Perpetual Campaigns

One of the realities of contemporary political life is that the campaign for the next election cycle begins even before the last one completed. We are in a time of perpetual campaigns and, along with that, of perpetual fund raising. Case in point: When Jerry McNerney defeated Richard Pombo in 2006, his series of "thank you" meetings in communities across the 11th CD was really a series of fund raisers for 2008.

I don't think that most Greens are really comfortable in this mode. Long range planning rarely gets beyond next month, let alone the next year. There is something about the culture of the Green Party where perpetual fund raising must be unseemly. Maybe we would rather keep picking at the wounds of the 2004 election cycle than to plan for the next one, an exercise that I would rather see carried out as a personal mental process.

Given that, I was excited on seeing the suggestions for a 2010 election that Mike Feinstein posted to an internal Green Party email list (California Green Forum). Mike is saying that we need to start paying attention to the election of 2010 now, not in 2010. That we need to begin to study the causes of our problems now, not like a college student trying to cram for a mid-term and stuffing it all in at the last moment.

I believe that in addition to running and winning more municipal races, we need to focus upon becoming more relevant in partisan races in 2010, which I believe is more likely if we are committed to running primarily for state legislature (Assembly and Senate) instead of Congress, combined with a coordinated message with our statewide constitutional office candidates

Towards this end, I believe we need to demonstrate that we understand how land use and tax policy coincide in this state.

I fully agree with this.

Some observations on political behavior. The American voter responds well to those who provide a vision of a new future and not so well to those who dwell on the past. This country was settled by people who were looking for a new beginning. The is still part of the mythology of America and we ignore that at our peril.

The current election cycle started out to be about Iraq. It is now about paying the mortgage and keeping your job. To quote James Carville's scrawled message from 1992, "It's the economy, stupid." So why do we make a big deal about the ultimate truth of 9/11? That is never about the future. It will never win voters.

In California, we have an education system that does not meet our expectations, yet takes 50% of the state budget. We have an escalating cost of living and a declining tax base. We want to attract and keep good teachers and are cutting school budget by 10%. It does not make sense.

We are not going to become a player at any level until we start dealing with what is relevant to voters now. I think that we would all do well to follow Feinstein's advice and prepare ourselves for the battles ahead. It starts understanding just how Proposition 13 has worked (for some) but has basically failed as the guiding principle for tax policy in California.

Feinstein suggested reading the following series of articles from the LA CityBeat web site. I second the suggestion and post the same links here. Each could be the subject of a thread from which to weave a tapestry of victories in 2010.

http://www.lacitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/the_crushing_blow_of_howard_jarvis/6623/
http://www.lacitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/the_anti_tax_psychosis/6624/
http://www.lacitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/jiveass_jarvis/6620/
http://www.lacitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/tragedy_of_the_commons/6619/
http://www.lacitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/the_biggest_loser_schools/6618/
http://www.lacitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/wal_mart_vs_the_poor/6621/
http://www.lacitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/michael_gorder/6625/

Insuring our future.

While most (individuals, businesses, corporations) are ignoring the potential impacts of global warming, there is one industry which is paying close attention and doing everything it can to minimize the risk to it's shareholders, investors. That is the insurance industry who have significant risk were the oceans to rise, or more to the point, if global warming changed precipitation patterns and increased flood risk.

Blogger R. S. Guskind delivers the message in a very personal way at the Gowanus Lounge, a politically aware slice of Brooklyn life. The insurance companies are taking any increased flood risk very seriously, canceling policies and refusing to write new one for a very large area of one major city. If you view the flood map that Guskind provides, you will also note that the area at risk includes JFK airport.

I call your attention to this because we are still awaiting the release of new FEMA flood maps for the San Joaquin Valley. In the run up to the election of 2006, Hank Shaw reported that these flood maps and the timing of their release became part of the story with two incumbent congressmen, Dennis Cardoza (D. CA 18) and Richard Pombo (R. CA 11) making the effort to block their release in the month just prior to the election. The reasons are clear. If these flood maps had been released, the insurance companies would have reacted exactly as they have done in Brooklyn.

As we moved into 2007, with the maps still not available, the Insurance Journal reported that the size of the San Joaquin River flood plain could triple. Much of the development in San Joaquin County is taking place in the Delta, right in the flood plain of the San Joaquin River. The levee system the protects the Delta is in much worse shape than the levees that protected the City of New Orleans. Dr. Jeffrey Mount, once a member of the State Reclamation Board, gave the NY Times a good summary of just what is at stake.

Q. Why is there so much development in risky places?

A. Because the new gold rush in California is real estate. Moreover, local governments are often reluctant to exert controls over developers because of the tax revolution.

Do you remember Proposition 13 in 1978, which limited increases in property taxes on existing homes? It decimated the ability of localities to fund services. So money for basic services that people expect is now raised through growth.

Many municipalities have become very aggressive about development. I heard a Northern California county supervisor say that his county needed development on its flood plain to fund flood control projects.

When Dr. Mount and the Reclamation Board tried to take some action on this issue (2005), Governor Schwarzenegger fired the entire board.

There are two issues here that should be high on Green Party action lists. One is the reform of Prop 13. The other is the fact that government must pay real attention to the needs of its citizens rather than to the needs of the developers who contribute so much to their campaigns. When I singled out Cardoza and Pombo for attention at the beginning of this post, it was precisely because Stockton developer Fritz Grupe held a joint fundraiser for his good friends without regard to party. Perhaps the only way to break connection between developers and local government is to get Prop. 13 replaced. That will take a lot of voter indignation and we ought to be creating it right now. It may be the most important thing we can do for the State of California.