Arnold's Very Special Election (California)

[Guest guest]

(Sometimes it requires one to look beyond the surface to see what the

reality of the situation really is.)

 

 

http://www.alternet.org/story/27186/

 

Arnold's Very Special Election

 

By Jan Frel, AlterNet. Posted October 24, 2005.

 

No, no, no, no, not really, no, yes, yes! A guide to California's

November 8 special election.

 

Eight initiatives. Hundreds of millions of dollars corralled by

interest groups for ad buys to move the voters. And a 77-page voter

guide mailed to each California citizen that, while obscure and

incomprehensible, communicates in a crisp, bold font that the

political process is safely out of their hands.

 

The November 8 special election in California has been presented by

Arnold Schwarzenegger as a way for voters to join him in his

revolution for the Golden State; something the Democratic-controlled

State Legislature wanted absolutely nothing to do with since he showed

up in Sacramento in 2003. So it's now up to the voters. If they reject

the proposals Arnold has backed to the hilt, then it's a sudden end of

a rather unspectacular political career.

 

The four big ones on which Schwarzenegger has staked his political

career are, as Bill Bradley described in L.A. Weekly, a " shrunken

agenda of toughening teacher tenure rules (Proposition 74), weakening

public-employee unions (Prop. 75), gaining new budget powers (Prop.

76), and taking redistricting out of the Legislature's hands (Prop. 77). "

 

Gosh, and you wonder why the Democrats in the Assembly don't want

anything to do with Arnold.

 

One way of looking at this is that since Schwarzenegger failed to

destroy his opposition in the normal political process, he outsourced

the battle to the established clique of Republican funders in

California. Bob Mulholland, a long-time labor organizer and strategist

for the California Democratic Party told me that " Schwarzenegger is

backing initiatives that he and his supporters could never pass in the

Legislature. " We'll see if the people want to have anything to do with

Arnold.

 

There are two progressive initiatives on the ballot as well: 79, which

would help folks get discounts on their pharmaceuticals and allows big

Pharma to be sued by anyone for profiteering; and 80, which would, to

blur its extraordinarily complicated proscription, make the energy

market in California better for both consumers and the environment.

Prop 79 is so progressive that drug companies created their own,

pseudo-79 initiative, 78, which would make a discount process

voluntary for the drug companies to partake in.

 

Finally, there's Prop 73, which would require teenage girls to get

consent from their parents before they could have an abortion. The

plan is that 73 will do for Schwarzenegger -- who is ostensibly

pro-choice -- what the 18 gay marriage amendments on state ballots did

for George Bush in 2004; function as a blooming, fragrant rose that

beckons Christian conservative bees to come and vote their Leviticus

as they pollinate his corporate agenda.

 

Breaking It Down

 

Here's a breakdown of the propositions, with ballot measure

" summaries " from that vile 77-page voter guide, and background from

research and interviews with activists and public interest groups.

 

Prop 73: This initiative would prohibit " abortion for unemancipated

minors until 48 hours after physician notifies minor's

parent/guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver.

Mandates reporting requirements. Authorizes monetary damages against

physicians for violation. "

 

The California Catholic Bishops' guiding light for their support of

Prop 73 is that their " Catholic Catechism teaches that the family is

the 'privileged community' wherein children are meant to grow in

wisdom, stature and grace. We are also counseled to work with public

authorities to ensure that the family's prerogatives are not usurped. "

 

Good luck, girls, if you and your parents share different prerogatives.

 

The key argument " against " Prop 73 in the voter guide, co-authored by

the president of the California Nurses Association, is summed up

nicely in the last sentence: " Please join us in voting NO on

Proposition 73. "

 

Prop 74: " Increases probationary period for public school teachers

from two to five years. Modifies the process by which school boards

can dismiss a teaching employee who receives two consecutive

unsatisfactory performance evaluations. "

 

A misleader if there ever were. The fact is that all California

teachers get no guarantee of anything after two years, except for a

" right to a hearing before they are dismissed, " as Barbara Kerr of the

California Teachers Association puts it. After reading up on this

proposition, it looks to me like this effort is an attempt to

Wal-Martize the public school teaching profession and create a

dispensable and " flexible " employment stream.

