----- Original Message -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 9:35 PM
Subject: February election
Dear Friends, here are my thoughts on the upcoming election in February.
Propositions
Prop. 91: Transportation Funds. NO. Once signatures are filed and the
signatures verified, the filers can't withdraw it from the ballot. In this
case, the makers of the initiative are now opposing its passage as they feel
that the problem has been addressed.
Proposition 92: Community Colleges. YES. The community college initiative is
sponsored by the California Federation of Teachers, much of labor and others.
It would lower student fees in California's community colleges and make it
difficult for the governor and the legislature to increase them dramatically in
the future. When community college fees were increased from $12 per unit to $26
per unit, the colleges lost more than 300,000 students - a number greater than
the entire enrollment at the University of California. Increasing fees causes
potential students to give up hope and the lessening of fees opens up
opportunity to attend college for low income students.
Proposition 92 also separates K-14 funding (Proposition 98) from one pot to two
pots - one for Kindergarten through 12th grade and one for community colleges.
The K-12 pot will continue to grow as before but the community college pot will
grow on the basis of changes in adult population groups. This will provide more
stable funding for community colleges while not decreasing K-12 funding.
The initiative will also make clear in the State Constitution the existence of
a community college system governed by a statewide Board of Governors and by
locally elected boards. The governor had proposed eliminating the Community
College Board of Governors. This initiative would close of this option.
The opposition to Proposition 92 is concerned that the additional state funds
going to community colleges will have to come out of other programs. In a sense
that is true but the amount shifted averages out to less than $300 million per
year in a state budget that is over $100 billion. The amount of increase to
community colleges is even dwarfed by the average change in the state budget
from year to year. The antigovernment services people make the usual arguments
regarding accountability and the threat of new taxes. Argument with no
relevance to this initiative.
Proposition 92 is support by the California Federation of Teachers, the
California Federation of Labor, and the Community College Association of the
California Teachers Association. It is opposed by anti-tax groups, some
chambers of commerce, and the California Teachers Association (they don't like
THEIR Proposition 98 played with by anyone but themselves).
Vote YES on Proposition 92 in order to support the colleges and the students
they serve.
Proposition 93: Change in Term Limits: YES. This initiative would change term
limits from a maximum of 6 years in the Assembly (3 terms) and 8 years in the
Senate (2 terms) to 12 years total in either house but all 12 years could be
spent in one house. If all of the time was spent in one house it would mean 6
terms in the Assembly or 3 terms in the Senate. We would have more stable
membership in each house and probably a lot fewer elections pitting progressive
candidates against each other as they are forced to move to a new house. The
bad side of the initiative is that the legislative leadership wrote the bill is
such a way that Speaker Fabian Nunez could spend another 6 years in the
Assembly and President Pro Tem Perata could spend another 4 year term in the
Senate. While I have not been happy with the Democratic leadership, especially
Nunez, I still think we should rise above personalities and vote for positive
change in the law.
Proposition 94-97: Indian Gaming Compacts. NO. Propositions 94-97 were put on
the ballot in order that the voters would be required to approve of the
compacts negotiated by the Democratic leadership and the governor with four
gambling money rich tribes. I oppose the compacts because I believe that they
were sweetheart deals with the four most politically powerful tribes. The other
Indian tribes are not included.
Even though labor opposed the compacts because they did not contain the right
of casino workers to organize and that the environmental groups opposed the
compact because of no requirement to abide by environmental laws (sounds like
NAFTA all over again), the legislature was bullied by the threat of reprisals
from the lavishly spending tribal leadership. The claim by the tribes that
schools would somehow benefit from the revenue from the slot machines is just
not true. The money is not tax money and so is not part of the Proposition 98
guarantee to K-12 and community colleges. So far, no Indian gaming money based
on previous compacts, has gone to the schools. There is nothing in this
initiative that would say that any money from the new profits from gambling
would go to the schools.
