California Sticks it to the Kids

Last week, the University of California Board of Regents voted to increase student tuition by 32 percent to help close the system’s $535 million budget gap. The ensuing publicity surrounding the protests and demonstrations have been some of the most heated since the Vietnam War. As a current student of a private university in Southern California whose epic tuition continues to skyrocket each year, I initially approached the recent change in circumstances of the school to our west with cynicism and doubt. I still find it unfortunate that for those students who do not qualify for Cal Grants and financial aid, or those who do not have enough money to cover the new increases, that this money will come directly from the savings and loans of students and their families.

But as an unaffected party, I must selfishly admit: I’m kind of glad this is happening.

During one of the now infamous “sit-in” demonstrations, perhaps the demonized administrative officials should begin by encouraging indignant students to simply pick up a newspaper. Newspapers which show the overcrowding of state prisons, the ever-depleting credit ratings of California bonds, dangerous pension liabilities for state employees, and that special gift that will be passed on to California’s Generation Y: terrifying levels of state debt. The 32% tuition hike at UC campuses is just a preview of what’s to come in the next 40 years for those of us born after 1980.

So perhaps this will be the wake up call we politically active Gen Y’ers have been waiting for. About one in four eligible California voters under the age of thirty voted in the 2006 midterm elections. In 2010, another midterm election year, we’ll be electing a new Governor, Senator, and a host of statewide legislators. There has never been a more crucial time for UC students to make their voices heard.

The tuition hike will drive out many working class families from being able to afford the quality public education that was promised to California. This is a serious problem for current and future students from working and middle class backgrounds. But in the grand scheme of public decisions on who is to carry the state’s debt, this was probably Plan Z.

Some advice to my fellow sufferers of student debt: protests get you nowhere. Civilized civic participation – in large numbers – is the only way the state will take you seriously. Outbursts get you tasered; it’s votes that get your money back. The 26^th Amendment was designed for just this purpose – allowing college-aged students to vote their way out of Vietnam. In November 2010, prove to the state that you’re worthy of your already underpriced education and your right to vote at age 18. Tell the state to pick on someone its own size; leave them kids alone.

I Can See California From My House!

Love her or hate her: Sarah Palin has re-written the book on female candidacy. During her ten-week campaign spotlight, her candidacy peaked and plunged amid a seemingly relentless throng of dissenters. Her new book, Going Rogue: An American Life, and the resulting media blitz, will – like it or not – be the nagging undertone of the 2010 election in this state.


Palin’s book tour is a blessing for Democrats. Palin has effectively stolen the thunder away from the Republican spin machine and directed the spotlight on questions about her personal prospects. On the national scene, Palin’s melodic pitch seems to be much preferred by the conservative base than the rhythmic banging of heads against the wall of Congress as the healthcare bill faces its destiny. The once bread-and-butter Republican issues in the state, such as pork-filled legislation or the soaring costs of just about everything, are being sucked up by the momentum of a hockey mom gone rogue.


Less than a third of Americans think Palin would make a good president. Yet, during the Palin interview, the Oprah Winfrey show saw its best ratings in over two years. But if Palin truly wanted to make a difference without a title, as she proudly proclaimed in Monday’s interview with Oprah Winfrey, she would have a field day in California.


Candidates Carly Fiorina (Republican candidate for Senate) and Meg Whitman (Republican candidate for Governor) seem unsettled in their stances on Palin. Fiorina, while openly admitting that she hadn’t yet read Palin’s book, came to the defense of the former Vice Presidential candidate during an interview where Fiornia rebuffed the McCain campaign as “sexist.” Meanwhile, Whitman has been dodging Palin questions like the plague.


By endorsing one or both of the two candidates, Palin could help define the women themselves as a steadfast Republicans. Democrats in Boxer’s camp hope that Palin endorses Fiornia rival Chuck DeVore, who has thus far branded himself as the more conservative of the two. For Fiorina, a Palin endorsement solidify her conservative messaging in spite of rival Chuck DeVore’s casting of doubts.


Palin could also be of help to Whitman by solidifying her march against “career politicans,” an axe that was swung in Jerry Brown’s direction earlier this week. Although her poll numbers and finance coffers remain high, a high-profile tour on Whitman’s campaign could be just the shot in the arm she needs.


For both Fiorina and Whitman, Sarah Palin’s endorsement would mean an instantaneous spotlight. It would give Democrats a free pass, and shift the conversation away from the tough decisions to be made in the coming weeks.