 

Schwarzenegger's " Join Arnold " campaign that pushes his four signature

initiatives fails to conceal its true goal for 74, weakening the

teachers' union: " Union bosses have blocked many education reforms and

just want voters to throw more tax money at education with no reform! "

Karla Jones, the 2004 California Educator of the Year, hailing from

the worker's paradise of Orange County, is the shiny buckle on the

belt that holds Schwarzenegger's pants up on Prop 74.

 

Prop 75: " This measure amends state statutes to require public

employee unions to get annual, written consent from a government

employee in order to charge and use that employee's dues or fees for

political purposes. This requirement would apply to both members and

nonmembers of a union. The measure would also require unions to keep

certain records, including copies of any consent forms. "

 

If that language doesn't get the point across, here's a simpler one:

let's make it hard for unions to collect money in support of political

candidates who might protect them from bastards like Arnold

Schwarzenegger. Untold millions have been poured into this one by both

sides. And millions were poured into a similar measure in 1998, which

was soundly defeated. Columnist Harold Meyerson wrote a great article

about 75, saying in effect that it's a move to help kill the

California Democratic Party:

 

Proposition 75 ... was crafted to sound like a union-democracy

issue, requiring public-sector unions to obtain members' written

permission for political spending. In fact, such union members already

have the right to withhold their dues for such purposes, and roughly

20 percent of unionized state workers do exactly that. The greater

goal of the measure is simply to hamstring unions' electoral endeavors

and thereby remove the linchpin of the Democrats' mobilization efforts.

 

But Schwarzenegger has a counter to all this " spin. " He's dubbed Prop

75 the " Paycheck Protection Act. " He's got the Nobel Prize winnin'

economist Milton Friedman on his side, whose longstanding

contributions to the CEO-worshipping society we live in still garner

moments of silence in Chambers of Commerce across the country. Arnold

also dug up a Zell Miller turncoat type to parade around with him:

Deputy Sheriff Allan Mansoor, who hails from that gritty,

sweat-stained heart of the workers' movement that Woodie Guthrie sang

so often about, Orange County.

 

Prop 76: " Limits state spending to prior year's level plus three

previous years' average revenue growth. Changes minimum school funding

requirements. ... Permits Governor, under specified circumstances, to

reduce budget appropriations of Governor's choosing. "

 

This description from the voter guide captures just how profoundly

antidemocratic this election is. Why don't they have jail sentences

for the people who write these in such fashion? It's criminal.

Basically, Prop 76 gives significant power of the purse to the

executive branch, and oh yeah, is expected by its opponents to slash

funding for public schools by $4 billion. Join Arnold calls it an

effort to " stabilize education funding to make sure our public schools

are getting the money they need. " Schwarzenegger's campaign makes no

mention of the power grab buried in the legal text.

 

Prop 77: " Amends state Constitution's process for redistricting

California's Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization

districts. Requires three-member panel of retired judges selected by

legislative leaders. "

 

Here's the one proposition worthy of some debate. It's got the support

of progressive groups like Common Cause and California Public Interest

Research Groups, who argue in essence that party-controlled

redistricting is so refined, so insane, that among all 153 of

California's congressional and legislative seats that were voted on in

the last election, not one changed parties. There's obviously

something wrong with that.

 

As Steven Hill wrote for AlterNet, " The 2001 redistricting in

California was a travesty. The Democratic incumbents paid $20,000

apiece to the political consultant drawing the district lines -- who

happened to be the brother of one incumbent -- to draw each of them a

" safe seat " where they would easily win re-election. It was like

paying protection money to a Mafia don for your turf. "

 

That's not a functioning democratic system. However, just because

there's something wrong with California's redistricting laws doesn't

mean this approach is the answer. Although this observation is

powerfully obvious, it's one that the reform groups supporting Prop 77

must have overlooked. The approach of 77 stinks, as the L.A. Weekly

explained in its endorsement list of initiatives: " Under this plan,

the district boundaries would be set only after national parties spend

millions, perhaps billions, to persuade voters to adopt (or reject) a

proposal for district lines. Then the court hearings. Then back to the

judges to try again, even though they already submitted their best

effort. " Not only this, but 77 establishes that makeup of the judges

will be chosen by ... politicians.