In addition to the lack of labor and environmental rights, the accounting for
how much will be owed is done completely by the tribes themselves. We should be
able to make a much better bargain for California than has been done. I say,
vote NO and send them back to the table to agree to a compact that will provide
a union right to organize and require environmental compliance and a higher tax
rate on the profits. The tribes are spending hundreds of millions to pass
Propositions 94-97 - more than they claim would go to California the first year
of operation.
Vote NO on Propositions 94-97 and show that the casinos cannot simply buy
California votes for themselves and their political partners.
Los Angeles Proposition S: Communications Tax. YES. Current lawsuits based on
federal law could end the current 10% tax on communications users. This would
cause a $270 million hole in the budget of the City of Los Angeles. Proposition
S would reduce the current rate to 9% but would also update the law in such a
way that is should be immune from legal attack. Exemptions for low-income
senior-citizen and disabled households would be continued. New and emerging
technologies would be taxed. It would comply with the federal law that
currently prohibits taxing internet access. I am voting YES to bring the
ordinance into compliance with current communication practice. I am voting to
continue public services in Los Angeles.
The Democratic Candidates for President
I have attended small (10-15 people) informal meetings with Edwards, Obama,
Clinton, and others. At this point I will likely vote for John Edwards. I found
him to be the most progressive and the most pro-union candidate. He said that
the Department of Labor should employ people who are union members. I also
found him to be the only candidate willing to talk about the poor in this
country. Most rhetoric of the candidates is around the shrinking middle class -
which most Republicans don't address at all. I think he is also the best of the
four on getting out of Iraq. He seems determined not to be in the pockets of
the corporate elites.
That said, I was very impressed with the intelligence and knowledge of Hillary
Clinton. My union, the American Federation of Teachers, endorsed Clinton
because they liked her positions on education and felt that they would have
real access to her in the White House. They have worked well with her in the
Senate and in New York. She said that the Department of Labor should be
balanced between labor and management.
I cannot support Clinton because of her position in support of the right of the
United States to go anywhere in the world militarily in order to support
American corporate interests. I don't think she would hesitate to follow her
husband’s lead and bomb a country (as he did in Iraq) and destroy the living
conditions of millions of civilians in order to support an embargo. Her
comments with regard to punishing countries that she believed harbored
terrorists sounded just like another cold warrior. One supporter of hers from
New York identified her a Scoop Jackson type Democrat. In our private meeting,
she suggested that the United States would need to continue to spend in excess
of $500 billion per year in Iraq in order to “protect our interests “in that
part of the world. I have not heard her suggest that we repeal our NAFTA type
agreements and the outsourcing of jobs.
Barack Obama is very impressive. He is a great speaker (as are all of the
candidates). He seems to have a heart and has worked in the interest of poor
people. He seems to have good instincts but that may not be enough. He is not
very knowledgeable on a number of issues including education, health care,
social security, and the evils of our free trade agreements. His experience in
government is also limited. He did say that he believes that the Department of
Labor should be pro-union.
His choice of advisors to date is not encouraging. His top adviser is Zbigniew
Brzezinski who helped develop the anti-Soviet plan in Afghanistan that led to
the rise of Osama bin Laden. Another advisor is Anthony Lake who was a major
force in the US invasion of Haiti in the Clinton years. Many of his other
foreign policy advisors are equally scary. Most of his public statements have
shown some civilized restraint and it appears that he is not entirely
supportive of the right of the United States to use military force anywhere in
the world anytime that its economic interests are challenged. He is far from
perfect, but a lot more progressive than Hillary.
If it came down to Clinton or Obama, I would vote for Obama without hesitation.
Too much has been made of early returns where less than 1% of the vote has been
cast nationally. There is also almost no mention of what is important, the
delegate count. Here is one blog view:
--------------
In a development that has flown under the radar, it now seems to me that, as
long as Clinton wins Florida and California, she will be ahead in delegates
after February 5th no matter what happens in New Hampshire, South Carolina and
Nevada. There are three basic reasons for this:
Clinton holds a sizable Super Delegate lead. Nearly 20% of the delegates to the
Democratic National Convention are not elected in either primaries or caucuses.