But let’s not forget that just four years ago, the public perception of a certain sitting President was similarly low in public opinion polls. Palin will certainly capitalize on history (or herstory, shall we say). So for the sake of the Democrats, keep the Palin momentum alive. Just try not to elect her President.

Puff, Puff, Pass: Another Win for Weed

Former President Jimmy Carter once remarked, “Whatever starts in California, unfortunately has an inclination to spread.” For better or worse, President Carter’s words have rang especially true in recent days as Maine became the fifth state to follow California’s lead in approving the use of medical marijuana. Dozens of other states and municipalities have approved reduced fines or sentencing periods for marijuana related offenses. Political opponents of legalization point to California – most notably Los Angeles County – as proof that regulated cannabis outlets and relaxation of marijuana penalties are bad policies. As the County climbs to the number 5 spot in the state with more than 340,000 marijuana plants uprooted this year, and exponentially more marijuana dispensaries than any other city, I must ask the question that no self-respecting, blue-state twenty-four year old dares ponder: have Californians begun to overindulge?

Officials say that the increase in seizures can be largely attributed to Mexican drug cartels that have sought a location north of the border, but still in close proximity to their market. Smugglers on a north-south commute find the path of least resistance in Southern California. The notorious “Emerald Triangle” of Humboldt, Mendocino, and Trinity Counties has been a traditional safe haven for recreational and occupational growers alike. But an increased presence from law enforcement entities, especially the California Highway Patrol and area US Border Patrol agencies, have shifted operations to a cultivated and secluded 8-mile stretch of Angeles Crest Highway in North LA County, where about 150,000 plants were recently uncovered and destroyed.

As the number of seizures continues to climb, it undoubtedly spells trouble for many local medical marijuana dispensaries. Almost 1000 such dispensaries have found a home in Los Angeles since 2002. Last month, LA County District Attorney Steve Cooley and City Attorney Carmen Trutanich announced intentions to prosecute any distributor of marijuana that does so for a profit, and warned Los Angeles city dispensaries to prepare for eventual raids. These efforts were widely seen as a tactic to sway City Council members into adopting stricter laws against dispensaries and to ultimately discourage further proliferation throughout the city.

While the city and state attempt to conquer massive fiscal crises, perhaps our precious little resources should be directed elsewhere. It is estimated that between 150,000 and 300,000 Californians possess medically-sanctioned cannabis cards. A 2005 Australian economic study found that in the late 1990s, taxation of alcohol and tobacco consumption in Australia generated approximately $700 per capita. If marijuana were legalized and subject to taxation, the tax collections would increase by roughly $95 per capita, or 14 percent. Here in California, marijuana dispensaries pay between 7-9% in sales tax, depending on the city. If the state were to legalize the distribution and consumption of marijuana and regulate its taxation, the state could bring in $1.3 billion every year, according to the state Board of Equalization.

California Assembly Bill 390 suggests just that. Written and sponsored by Democratic Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco, the Bill was introduced in February of 2009 and delayed until early 2010 (according to pro-legalization activists NORML, the Bill is being delayed in order to secure statewide support).

Clearly, any movement in the way of legalization requires a great deal of personal responsibility falling on the shoulders of the stoned. Before Californians can see the billions of tax revenue and marijuana users breathe their smoke-filled sighs of relief, there must be proof that little-to-no harm is being done under current circumstances.

So what can readers of this site do to ensure a pay-day for the state and harmony for stoners? Prove Jimmy Carter wrong, and make the “inclination to spread” a good thing after all.

Back to Basics

On Friday, October 30, in the dressing room of a costume store, I learned from my trusty Blackberry that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom was no longer a candidate in the Democratic race for Governor. Despite Newsom’s charm and charisma, policy knowledge, and robust inventory of high-profile supporters, Mayor Newsom found himself behind Attorney General Jerry Brown by 8-to-1 in campaign cash and 20 points in the polls. On Friday, Newsom stated publicly, “With a young family and responsibilities at City Hall, I have found it impossible to commit the time required to complete this effort the way it needs to — and should be — done.”

The graveyard of the Newsom campaign is littered with cautionary tales. From the numerous columns, blogs, and “insider reports” that I’ve taken in on the subject, the more I believe that the Newsom campaign’s failure to launch has major implications for the future of political campaigning.

