From david_quinley at yahoo.com Sat Apr 18 16:24:25 2009 From: david_quinley at yahoo.com (david quinley) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:24:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Marin-d] 4/25 COM Campus Green's Free Screening of Occupation 101 Doc. on Gaza Kentfield Campus's OH Theater Message-ID: <432072.15226.qm@web53901.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Reply to: see below Date: 2009-04-18, 4:01PM PDT North Bay / Marin | Anti-War View other events for the week of 4/25/2009 Title: Film - Occupation 101 START DATE: Saturday April 25 TIME: 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM Location Details: Olney Hall, College of Marin, Kentfield Campus 835 College Avenue Kentfield, CA 94904 http://www.marin.cc.ca.us/ Event Type: Screening Contact Name Email Address Phone Number 415-456-1698 Address OCCUPATION 101 - Voices of the Silenced Majority Film showing April 25, 7:00pm, Olney Hall, College of Marin, Kentfield This powerful documentary film has won 8 film awards, including the 'Golden Palm', Best Picture Award at the Beverly Hills Film Festival. It shows the current and historical root causes of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and U.S. involvement. Unlike any other film produced on the conflict - 'Occupation 101' presents a comprehensive analysis of the facts and hidden truths and dispels many of its long-perceived myths and misconceptions. It discusses the major obstacles that stand in the way of a lasting and viable peace. First-hand on-the-ground experiences are given from leading Middle East scholars, peace activists, journalists, religious leaders and humanitarian workers whose voices have too often been suppressed in American media. Questions and Answers will be held after the film showing. Marin Peace and Justice Coalition and COM Campus Greens Chapter (Nat. Green Party student group )Contact 415-456-1698 for more information. or 479 1888 Suggested donations of $5 to assist with expenses appreciated. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/comcampusgreens/(on facebook and myspace greenchange and other online places -ask) http://www.mpjc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marnie at greenchange.com Thu Apr 23 16:14:54 2009 From: marnie at greenchange.com (Marnie Glickman) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:14:54 -0700 Subject: [Marin-d] Jeremy Cloward for Congress Message-ID: Dear Green friends, People are getting ready for their 2010 campaigns. I just heard of a new Green candidate who is going to run against Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher in the East Bay. http://www.jeremycloward.com/ Peace, Marnie Glickman Co-chair, Marin Greens From marnie at greenchange.com Fri Apr 24 11:55:35 2009 From: marnie at greenchange.com (Marnie Glickman) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:55:35 -0700 Subject: [Marin-d] Please leave online comment on new Marin IJ article Message-ID: Dear Marin Greens, The Marin IJ just published an editorial about how Steve Kinsey should be have been appointed to the CA Coastal Commission instead of registered Green Ross Mirkarimi. Ross is an elected member of the SF Board of Supervisors. Please leave a comment in support of Ross at the Marin IJ website link. http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_12216751 Peace, Marnie Glickman Co-chair, Marin Greens From marnie at greenchange.com Mon Apr 27 19:53:02 2009 From: marnie at greenchange.com (Marnie Glickman) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:53:02 -0700 Subject: [Marin-d] Our position on statewide measures References: <486045443.6638411240881337566.JavaMail.root@sz0150a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <1F6A037E-FE34-4BC8-BFA8-150162D668B7@greenchange.org> Hi folks. GPCA counties are reporting in their positions on the ballot measures. I don't know if we are "required" to submit our positions. I do not have the time to deal with this task now. Who can look in to this? Peace, Marnie Begin forwarded message: > From: prisonpedagogy at comcast.net > Date: April 27, 2009 6:15:37 PM PDT > To: northbaygreens at lists.riseup.net, Michael S Wyman > > Subject: Re: [northbaygreens] REMINDER --> County Polling For Special > Reply-To: northbaygreens at lists.riseup.net,prisonpedagogy at comcast.net > > The Green Party of Sonoma County Council voted April 16, 2009 on the > Special Election Initiatives > as such: > > 1a NO > 1b NO > 1c NO > 1d NO > 1f SPLIT YES/NO > > Results received by Matt Leslie, polling coordinator. > > > Tom Bolema > GPSC Councilperson - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Marnie Glickman Executive Director Green Change www.greenchange.org My Green Change page: http://network.greenchange.org/people/marnie Green Change tweets: www.twitter.com/greenchangeorg Green Change is a community of people with Green values: justice, grassroots democracy, sustainability and non-violence. We work together to share Green art, politics and culture. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marnie at greenchange.com Tue Apr 28 04:55:45 2009 From: marnie at greenchange.com (Marnie Glickman) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:55:45 -0700 Subject: [Marin-d] [GPCA Official Notice] Plenary Registration and Logistics References: <49F648AE.9020004@greens.org> Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: County Contacts > Date: April 27, 2009 5:07:10 PM PDT > To: County Contacts > Subject: [GPCA Official Notice] Plenary Registration and Logistics > Reply-To: contacts2006 at lists.cagreens.org > > GREEN PARTY COUNTY CONTACTS MESSAGE > > This is an announcement from the GPCA Contact List. For more > information, or questions related to the topic of the posting, > please do not hit reply. Follow the contact directions > stated in the email. > Online registration is now open for the May 16-17 General Assembly > in Venice, LA. Use the Registration link on > http://cagreens.org/plenary/. Please register as soon as possible to > help the host committee prepare the event. > > Counties are also required to submit their list of General Assembly > delegates online. Use the Delegates link on the plenary page cited > above. > > Online registration and delegate submission closes on Wednesday May > 13. > > > > The logistics agenda packet is now available for download from the > Agenda Packet link on the plenary page. This packet contains > information on the meeting site, housing, registration and host > contacts. It also contains meeting agendas for some committees. > > > > > We are looking for people with note-taking skills for this General > Assembly. This is a paid position and a valuable service to the GPCA. > > There is a Notetaker Guidelines document available at > http://cagreens.org/gap/NoteTaker.rtf. > > Send a message to agenda-team at cagreens.org if you are interested. > _______________________________________________ > Contacts2006 mailing list > Contacts2006 at lists.cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/contacts2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Marnie Glickman Executive Director Green Change www.greenchange.org My Green Change page: http://network.greenchange.org/people/marnie Green Change tweets: www.twitter.com/greenchangeorg Green Change is a community of people with Green values: justice, grassroots democracy, sustainability and non-violence. We work together to share Green art, politics and culture. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marnie at greenchange.com Tue Apr 28 05:05:01 2009 From: marnie at greenchange.com (Marnie Glickman) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 05:05:01 -0700 Subject: [Marin-d] REMINDER --> County Polling For Special Election; ** April 30th Deadline ** References: <49f62a69.090bca0a.2dfd.ffffaf17SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: "Michael S Wyman" > Date: April 27, 2009 2:57:59 PM PDT > To: > Cc: "'Marnie Glickman'" , "'Chris Malan'" > > Subject: REMINDER --> County Polling For Special Election; ** April > 30th Deadline ** > > > All counties Please Note: This poll has an April 30 Deadline > (Thursday). The > state party is three counties short of quorum. So if we can get our > counties > together and respond by Thursday, it will help a great deal. > > Thanks, > > Mike Wyman > North Bay Regional Rep. > > -----Original Message----- > From: gpca-cc-bounces at cagreens.org [mailto:gpca-cc-bounces at cagreens.org > ] On > Behalf Of County Contacts > Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 7:00 PM > To: County Contacts > Subject: [GPCA-CC] [GPCA Official Notice] REMINDER --> County > Polling For > Special Election; ** April 30th Deadline ** > > GREEN PARTY COUNTY CONTACTS MESSAGE > > This is an announcement from the GPCA Contact List. For more > information, > or questions related to the topic of the posting, please do not hit > reply. > Follow the contact directions > stated in the email. > > > > > > Please remember to participate in the county polling on ballot > propositions. Your votes are due April 30. > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [GPCA Official Notice] County Polling For Special Election; > ** > April 30th Deadline ** > Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 14:51:35 -0800 > > > > > > GPCA COUNTY POLLING FOR MAY 19, 2009 SPECIAL ELECTION BALLOT MEASURES > > To: GPCA County Contacts List > > From: Warner Bloomberg Campaigns and Candidates Working Group > Co-Coordinator > > Subject: County Polling for May 19, 2009 Special Election Ballot > Measures > > NOTE: You can download a printable version of this message (PDF > format) > at http://cagreens.org/ccwg/polling/SpecElectionMay09.pdf > > Below you will find instructions for GPCA County organizations to > report > County GP positions on the six ballot measures that the California > legislature set for special election as part of the recent "budget > deal". Immediately following those instructions, you will find > reports > that have been written by members of the Green Party of Alameda > County. > These reports are simply the opinions of those who wrote them > and DO > NOT constitute GPCA positions. GPCA positions on ballot measures > occur > in two ways: By decision of the delegates at a General Assembly or by > County Polling. > > Because a General Assembly of Delegates is scheduled for May 16-17 in > Los Angeles County the weekend before the Special Election, > consideration of these measures have been placed on the agenda for the > next Plenary. However, only an hour has been allotted for this agenda > item and this Plenary will occur only two days before the election and > after mail-in ballots will have been issued for several weeks before > that meeting. If County Polling has not established GPCA positions by > the Plenary, quick tests for consensus will be made to determine > whether > GPCA decision making can occur for any of these items. PLEASE NOTE: > Decisions by County Polling will remove the need to have those > measures > decided by County Polling on the Plenary Agenda. If your County GP > fails to participate in this County Polling in a timely manner, then > that may mean Plenary agenda time will be needed for those issues > (instead being available for something else). As in previous years, > special thanks to everyone who contributed to the reports and to Greg > Jan for collecting them. Any questions about these comments should be > addressed to Warner Bloomberg at wsb3attyca at aol.com or (408) 295-9353. > Any questions about the following instructions should be addressed to > Warner Bloomberg and Mathew Leslie mrl at greens.org -- acting County > Polling Coordinators. All County Polling Reports should be submitted > to > these County Polling Coordinators. > > PLEASE NOTE: As recipients on the County Contacts list YOU have the > responsibility to communicate this information to other members in > your > local County GP organization. You are to use whatever process you use > in your County GP to make decisions of this kind - but each County > needs to instruct its delegates on these issues in the event they need > to be decided at the Plenary. A copy of these instructions and the > following reports will be posted on the Plenary agenda page as a > supplement to the Agenda Packet. > > Warner Bloomberg CCWG Co-Coordinator > March 13, 2009 > > INSTRUCTIONS FOR GPCA STATEWIDE POLL OF COUNTIES > BALLOT MEASURES APPEARING ON THE MAY 19, 2009 SPECIAL ELECTION BALLOT > > The GPCA uses a poll of all recognized County Green Parties to > determine > GPCA positions on ballot measures as an alternative to making those > decisions at a state meeting. Six measures have been put on the > ballot > by the State Legislature as part of the recent "budget deal" for a > Special Election on May 19, 2009. Please be sure that your county > participates by submitting votes by Thursday, April 30, 2009. > > > > > THE POLL: > > This poll contains a list of Legislative ballot measures that will be > voted on by Special Election held on May 19, 2009. Reports on these > measures written by volunteers from the Green Party grassroots who > have > reviewed the measures follow below. Of course, counties are free to > agree or disagree with the recommended positions. The full text of the > initiatives can be located by going to the webpage for the California > Secretary of State www.ss.ca.gov and following the applicable links. > > PROCESS: > > Please provide both Poll Coordinators (Warner Bloomberg and Mathew > Leslie) with vote results from your county in the following form for > each ballot measure: > > "Yes" for the GPCA to support the measure > "No" for the GPCA to oppose the measure > "No Position" for the GPCA to deliberately remain neutral on the > measure > > Votes may also be cast as "Abstain" if they do not wish to participate > in the poll. Abstentions will be counted toward quorum. > > Vote on each ballot measure itself, not the recommendation. For > example, > if the report has recommended a position of "No," and your county > wishes > to agree and vote "No" on the initiative, then your county should > vote > "No" on the initiative, and not "Yes" on the recommended "No" > position. > > PLEASE SUBMIT VOTES IN THE AMOUNT ALLOTTED TO YOUR COUNTY FOR THE > LOS ANGELES COUNTY (VENICE) PLENARY. That list is published in the > agenda packet for that state meeting to be held MAY 16-17, 2009. For > example, if your county has 2 delegates, you would submit 2 votes in > any > combination of positions. (Votes from counties with more than one > delegate vote need not be unanimous.) If you have any questions about > the total number of votes that can be cast for any measure, contact > the > GPCA Coordinating Committee member(s) who represent your region. Your > county should rely on its own internal processes to arrive at its > positions. The poll has an 80% threshold. The default where the > threshold or quorum is not met is "No Position". > > TIMELINE: > > The voting period begins on March 15, 2009, and ends on April 30, 2009 > (11:59 PM PST).Votes received after the closing date and time will not > be counted. Submit all votes to BOTH the Poll Coordinators at the > following email addresses: > > Warner Bloomberg wsb3attyca at aol.com > > Mathew Leslie mrl at greens.org > > Please submit any questions about the process of the poll to the same > addresses. > > > > > > MAY 19, 2009 SPECIAL ELECTION BALLOT MEASURES REPORTS > > RECOMMENDATIONS - VOTE NO ON ALL > > Official Titles and Brief Descriptions of Propositions that are on the > May 19, 2009, Statewide Special Election Ballot > > Proposition 1A Stabilizes State Budget. Reforms California Budget > Process. Limits State Spending. Increases "Rainy Day" Budget > Stabilization Fund. > > Proposition 1B Election Funding. Payment Plan. > > Proposition 1C Lottery Modernization Act. > > Proposition 1D Protects Children's Services Funding. Helps Balance > State Budget. > > Proposition 1E Ensures Funding for Children's Mental Health Services. > Helps Balance State Budget. > > Proposition 1F Elected Officials' Salaries. Prevents Pay Increases > During Budget Deficit Years. > > > > > Report #1 > > Dear Greens, > > Below is an initial write-up about the six propositions on the May 19 > statewide special election ballot, followed by an additional article > with further relevant information. These were written and reviewed in > early March by several Alameda County Green Party volunteers, and > although we have not yet begun our final editing process for the Voter > Guide which we will be publishing during April, the basic positions > expressed (including the recommendation to vote "No" on all 6 > propositions) will not be changing. > > If you would like to read the "legal text" of the propositions and/or > the information which will be published in the "official" state of > California voter pamphlet, please see: > http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/public-display-051909/official-ballot-pamphl > et-public-display-051909.htm > > Sincerely, > > Greg Jan Oakland, CA > > > > May 19, 2009 Special Election; Vote NO on the Rotten Deal > > The writers of this Report, members of the Green Party of Alameda > County, urge you to vote NO on all items on the ballot in the May 19 > special election. We are opposed, of course, to the cuts in > transportation, education, social services, and the rest, that are > part > of this budget deal. We oppose this deal even though the politicians > tell us that great hardship will result if they don't get their rotten > deal passed. And it may even be true. But we are even more opposed > to > the process which concluded by offering us the "choice" of being > shotin > the leg or shot in the arm but did NOT offer us the choice of using > our > collective wealth to meet human needs. (For info on some better > options, please see the bottom part of this article, about "what is to > be done") > > Proposition 1A is a constitutional amendment that was part of the > budget > agreement but parts of it go far beyond the current agreement. > Ironically, per the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), the provisions > of 1A have no effect on the current budget. Rather, bringing this > measure before the voters was the price agreed to by the Democrats to > get the Republican votes needed for the budget deal. > > 1A provides that "unanticipated revenues" (revenues in excess of the > ten-year average) would be saved in a Budget Stabilization Fund > ("rainy > day fund") for future years in which they could be spent for the > Proposition 98 K-14 educational spending mandate (see 1B, below) or > (if > 1B fails, for example) to pay off various loans and bonds. Opponents > say this measure is unclear, not transparent, doesn't do what it > claims > to do, and creates new problems. > > 1A asks us to accept a permanent spending cap (a zero growth budget) > as > the price the legislature insists on to raise some taxes temporarily. > If such a spending cap had been in effect this year, billions of > dollars > in additional cuts would have been mandated. > > State spending on education, health care, the safety net for low- > income > people, and other essential services has been inadequate up to now. > So > freezing the state budget (except for population growth and > inflation) > means that the inadequate spending levels could never be raised. In > addition, population growth does not reflect the different needs that > different people have. One example we all have come to understand is > that children whose families recently immigrated to the US and who do > not speak English at home require more spending on school services, at > least for a few years. Another example would be that as California's > population ages, more per capita spending for health care and social > services will be required. > > What about the effect of the 1A spending cap on any new programs > California may want to create? We'll use the