Progressive Caucus CDP Blog site
Welcome to the new blog site for the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party. Please check our website regularly for updates about the Progressive Movement within the Democratic Party at our website: www.progressivecaucuscdp.org.
posted by JoOlson | 2:09 PM
5 Comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm2OXQh3duI
Watch this video immediately. Share with everyone you know. It's the grassroots answer to Karl Rove and the GOP propaganda machine. 120,000+ views and counting. Progressives need a rallying cry today and this is it.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hey folks, let's use this site. Just saying Hi for now. Dotty
Linda Sutton
Truth Now Productions
PROPOSITION 93 -- NO
Term Limits on Feb. 5, 2008 CA ballot
a position paper presented to the
Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, Endorsement Committee and endorsed unanimously by the membership attending the 12-8-07 meeting
Proposition 93 on the upcoming February ballot is a deceptive attempt by incumbent career politicians to circumvent the will of the California voters.
Prop 93 would apply ONLY to California state legislators in the Assembly and State Senate. It does NOT apply to federal positions. The Supreme Court has already ruled and said that the U.S. Constitution cannot be altered by state law.
Recent polling shows that about two-thirds of the state's voters (all parties) want the terms of their elected officials to be limited. They VOTED FOR LIMITS twice already and the present law passed in 1990 restricts members of the assembly and senate to 14 years in the legislature, six years (3 terms) in the assembly, eight years (2 terms) in the senate.
But, voters may be fooled by the short paragraph description of 93 on the ballot that seems to say that the term will be REDUCED from 14 to 12. Backers of this measure had done polling which concluded Californians, given this deceptive language, will buy it. PDLA should NOT.
If this proposition passes, the real winners will be Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata. They conveniently built in a "transition period" that will ensure both of them continued employment in their present cushy positions BEYOND their allotted time set to end this year under the present term limits law. This nifty little loophole will actually benefit 60% of the incumbent Senators who would be able to serve 18 combined years.
Dan Walters in the Sacramento Bee explains: "What that means, in effect, is that they are asking voters not only to give them longer careers in the Legislature, but a guarantee that they'd still be in office in 2011 and thus in position to control redistricting after the 2010 census…."
Background. Proposition 140, the current term limits law, was passed in 1990 following the federal corruption investigations leading to felony convictions of sitting legislators in the late 1980's. The final straw possibly was when Assembly Speaker Willie Brown negotiated a deal to allow immunity from litigation in civil lawsuits for the tobacco industry. His lavish and flamboyant lifestyle provided by the corporate lobbyists added fuel to the public outrage, and Proposition 140 passed easily although it was outspent significantly by opponents. (Willie's princely ways seem to be on an instant replay as our present Speaker Nunez indulges himself with excessively luxurious expenditures--LA Times articles)
Next, the politicians' first attempt at revision in 2002. Voters soundly defeated Prop 45 by 57.7% to 42.3%, although the prevailing side was outspent 10 to 1. Of course, the language was much more straightforward than the present proposition with all of its seemingly reasonable "logic."
The Center for Governmental Studies (CGS) just released Termed Out: Reforming California’s Legislative Term Limits. It says that the main benefit of term limits has been an opening up of the process, so that there has been greater opportunity for new candidates to run for office. This HAS happened and has directly benefited both women as well as Latino office-seekers. It was one of the reasons FOR term limits in 1990. Another potential benefit stated is the lessening of corruption among new legislators. This too was one of the original reasons, but it does not necessarily follow and hasn't been proven.
On the negative side is that the newly elected representatives don't have enough time to "build leadership skills or gain expertise in making public policy." Their argument that only lobbyists have skills when legislators are lacking is not really substantiated. One needs only look to termed-out Assemblywoman Fran Pavley to see how much one new legislator can accomplish within her allotted time. Of course, she came to office fully prepared and educated. We need to ask ourselves how much on-the-job training taxpayers are willing to give legislators with a slow learning curve. Aren't these the very people who SHOULD be OUT? On the other hand, many very talented progressives are now sitting on the sidelines after being termed out.
While the idea of 12 years instead of 14 could be appealing, it needs to come without the extra baggage of a sweetheart deal for those incumbents who are promoting it. Preferably, it should be re-introduced AFTER CLEAN MONEY laws are enacted. The corruption that was the primary reason for enactment of the term limits in the first place is alive and well as the corporations continue to pour money into the coffers of incumbents of both parties. The progressive agenda will forever be blocked as long as the interests of corporations hold sway over those of the people.
And which politicians have stood in the way of Clean Money, this more important reform? And which politicians have stood in the way of single payer health care? And which politicians have refused to allow any elected assembly representatives to re-introduce impeachment into the state legislature?