Newsom’s main strategy largely mirrored the ideology of Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in 2004. Dean, on the advice of strategist Joe Trippi, became legendary for his ability to reach out to young and low-dollar progressive supporters via the communication tools of the internet, and relied heavily on the ability of the progressive, green, and gay movements to contribute financial support.

We all know how that turned out.

Similarly, Newsom invested a large portion of his resources toward a cutting-edge internet campaign, utilizing Facebook, Twitter, and the blogosphere. However, this was no substitute for a grassroots, face-to-face operation that involved real – not virtual – solicitation of support. According to one insider, Newsom would make endless excuses for blowing off scheduled time for fundraising solicitation calls. In an attempt to suppress the frequent attacks of “Political Attention Deficit Disorder,” his campaign staff arranged for an office across the street from City Hall and an endless series of reminders and subtle persuasions in that direction. Insiders report that Newsom, despite the diligent pleas of campaign staff, could not be made to make the phone calls — even in the car during drive time — for a senator’s birthday or a labor leader’s new baby or whatever political urgency needed attention at any given moment.

“I have found it impossible to commit the time required to complete this effort the way it needs to – and should be – done.”

So how “should” it be done? The “grassroots fundraising” technique that failed Dean received a major face-lift from the Obama campaign; some even dedicate the victory over Hillary Clinton in the primaries to Obama’s unique ability to take internet campaigning to a new level. But the cautionary tale of the once-was Newsom campaign warns campaigners of the digital age not to forget the basics.

Just days before his official withdrawal from the race, Newsom stated, “If the entire campaign is just who raises more money, than we shouldn’t do anything except just sit on the phone and dial for dollars.” The moral of the story here is that although the tools of the internet allow for large-scale involvement of a wider audience, there is no substitute for the face-to-face, voice-to-voice interaction between candidate and voter that has epitomized the spirit of successful and inspirational campaigns of days past.

Exit Stage Right for Schwarzenegger

Often times, the public views lame-duck executives with a good deal of skepticism and brusqueness. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is no exception. With a 27% approval rating to boot, some political pundits are already beginning to speak of the Schwarzenegger administration as if it were already over. This blog posting will explore whether the Governator’s ability to be effective in this state has truly eroded, and what he can do to make a lasting legacy a reality in coming terms.

One of the least popular governors in California’s history, Schwarzenegger has had a rough time making friends. His relationships with the majority party Democrats have been blighted from their inception, and his ability to construct meaningful connections with Republicans is becoming worse by the day. He is under constant attack from PACs and special interests on both sides of the aisle. The governor’s power to pass important legislation is compromised by a dislike and distrust of the administration by stakeholders across the state.

With 14 months left in his term, prospects are grim for Schwarzenegger’s political capital, but his ability to improve his image and leave a meaningful mark on California history is all but lost. The Governor has no shortage of opportunities to make lasting changes in his policy agenda, especially in areas such as public infrastructure, prison reform, the environment and education. Politically, his naturalized citizen status presents no threat to other state legislators seeking an eventual Presidential bid. There is no reason why Schwarzenegger should accept the classic implications that lame duck status means relinquishing all power in the months prior to the official transition of power.

Known for his commitment to investing in public infrastructure, a bipartisan consensus on the massive investment in the state’s water supply infrastructure would be among the most substantial feathers in Schwarzenegger’s cap. Schwarzenegger says that his office and the legislature are on the cusp of approving a historic water deal that would ensure the state's water supply into the next century while both restoring and preserving the fragile Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Two-thirds majorities will be needed in both houses of the Legislature to place bond measures on the ballot to finance the plan. A water deal would also erase some of the bitterness over this year's budget battles and lay the groundwork for more bipartisan work next year. But if the water deal falls apart, it could be the exact writing on the wall that suggests rocky waters for the legislative year in 2010.

Schwarzenegger has also made significant inroads in reaching a consensus in the area of prison reform. Although a bill that was supported by both Schwarzenegger and the State Senate was ultimately rejected by the house, Schwarzenegger is still trying to meet a court order to reduce the state's prison population, and this is an issue which will require him to meet the opposition halfway.

With the state budget still in disarray, and his tendency to spend time with his family in Santa Monica, many in the Capitol are speculating that the governor will lose interest in the job and let his priorities drift. Schwarzenegger’s chief of staff, Susan Kennedy, is convinced her boss will remain committed until the end. Kennedy speculates, "He's the only politician I would ever consider staying for until the very end," Kennedy told me last week. "He's genetically incapable of slowing down."