In that group, Clinton looks pretty good:
The party has 797 superdelegates. Most were undecided before the Iowa caucuses,
but among those who have endorsed a candidate, 160 picked Clinton. Barack Obama
has the support of 59 while 32 support John Edwards.
Michigan and Florida will be seated at the convention. Anyone who thinks that
the key swing states of Michigan and Florida won't be seated at the Democratic
convention is foolish. Jerome Armstrong has been pointing this out for a while:
It seems to be lost on some here that the delegates from Michigan and Florida
will be seated at the DNC convention. For those of you who believe the nonsense
that MI & FL delegates will not be seated at all, I would appreciate a
historical precedent (would it be too much to request that it's from the last
100 years too?). The truth is, MI & FL will be seated.
Jerome is right. Sources of mine in the DNC admit this. There is no way that
Michigan and Florida won't be seated. Since neither Obama nor Edwards is on the
ballot in Michigan, this means that all 128 of Michigan's pledged delegates
will go to Clinton. This further pads her delegate advantage.
Four Clinton "home states" on Super Tuesday. The Super Tuesday states are very
favorable to Clinton, featuring four states where her lead might be
unassailable to only one for Obama. Clinton has oversized leads of at least
25%, and sometimes 35%, in Arkansas, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York.
Together, these states have 422 pledged delegates, to only 153 for Illinois.
Thus, on top of her Michigan and Super Delegates advantages, Clinton thus has a
large, built-in February 5th advantage.
Collectively, Clinton's advantage in Super Delegates, Michigan, and February
5th home states provides her with roughly a 500 delegate advantage on Obama. If
she were to also win Florida and California, which combine for 555 pledged
delegates, it would be impossible for Obama to be ahead on delegates after
February 5th. He could win every other state between now and February 6th, and
never make up that sort of delegate deficit.
Now, there are several complicating factors to this scenario. First, while the
DNC admits that it will seat Michigan and Florida, one of the main purposes of
the threat to remove their delegates is to insure that Michigan and Florida's
delegates won't be included in the running delegate count for any candidate. In
other words, the basic DNC plan is to maintain the threat to not seat Michigan
and Florida until the nomination is decided, thus denying Michigan and Florida
an impact on the nomination process without denying them a seat at the
convention. However, once the media starts maintaining running delegate counts
of their own, it isn't clear if they will comply with this plan.
Second, there is no guarantee that Clinton will be able to maintain her hold on
unpledged, "Super" delegates if Obama starts to rack up wins. If Clinton
supports start to defect, Obama will close the ground in the Super Delegate
count. Also, Obama could start to pickup undecided Super Delegates if he
continue to win early states.
Third, Democratic primaries do not have winner take all delegate systems. Most
of the pledged delegates will be dished out on a proportional basis and a
congressional district basis to candidates who receive more than 15% of vote in
a congressional district. For example, only 376 of the 1,688 unpledged
delegates to be had on Super Tuesday will be allotted to the winner of
individual states. The rest will be determined not on a winner take all, state
by state system, but on a proportional, congressional district by congressional
district level. So, even if she sweeps Arkansas, Connecticut, New Jersey and
New York, Obama will still score a decent number of delegates in Clinton's four
home states. Then again, Clinton will also score delegates in Illinois, just as
she will also score delegates in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
However, the overall point still stands. If Clinton is able to win Florida on
January 29th and California on February 5th, it is very hard to see how she
falls too far behind in the delegate count. In fact, if her Super Delegates are
combined with victories in Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida,
Michigan, New Jersey, and New York, it is hard to see how she falls behind in
the delegate count at all.