example of "health care > for all forever." It is possible to pass a Single-Payer ("Medicare > for > all") health care plan in California, such as SB 840, which passed the > Legislature but was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger twice, and is > now > being introduced again as SB 810. The new revenues such a plan would > mandate would not be subject to the spending cap. However, studies > which have shown that Californians could afford to cover everyone with > the money that would be saved by cutting the health insurance > companies > out of the loop depend on also rolling existing programs into the new > program. The deep cuts that have been made in state health care > spending make this much more difficult. > > Although the budget battle was mainly portrayed by the mainstream > media > as Democrats (tax, cut, and borrow) vs Republicans (cut, cut, and > cut), > there were some parts of the deal that even some Democrats could not > bring themselves to support. District 16 Assembly member Sandre > Swanson, for example, voted against 1A (and several other budget > cuts), > and was stripped of a committee chairmanship byte Democratic "Leaders" > in the legislature. > > Measure 1B looks good at first, as it seems to restore, starting in > the > 2011-12 school year, $9.3 billion dollars that were diverted from the > amounts guaranteed under Proposition 98. There is no question that > deep > cuts in education funding are being made all around us. Thousands of > teachers and other school employees are threatened with layoffs. > However, 1B is contingent on passage of 1A. That is, 1B is the > sweetener for the worst part of this rotten deal. While the > California > Teachers Association recommends support of 1B, many teachers, > including > the Oakland Education Association (by a unanimous vote of their Rep > Council) recommends opposing prop 1A and 1B. > > 1C allows the state to borrow $5 billion against future lottery > revenues, and use the funds for programs other than the schools. We > oppose this individual proposal because we are opposed to the entire > process and this entire deal. > > 1D and 1E alter past propositions to plug some holes in the current > budget and that's why they are part of the current deal. We oppose > these measures as part of opposing this entire deal. 1D redirects > money > from the Prop 10 (California Children and Families Act) Trust Fund; 1E > redirects money from Prop 63 (the Mental Health Services Act). > > 1F is deceptive. The legislature is trying to look like they are > sharing the sacrifices that the rest of us are being asked to make in > these tough times. But 1F merely bars increases so the Legislature > would continue to receive their normal salaries and per diems. People > losing their jobs or their benefits get nothing. Some equality of > sacrifice (Not!). > > The really terrible budget cuts that were made to pass the mid-year > budget adjustments should note accepted by us as voters. We can > send a > message by defeating Propositions 1A through 1F. > > So what is to be done at the state level? > > (1) Abolish the 2/3 vote needed to pass the budget. Even State > Senator > Loni Hancock has introduced a constitutional amendment to do that. > The > current situation gives the Republicans much more power over the > budget > than their numbers warrant. That is obvious. What is less obvious is > that the current situation gives cover to the Democrats. Billions of > dollars in cuts of services to their constituents but Democratic Party > legislatures then say don't blame them -- it's the Republicans fault. > > (2) Amend Proposition 13. Adopt the split-roll property tax system, > in > which income-producing property is taxed at a higher rate than > peoples' > primary residences. Amending Prop 13 should also include automatic > reassessments when businesses are sold. > > (3) Return to the notion of progressive taxation. For too long, > there > has been a bipartisan agreement to move away from progressive taxation > and substitute a trickle-down theory. It goes like this: If the rich > get richer, perhaps a crumb can be gotten for the rest of us. Forget > it. When Peter Camejo ran for Governor he made progressive taxation a > centerpiece of his campaigns. We should follow his example. > Progressive taxation does not just mean graduated tax rates on income. > We need to tax wealth as well as income. > > (4) Change the state laws that govern redevelopment districts. In > Oakland, for example, taxes generated by the big office buildings > downtown have to be spent within that redevelopment area. This is > deliberate starvation of the cities' general funds. > > > > > Report #2 > > Some Thoughts About the 5/19/09 Special Election > > My purpose in this "article" is to provide background information as > we > make our decisions about the items coming to the voters in the > special > election of 5/19/09. (This is not proposed as an actual article for > the > Voter Guide or other publication, but