Midterm Review

Since I was young, October has conjured up memories of Halloween, the World Series, and the respective births of my dear sister and mother (whose October 9^th and 11^th birthdays, I have just learned, sandwich Gavin Newsom’s 42^nd birthday on October 10^th).

Alas, now enduring my second-year foray in the wildly exciting world of the USC School of Policy, Planning, and Development, mid-October means one thing to me: midterms loom large. Since there have been many new developments in California state politics over the past week, I would be remiss not to cover these items in this blog. In the spirit of reviewing the work of this fall semester, this post will be dedicated to re-examining the topics of previous postings and providing new updates on issues past.

Endorsements: After weeks of build-up and speculation, on October 5, former President Clinton joined Gavin Newsom in Los Angeles at a series of highly anticipated campaign events. Clinton began his Los Angeles tour at an appearance at a closed-to-the-press, Newsom-for-governor fundraiser at the Biltmore Hotel. The pair then toured the LEED-certified Science and Technology Building at Los Angeles City College, and then spoke to a few dozen students, faculty and trustees in the Martin Luther King Jr. Library. At the press event, Clinton spoke about the green economy, health care policy and the number of foreclosures in California – but his remarks said little about the Mayor’s bid for the Democratic nomination for governor, and reflected more about his own support for energy efficiency than his support for the gubernatorial candidate. The closest he came was when he said Newsom doesn’t “just talk it, he walks the walk” on energy and environmental issues.

Although there were more than a dozen reporters on hand, neither Clinton nor Newsom took questions after the hour-long event. According to one report, the mood was surprisingly sedated. There was little reaction from the audience, except for brief applause when Newsom mentioned San Francisco’s universal health care plan.

Newsom advisors hope that Clinton's high standing among Democrats will play well with primary voters who are more familiar with Brown, a former Governor and Oakland Mayor who is now the State Attorney General. It is, after all, highly unusual for a former President to throw his weight behind a primary candidate in a gubernatorial race. Dan Schnur, Director of USC’s Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics, noted to City News Service that with the possible exception of President Barack Obama, "there's no more valuable endorsement in Democratic politics than Bill Clinton." However, given the low amounts of energy and excitement seen at the LA campaign stops, many begin to question Clinton’s real impact.

Many speculate that Clinton’s endorsement of Newsom had more to do with the former President seeking revenge on Jerry Brown, his rival in the 1992 Presidential elections. In an attempt to rebuff the critics, both Clinton and Newsom showed restraint toward their mutual adversary at the LA events. However, little subtleties – such as the fact that neither Clinton nor Newsom took questions at the end of the events – showed that both may be unprepared to address such criticism.

Initiative Reform - In a speech prepared for his induction into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, California Chief Justice Ronald M. George scathingly criticized the State’s reliance on the referendum process, arguing that it has “rendered our state government dysfunctional.”

In a rare public censure of state government and policies delivered by a sitting judge, the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court used the occasion of his induction to criticize the initiative process and call for reform. George, a moderate Republican, has been critical of the initiative process in the past, but his remarks to the national group indicated a sense of urgency as well as the state’s willingness to begin real conversations about reform.

George’s speech represented an outcry by the State’s judicial branch trying only to perform their obligations to the legal system. He said the court’s hands were tied by precedent and California laws that gave voters wide freedom to amend the state constitution. At the time, opponents of same-sex marriage were threatening to oust justices at the ballot if they voted to overturn Proposition 8.

George noted that in November, voters passed initiatives to regulate the confinement of fowl in coops and passed Proposition 8, which overturned part of a California Supreme Court ruling that gave gays and lesbians the right to marry. “Chickens gained valuable rights in California on the same day that gay men and lesbians lost them,” George said.

According to George, much of the California Constitution and many state laws “have been brought about not by legislative fact-gathering and deliberation, but rather by the approval of voter initiative measures, often funded by special interests,” George observed. The Chief Justice did not suggest a specific measure to be taken in coming months as legislators and other stakeholders decide the fate of a state Constitutional Convention. George speculated, “At a minimum, in order to avoid such a loss, Californians may need to consider some fundamental reform of the voter initiative process.”

