toward alleviating this crisis. We voted for
an extra 1% tax on millionaires specifically to fund increased programming
in our mental health fields. Prop 1E would simply ignore that intention and
drop the money down the state budget hole. Again, I'm a No on this one.
Prop 1F
Well, of all the ideas proposed by Republicans dangling their votes in front
of the President pro Temps in February, this was the least objectionable
and, so, it got on the ballot. The original idea was: if the legislature
doesn't get the budget out on time (since only the democrats are ready to
vote on it), they (even those who are fully prepared to vote for a balanced
budget) deserve to lose some pay.
When that idea didn't fly, Prop 1F was born, directing the independent
commission that sets not just legislative, but all, statewide salaries, to
freeze all those salaries when there is a "negative balance in the Special
Fund for Economic Uncertainties in an amount equal to, or greater than,
1 percent of estimated General Fund revenues." Frankly, had the Governor
filled the empty slots on the Commission in a timely fashion, this would not
even be a discussion since the Board will not vote to raise the salaries of
legislators or statewide officers under these circumstances, anyway.
My Opinion
No need for this one.
No comments:
Post a Comment