C.N.A. vs. Nunez

If it wasn't clear before, the gloves are officially off in the relationship between California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) and the California Nurses Association. Today's Sacramento Bee has CNA openly calling for Nunez (sorry, I don't know how to get my blog to bring the requisite tilde to Nunez's name) to recuse himself from the health care debate due to his wife's lucrative position with the hospital industry.

The same article has Nunez spokesman Steve Maviglio firing back calling the nurses "radical and out of touch."

In my experience this kind of open declaration of war between a progressive union and a Democratic leader of the legislature is unprecedented in recent California politics. It simply isn't done.

And, yes, I am known as the Miss Manners of the California Legislature. Everyone knows how much I respect the etiquette of the place.

But whether it is or isn't done, it has been. The CNA leadership clearly has decided that they are not going to let Fabian Nunez get in the way of their goal of achieving single payer health care in California.

I find this open push for what Californians really need refreshing, if risky politically. The goals of the deal that Nunez and Schwarzenegger are negotiating towards reveal that it is they, rather than the C.N.A., who are out of touch with the people of California who want universal health care, real systemic change, not whatever the meager parameters of the politically possible may bring.

Flagging Nunez' supposed conflict of interest is just a convenient way to attempt to blow up this deal. I remember when Paul Koretz was first sitting on the Assembly health committee he had a policy of "recusing" himself from voting on every health care bill that involved Kaiser Permanente because his wife worked for Kaiser. Since virtually every bill was opposed by Kaiser, the net result of Koretz' conflict resolution was to provide a convenient permanent abstention for Kaiser so that the proponents of these measures had to work to replace his vote. It was lunacy.

I don't think the Speaker of the Assembly can reasonably be asked to recuse himself from attempting to solve one of the most important crises of the state. I do, however, think he can be asked to get serious, stop playing the hospitals' game, and put the people of California first.

The Evils of Having an "Agenda"

Under the heading of "oh, snap," one of the biggest insults one Sacramento insider can dish out to another Sacramento insider is "she has an agenda." I know, because I have one.

Apparently, the top goal of many people in public service in California is not to have any firmly held beliefs. Free of these pesky constraints, one can, with impunity, hire on to represent the pharmaceutical industry, HMOs or known polluters, secure in the knowledge that everyone deserves a good lobbyist.

Since I'm law-ya, you'd think I'd know better than to have an agenda. A good law-ya never lets his beliefs get in the way of his client's interests.

What is my agenda, you may ask? Well, my political agenda is this, to create a stable and functional democracy such that the legislature is capable of representing the people's interests, which I interpret as including clean air, clean water, quality universal health care, good schools, protection of civil and consumer rights, affordable housing and jobs that pay a living wage. I have come to believe that one of the key ways to accomplish this goal is to enact a system of public financing of elections here, similar to what is already working in Maine, Arizona and Connecticut.

I generally work for people who agree with me so that I do not experience cognitive dissonance.

In last year's special election, the press excoriated the California Nurses Association (one of my former employers) for "having an agenda" in advancing the cause of public financing. The initiative they pushed was seen as a stalking horse for, horror of horrors, (whisper it, why dontcha) universal health care. Insiders used their "agenda" to sink the initiative.

Having said this, I do think that what many of the insiders are reacting to when they tag others for having an agenda is self-righteousness. From both a strategic and karmic point of view, self-righteousness is to be avoided (ask me how I know).

Moreover, in attempting to advance my agenda, I am now careful to avoid using tactics or strategies which themselves threaten to unravel the very utopia I seek. For example, since I want a peaceful world, I need to avoid talking about "fighting" for people's rights, or creating an "army" of activists. I must also avoid the term "jihad."

Mindful of these self-imposed constraints, all in all, I remain comfortable with my agenda and the beliefs which inform it. I urge you to get one too. I understand they are available used on Amazon.