Boxer’s prospects: According to a new Field Poll, Barbara Boxer remains comfortably ahead of Republican rivals Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore. According to the poll released today on voter preferences in the 2010 Senate race, Boxer leads Fiorina, who still has yet to declare her candidacy, 49 to 35 percent. Boxer is also well preferred to the other serious Republican contender, state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine. Boxer leads DeVore 50 to 33 percent. Among Republican primary voters, Fiorina was preferred by 21 percent (down from 31 percent in a March Field Poll), to DeVore's 20 percent. Fifty-nine percent of GOP voters were undecided.

Boxer’s current lead could be the result of many factors. First, both Fiorina and DeVore have yet to brand themselves with broad statewide name recognition. Once the two become better known, their numbers should improve. Secondly, Fiorina has not enjoyed a high level of positive public perception. The netroots have begun making fun of Fiorina’s campaign website's simplicity, by releasing this video titled, "Worst Political Website Ever." The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee also recently released a web video targeting Fiorina's record. Since Fiorina is currently undergoing a medical procedure, she has been making fewer appearances than earlier in the year when she made campaign stops with John McCain.

However, Boxer was viewed unfavorably by 70 percent of the Republicans in the survey of 1,005 registered voters between Sept. 18 and Oct. 6, showing that the three-term Senator does not have an easy path to re-election. The support of barely half the voters "is not great" for an incumbent, Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo said.

Known for her outspoken nature on liberal issues as well as her electoral resiliency, Boxer has never enjoyed the type of electoral cushion common to other incumbents. Boxer’s future numbers will be largely impacted by her ability to pass her climate change legislation through committee, and also the formal announcements of her Republican rivals. "Should Carly decide to run, you'll see these numbers change dramatically," said Beth Miller, a spokeswoman for Fiorina.

Doing Good, and Doing Well

On Wednesday, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) unveiled ambitious legislation to drive down the nation's use of carbon-emitting fossil fuels and reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil. With the help of Senator John Kerry (D-MA), Senator Boxer used her stature as the Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee to release the long-awaited Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. An even more aggressive version of the historic American Clean Energy and Security Act that was passed by the House in June, this legislation proposes a cap-and-trade system that would place strict limits on greenhouse gas emissions from large polluters such as factories and power plants while rewarding the most efficient companies.

Boxer’s groundbreaking legislation holds important implications for stakeholders far and wide. This post will explore what this bill means for Boxer, California, and the future of climate-change legislation.

Surrounded by placard-waving environmentalists and supportive Democratic Senators, Boxer, alongside Kerry, introduced the bill at a campaign-style rally on the Capitol grounds on Wednesday. As expected, the value of the photo-op was diminished by the signs of the legislation’s stormy waters ahead: no Republican Senators were present.

As Chair of the legislation’s designated committee and lead sponsor of the bill, Boxer will be charged with much of the duty of garnering support throughout the Senate. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) threw the first pitch by releasing a statement Thursday: “The last thing American families need right now is to be hit with a new energy tax every time they flip on a light switch or fill up their car.” Unable to count on the support of all 60 Democrats, Boxer will need to find friendship from moderate Republicans if this bill is to succeed – a tall order given both Boxer and Kerry’s combined history of progressive causes and ideological approaches. As the target of decades’ worth of GOP campaign funds to unseat her, Boxer faces an uphill battle in acquiring support from Republican colleagues.

Despite hostility from the other side of the aisle, Boxer remains hopeful that she can gain the support she needs from friends on left. “We're gaining ground, but at this point I can't count to 60,” the Senator speculated in an interview with C-SPAN. “But you just do your job and move forward.” The language of the legislation – which according to an aide to Senator Boxer has yet to be finalized – must acknowledge the complexities of the industries from the home states of key Democrats. Democrats from oil-producing, coal-producing and agriculturally centered states will want to keep those constituencies at bay (and at pay) in the 2010 cycle. Boxer wisely left blank the portion allocation credits section of the bill for this purpose – this will not only bribe industry support for her own campaign, but also that of future co-sponsors in a jam to raise money for their own election cycles.

All things considered, this was a smart move for Boxer. A nationwide push toward advances in renewable energy could be a major boon for the burgeoning Green Tech companies headquartered in California (as well as Massachusetts). It certainly does not hurt that this sector attracted the largest share of venture capital in the third quarter. The real test will be whether Boxer can push the bill through committee – she can delegate the rest of the Democrats to Majority Leader Harry Reid, should he throw his support behind the dynamic duo. In the meantime, this bill does good by environment, and well by the campaign.

Good luck, Babs. Way to put yourself out there.