 

Steven Hill offers an alternative, something -- gasp! -- slightly more

radical for California: " If Governor Schwarzenegger and others really

want to do something about the ills of redistricting, simply changing

who draws the district lines won't accomplish much. It's necessary to

get rid of California's antiquated winner-take-all system, and adopt

some version of the more modern proportional representation system. "

 

Prop 78: " Establishes discount prescription drug program for certain

low- and moderate-income Californians. Authorizes Department of Health

Services to contract with participating pharmacies for discounts and

with participating drug manufacturers for rebates. "

 

Sounds great. We all want this, don't we? Once again the evil lurking

in this neutral language from the voter guide is overwhelming. Why

doesn't it say that this is a voluntary measure that these drug

companies can opt out of? I'll tell you why. Because the California

government isn't run by you. It's in someone else's hands.

 

When I spoke with CalPIRG healthcare advocate Emily Clayton, she told

me that Prop 78 was born on the day drug companies heard about the

proposition that her group and others were working for, 79 (which I'll

get to in a bit). So four companies, including GlaxoSmithKline and

Merck, kicked in $10 million each, and another four kicked in $5

million, and by the time the snowball stopped rolling, they had

assembled an $80 million war chest. Eighty million dollars for a

meaningless initiative, aimed at undermining another one.

 

As Prop 78's opponents point out with a devastating piece of logic,

the drug companies don't need a ballot initiative to establish a

voluntary discount system. If it's voluntary, they could start right

now. If drug companies care about discounts for the poor and elderly,

as they claim to do, to the tune of $80 million, why haven't they already?

 

Clayton told me she was heartened that despite a constant barrage of

TV ads, field polls indicated the public understood 78 bad, 79 good.

Good thing too, because Prop 79's advocates have a shade under $2

million to get their initiative through.

 

Prop 79: " Provides drug discounts to Californians with qualifying

incomes. Funded by state-negotiated drug manufacturer rebates.

Prohibits Medi-Cal contracts with manufacturers not providing Medicaid

best price. "

 

Real help, real savings to " Californians with catastrophic medical

expenses who spend at least five percent of their income on medical

expenses; the uninsured who earn up to 400 percent of the Federal

Poverty Level; Californians on Medicare for drug costs not fully

covered by Medicare; Seniors, the chronically ill, and others with

inadequate drug coverage through private insurers or their employer. "

 

The drug companies' prediction of what will happen if 79 passes, is

tell-tale and prophetic: " The measure is so poorly written it will

result in years of legal challenges and will never get approval by the

federal government. " Read here, we'll take this to court and spend

another $80 million, and if that fails we've got friends in higher

places who will stomp on California's laws.

 

And there's one more thing about the 78 vs. 79 feud. If both pass with

a majority, then the one with the most votes wins, and the other is null.

 

Prop 80: " Subjects electric service providers to regulation by

California Public Utilities Commission. Restricts electricity

customers' ability to switch from private utilities to other

providers. Requires all retail electric sellers to increase renewable

energy resource procurement by 2010. "

 

Last and the most arcane, I actually don't mind this description

offered in the voter guide. Except that the " customers " referred to

aren't you and me, they are huge consumers of electricity, like

factories and large corporations. And that opens up a discussion about

the fact that some lucky businesses are allowed to " switch " their

energy sources while the rest of California isn't.

 

After a conversation with Emily Rusch, another CalPIRG advocate, I

learned that big corporations in California get to pick and choose the

low-hanging volts, while everyone else is stuck with whatever wrinkled

electricity provider is thrust upon us. As a result, companies have

less of a stake in the quality and efficiency of a particular energy

grid, because they can cut and run when the power supply is spotty or

less convenient. Prop 80 also requires energy companies to meet new

energy demands with renewable energy resources and higher energy

efficiency measures as first options.

 

A ballot initiative like this one doesn't begin to lock horns with the

fundamental flaws in California's energy market. But a heavy vote in

Prop 80's favor will at least signal to Sacramento that energy reform

has popular public appeal.

 

Jan Frel is an AlterNet staff writer.