Clinton, will win Michigan, and still has good chances to take both Nevada and
Florida. All told, this should be enough to keep Clinton in the game
nationally, and allow her to hold down her four home states. All of this should
render California a key battleground that might very well decide the
nomination. The nomination isn't over, not by a longshot. A quick and decisive
nomination victory appears to have slipped from Clinton's grasp. There is a
seven-state path for Clinton that would keep her in the game after Super
Tuesday, and the only real doubts for her in those seven states are Florida and
California.
I hope that the above information helps,
In Solidarity,
Marty Hittelman
***
Please Join With Us on What Will Be an Historic Day in Los Angeles
Saturday, January 12th ~ 11:00 AM
PRESENTE
A Vigil with Father Roy Bourgeois
To Close the School of the Americas
ABRIENDO LA MEMORIA - HEALING THE WOUNDS
Los Angeles State Historic Park
in Downtown Los Angeles near China Town
Join with thousands as we re-create the Protest/Vigil that happens every
November at Fort Benning, Georgia, to close the School of the Americas.
Speakers So Far:
Father Roy Bourgeois
Cindy Sheehan
Hector Aristizabal
Blase Bonpane
Jim Lafferty
Sponsored by:
School of the Americas Watch, Program For Torture Victims,
Office of the Americas, CISPES, ADDICTED To WAR, Palisadians For Peace,
Catholic Worker's Los Angeles, Whittier Peace & Justice Coalition, Colombia
Peace Project
Endorsed by:
Veterans For Peace LA, ANSWER, International Action Center,
CODE PINK, Coalition Against Militarism In Our Schools (CAMS), NO MORE
VICTIMS
More Information Call
Frank Dorrel: 310-838-8131 or Hector Aristizabal: 626-221-7710
School of the Americas Watch
www.soaw.org | 202-234-3440
***
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Platkin
What: Vigil, Sunday, January 13th, 2-4 PM
Reminder: Vigil against the siege of Gaza at the Third Street
Promenade,corner of Third and Santa Monica Blvd. on Sunday, January 13, 2 to
4 PM.
The situation is Gaza is getting worse. Israel has reduced fuel supplies
and that has forced the Gaza power plant plant to run below capacity (Gaza
power plant capacity was ~135 MW; the bombing of Gaza reduced its capacity
to ~60 MW; present fuel reduction further reduced its capacity to 30 MW).
Gaza now has only 35 percent of the power its 1.5 million residents need
(Gaza's power requirements are 237 MW; Gaza gets electricity from its own
power plant [nominally 135 MW, but lately 60 MW, and now 30 MW], Egypt [17
MW], and Israel [120 MW, but being cut by an unknown amount]). The result is
rolling blackouts so each Gaza family has only 8 hours of electricity each
day.
Join LA Jews for Peace and many other American, Israeli, Palestinian, and
international groups in calling for an end of Israel's siege of Gaza, and an
end of U.S. support of Israel's practice of collective punishment. Since
June 2007, Israel has subjected the 1.5 million people living in Gaza to a
siege that restricts movement of people and supplies of food, medicine,
water, fuel, electricity, and commercial goods. This Israeli government
siege has destroyed the economy of the Gaza Strip and is starving of the
people. Please join us and others in the fight for human rights and
justice.
Help Stop the Ongoing Humanitarian Crisis in the Gaza Strip
Join LA Jews for Peace in a demonstration
on the Third Street Promenade at the corner of Santa Monica Blvd.
Sunday, January 13, 2 to 4 PM
LA Jews for Peace will have large signs that say:
FEED the CHILDREN of GAZA
ISRAEL MUST END SIEGE of GAZA
END US SUPPORT for ISRAEL'S SIEGE of GAZA
Bring your own similar signs that relate to the situation in Gaza. but
please, no reference to the holocaust or to genocide, and no flags of any
nationality.
More information: call Jeff at 562-694-1637 or
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
http://www.geocities.com/LAJewsforPeace/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
