Food For Thought

I am simultaneously encouraged and worried by this blog posting by Dan Weintraub last
Monday on Clean Money. Dan makes the point that Democrats receive more corporate
money than Republicans and later says that the left supports public financing of elections
because it will allow Republicans to vote more freely. While this may be partially true,
the main reason I support public financing of elections is to allow the majority of Democrats
to vote more freely. I don't see the point of having Democrats in control of the legislature
if they are not going to be free to vote like Democrats. Consistently a rump group of
Democrats votes against bills to take poisons out of our air and water, make products more safe,
bring down the high price of prescription drugs, and extend health care coverage in a
meaningful way. I agree with Weintraub though in one major respect: public financing
of elections is an idea whose time has come--Sara

A Weblog by Sacramento Bee Columnist Daniel Weintraub
November 14, 2005

Clean Money

Supporters of the California Clean Money Act -- public financing for political campaigns -- plan to make a big push for their bill, AB 583, when the Legislature reconvenes in January, and they say they're looking for a new, dedicated source of revenue to fund it.

Here are my thoughts.

First, while I have never been a big fan of public financing, I think its time may have come. The defeat of Prop. 75 last week suggests that public employee union money will continue to be the primary source of funding for California Democrats for the foreseeable future. To a lesser degree, Republicans are prisoners of corporate money. While we often compare the public employee money to corporate money as if they were opposite sides of the same equation, they are not quite that. Corporate money tends to be from a much more diverse set of interests with a variety of goals. No one company has nearly the influence on Republican legislators that, say, the CTA has on Democrats. And business gives more to Democrats than the unions give to Republicans. Much of the time, when the public employee unions are pushing something in their narrow interest, almost nobody is pushing back on the other side. Did any individual company oppose the pension bills that went through a few years ago? The state, its people and its businesses would be better off if we find a way to elect Democrats who feel free to say no to the public employee unions. And the only way to do that is to wean them off that money, to match the union money with our money. The funny thing is that public financing has always been pushed by the left, as a way to free Republicans from corporate money. But in California I think it might play out differently.

For the revenue source, I'd suggest a 1 percent increase in the bank and corporation tax. (That's one percent of what they pay already -- not a percentage point on the rate, which would be a much larger increase in the total tax.) The corporations tax now brings in about $10 billion a year. A one-percent increase would yield about $100 million. I'd use that money to finance legislative races. Again, the business community, which normally squawks at both tax hikes and public financing of campaigns, should like this idea. It would be money well spent.

As for the method of distributing it, I'd prefer something as decentralized as possible. I like the "patriot dollars" concept that proposes using individual vouchers to allow each citizen or registered voter to direct his or her chit to a candidate of their choosing. I think this method has the added bonus of potentially re-engaging the public in government and civic affairs. When you feel like you have some money at stake, even a small amount, you tend to pay closer attention. The downside of this method is that each chit would be so small that, in practice, candidates would have to be well known before they could persuade citizens to transfer their chits, which gets us right back to where we are today. So another method might be more practical.

Many people would like to couple public financing with new limits on union and corporate dollars. That wouldn't break my heart. But I am philosophically opposed to such limits because I think they violate the right to free speech, and I think they just drive that money to hidden corners where it is more difficult to track. I would simply add the public money to the mix and hope it gave legislators some freedom from their normal impulse to kow-tow to contributors.

Finally, I would put a sunset on it. If all it did was add to the money-raising arms race, you'd want it to go out of business on its own rather than waiting for lawmakers to repeal it.

They're Just Crazy Enough to Do it

Here's the thing: I've been encouraged by the chaos in the Republican party lately. The environmentalist House Republicans defections in the amendment to the budget deal on drilling the Alaska Natural Wildlife Reserve was a thing of beauty.

And then I get waves of perverse excitement over how deeply in debt the nation is--clearly anyone, ANYONE would see that it is time to balance the budget or at least lessen it by repealing the Bush tax cuts.

But then I read, as I did yesterday, a front paid story in the relatively liberal Sacramento Bee in which the entire "objective" tone is to make clear that the real problem with our federal government is the ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS!!!! Sorry to use the large caps like someone who is receiving radio signals through his teeth and believes that there is a conspiracy to narrow mayonnaise jar necks but c'mon, people (and by this I mean reporters, so it's stretching it to say people), let's not report this as if it were received truth, that the reason our budget is in trouble is entitlements!

I can't believe I'm even having to say this: the budget was fine after Clinton left office. It became far less than fine when Bush pushed through massive tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens followed by sending more and more of our poorest citizens to war in Iraq with attendant massive expenditures for the benefit of Halliburton. My God, I have avoided having a conspiracy theory about this but I guess it's an avoidable conclusion now: the Republicans appear to have deliberately driven us into debt so as to use it as an excuse to cut health care, and programs for the poor and they are so determined to do it that they are willing to use Hurricane Katrina as an excuse to cut them.