Nunez and Perata.
Do we really want them to have more time in their present positions? I don't think so. Let's give newbies a chance to come in with innovative ideas and possibly a breath of fresh air and democracy. NO ON PROP 93.
"Give peace a chance."
Dear Friends of a Free Media,
Well, if not free, at least allowing all opinions to be heard in a presidential race.
The impetus for this movement was the exclusion of candidates from the recent MSNBC debate in Nevada. MSNBC, owned by GE, used its legal muscle to overturn a judge's order to INCLUDE all the candidates. What's pathetic is that there even was an order in the first place.
The AIR WAVES, for those who remember the distant past, are supposed to be owned by the public. The corporations who run the television networks have definitely FORGOTTEN that and allege that as "private entities" they have the right to limit the voices and viewpoints you hear on these air waves.
Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles disagrees and yesterday unanimously passed the following resolution which requests our Democratic National Party to REQUIRE the inclusion in all candidates in nationally televised debates. We will be forwarding this to them and to state party officials in charge of the California debate this week. However, this issue transcends the present presidential campaign and needs to be in place for ALL FUTURE DEBATES. Because we are a Democratic club, we are directing this to our own party. It had been noted that this should apply to the Republican party also, but that is not included in this resolution, and it was observed that the blatent exclusions have not occurred with their candidates this election cycle.
If you wish to SIGN ON to this resolution,
PLEASE ADD YOUR NAME AND PRIMARY POLITICAL AFFILIATION TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST AND RETURN IT TO ME at lindasutton.ca@gmail.com. And PLEASE FORWARD this to your contacts so that they can be included. Thank you all!!
Resolution in favor of ALL CANDIDATES
of the major parties being included in nationally broadcast debates
Whereas the democracy of our country is dependent on the free and open exchange of ideas and information,
And, whereas the media conglomerates and corporate interests, driven by shareholder profits, are using the public air waves to limit access and monopolize the broadcasting commons,
And whereas these media conglomerates and corporate interests are undermining the public interest to be fully informed about critical issues, thus declaring themselves to be private entities who can limit debate through arbitrarily set conditions for participation ,
Be it resolved that Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles shall support this resolution to request that the Democratic National Committee REQUIRE that the broadcasting networks who use the public air waves include all presidential candidates in all nationally televised debates.
Co-sponsored by:
Linda Sutton, 41st AD Delegate, PDLA- Endorsements, Progressive Caucus- Media Reform
Dr. Bill Honigman, PDA California State Coordinator
Marcy Winograd, PDLA, President
Brad Parker, Officer, Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party
Lila Garrett, KPFK Host of "Connect the Dots"
Judy Alter, Director, Protect California Ballots, Delegate-At-Large, Election Defense Alliance
William Floyd, President, Santa Monica Peace Club
Dorothy Reik, President, Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mts.
Barbara Gluck, Director, Global Light Network
Peter Thottam, Esq., Executive Director, Los Angeles Impeachment Center
Robin Gibson, Co-Founder, L.A. Election Protection Taskforce
Ann Hiller, Treasurer, PDLA
Barbara Levin, Secretary PDLA and Founder of PDA-Ch334
Mervis Reissig, PDLA Endorsement Chair, PDA National Coord Congressional Districts
Michael Jay, Delegate, 42nd AD, PDLA
Lauren Steiner, SoCalGrassroots, PDLA
Lillian Laskin, Democratic Club of Westside Progressives,PLDA Endorsements
Maureen Cruise, 41st AD Delegate, Pacific Palisades Dems,LA County DP Alternate,PDLA
Ahjamu Makalani, Progressive Caucus, PDLA
Bruce Campbell, West LA Democratic Club, PDLA, 47th AD
Marilyn Noyes, PDLA
Michael Millman, PDLA
Tom Williams, PDLA
Laurette Healey, PDLA
Kim Kaufman, PDLA
Margery Epstein, PDLA
Sylvia Moore, PDLA
Rochelle Laur, PDLA
Susan B. Haskell, Delegate, 41st AD, Pacific Palisades Democratic Club
Margie Murray, PDLA, Valley Democrats United, 41st AD delegate
David Swanson, PDA National Board Member
Alicia Morgan, PDLA
Christine Rowe, Valley West Democrats, Valley Grassroots for Democracy
Marr Nealon, NELA Democratic Club
Michael Butler, West LA Democratic Club
Flo A Weber, PDA Ventura County,Valley Democrats United, Valley West Dem Club
(ADD YOURSELF HERE PLEASE and return so that I can complete a master list)
Post a Comment
<< Home