Gunfighter a Brilliant Tour de Force

This just in: time and space are mere illusions. So go back in time and cross space to see Gunfighter: A Gulf War Chronicle directed by Katie Laris at the Santa Barbara City College, running October 21st through November 5th.

I can attest that the closing night performance, while by all accounts not as strong as some of the previous performances, will be fabulous. Laris' staging is nearly flawless: an extraordinary multi-media montage of CNN-footage from the first gulf war, riveting apache aircraft movement and sites and actual footage of people on-stage being interviewed by the ubiquitous on-stage tv reporter Heidi dogging the soldiers for a story. But the truth of the production is in the sum of its parts: the music, the video, the performances of the central characters all fit together perfectly. It was of a production level almost never achieved at the community theater level (and SBCC is a community theater, not a college theater, the actors are cast from a wide pool and paid).

The play takes place during the first Gulf War and shortly thereafter and is the true story of a Lt. Colonel who took the fall for faulty equipment in a friendly fire incident. I believe the play premiered in Sacramento at the River Stage at Cosumnes River College (which is incidentally, consistently the best community theater in Sacramento, sorry B Street...).

In keeping for my theme from this week, my only criticism would have been the reaction of the closing night audience. You could tell they were riveted to the stage, but it was more as if they were watching tv than at a theater performance--huge laugh lines were passed over by a passive crowd, opportunities to gasp were missed. Still, they clapped loud and long at the end and clearly loved it. It's a shame one has to drive 400 miles from Sacramento to see such high quality theater.

Nodding at the She-Mob

What a pleasure to be at the release party for She-Mob's new album, Not in My World, this past Saturday at the Starry Plough in Berkeley. Mostly, I just love the idea that I, a middle-aged mother of two, am friends with a punk-rocker: Suki O'Kane.

Of course, not completely coincidentally, it turns out that She-Mob is populated by, specializes in and thrives on middle-aged women. How many punk rock bands can say the same?

Watching them play their "album" "cuts" backwards first the "second side" of the disk then the "first side" was often not unlike life itself in that there were, especially in the last (hence played first) slower more esoteric songs, long stretches in which one kept waiting for whatever was going to happen to happen. And then one would realize (and this is the life part): oh! this IS what's happening. It's never going to be more than this. This is it. And then one relaxed and really loved it.

But the most surreal moments came towards the end when they got to their most head-banging thrashy pieces and were really tearing up the stage. Cut to an audience that could have been downloaded from a jazz club and superimposed on this punk scene. Polite nodding, slight tapping of feet, and nursing of drinks was the order of the day.

To hell with that thought Lisa Mennet and I. We'll change the order of the day. We get up, virtually stepping on mellow Berkeley-esque types sprawled on the floor and begin wildly dancing, thrashing ourselves around--the music demanded it. The music wasn't happy without us doing that. We had no choice.

The audience responded. Oh, not the way we had hoped, by leaping to their feet and thrashing with us. No, they responded by nodding, smiling, enjoying the show. Obviously we, painfully overdressed middle-aged women (well, I was, Lisa was understated), were part of the she-mob. Obviously, we were part of the show. Yay, She-Mob! Good show.

Yes. Yay, She-Mob! The songs were clever, fun and well-done. The music, particularly Suki's inspired rhythms, was great. These girls have been written up in the Village Voice. They're the real thing. Buy the disk. Have a listen at their website: http://shemob.com/.

Hurray for CNA!

When all is said and done, the turning point in being able to beat this special election came when Arnold made the mistake of attacking the California Nurses Association.

He shoulda asked SEIU first: you just do not pick on CNA. They may seem like a small insect of a union, that you can squash like a bug, but they're not--they're the feistiest, most ornery, most tendacious group of (mostly) women you'd ever "like" to meet. He should not have bragged about "always kicking their butts" ...or called them a special interest ... or ejected one of them from sitting at a movie premier he organized.

And CNA joined forces with another group to be reckoned with on the California scene: the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. For years this Nader-derived group has been giving as good as it got. And its Arnold Watch played a pivotal role in changing the water the voters were swimming in in this no-so-very-special election.

Together CNA and FTCR had the guts to attack Arnold when the rest of the Sacramento insiders were still fawning over him and hoping to here the secrets of his orange tanning glow. Once these Davids pummelled Goliath to the point that he shed blood, the rest of the cowards took notice and began coming after him with all they had. (oops, pretty violent imagery for me: I'm trying to practice peace--forget all that: CNA and FTCR had the guts to LOVE where others merely HATED, that's what I'm trying to say).

Okay, this is falling apart, but what I'm trying to say is Hurray for CNA! You did it again. The People of Cah-lee-for-knee-a thank you.