as information for Green Party > activists.) My general approach is "tax and spend." Tax those with > more > money than others, and spend what we should to provide for health, > education, welfare, the environment. The package the Duopoly has > agreed > to is really terrible from the point of view of further cutting > spending in areas where the spending has already been inadequate for > years, failing to tax those who have plenty of money, and failing to > start spending for future-focused environmental and energy needs. > > A very useful source for ongoing analysis of the many issues is the > California Budget Project (online at cbp.org). The gap between the > business-as-usual expenditures and the business-as-usual revenue has > been growing. (Currently the budget gap in California is the > largest as > a percentage of the General Fund of any state in the US.) In recent > years various one-time accounting tricks, pieces of luck, borrowing, > deferring necessary work, and other such gimmicks have been used to > stumble from one near-calamity to another. This failure of our > elected > leaders to tell the truth and deal with the real problems has been > pointed out by many commentators. > > Proposition 1A proposes a spending cap. This has been proposed and > voted down in the past. If a spending cap had been enacted in > 1995-96, > we would have had to cut about $40 billion in spending in 2006-07, > 2007-08, and 2008-09. The official ballot summary says 1A "strictly > limits state spending and mandates a bigger rainy day fund -- forcing > politicians to save more in good years to prevent tax increases and > cuts > to schools, public safety and other vital services in bad years." > This > statement gives the misleading impression that state revenue and state > spending have been just fine except for this current crisis this year, > and all we have to do is return to the good old days (of the dot-com > bubble, the stock market bubble, or the housing bubble, all of which > temporarily raised state tax revenues). > > But there were many problems with the business-as-usual expenditures > even before the current round of cuts. I'll start with the topic that > is most valued by the average voter, K-14 education. > > Voters approved Prop 98 in 1988 to assure that the proportion of funds > spent on the schools (40% of the General Fund) stays at the same > inadequate level it was then, rather than continuing to lose not > only by > comparison with what would be needed for a good school system, but in > comparison to other budget items. Prop 1B proposes changes to Prop > 98. > Under the current conditions, we should oppose 1B. > > Another major part of the budget is welfare, including aid to the > disabled, blind, and aged low-income people of California. The > Federal > SSI program has a built-in cost-of-living adjustment annually, as does > Social Security. Many states, including California, supplement the > Federal SSI grant with a "state supplement." By failing to increase > the > SSP (that is, passing along the Federal increase but freezing the > SSP), > or even by reducing it so that the check received by the beneficiary > does not go up (the reduction "swallows" the Federal increase), the > earning power of this safety-net program decreases over time. Using > June 1990 as 100, the purchasing power of SSI/SSP in California has > fallen to about 80, and the current proposals would reduce it still > further. It bears repeating that all of this reduction is due to > California's cuts over the years, as the Federal share has continued > to > rise. (source; CPB) > > Aid to low-income families with children, now called Cal-Works, has > declined in that same period to about 70% of its value in 1990, and > the > proposed cuts now will reduce that to 50%. (source: CPB) Because the > 1996 "welfare reform" law limits the time adults can remain on > welfare, > currently almost 80% of the people on Cal-Works are children. (That > is, > in some families, the children are still receiving a Cal-Works grant > but > the parent has been removed and the family's grant lowered.) > > Another large item in the budget is health care.. MediCal is the > Federal/State program providing some health care for low-income > Californians. (There are other requirements too. Not all low-income > people can get MediCal.) As of December 2007, California spent $5695 > per recipient on each MediCal enrollee, less than Mississippi, less > than > Georgia, less than Alabama, far less than the national average of > $7534, > and, although this is hard to believe, less than ANY OTHER STATE. > About > ten states spent more than $10,000 per enrollee. (Source; CPB) > > Then there are the prisons, currently overcrowded to the point where > even the courts are demanding a reduction in the number of > incarcerated > people. We support reducing the prison budget and releasing enough of > the currently imprisoned to relieve the overcrowding. (Of course we > also > insist on state funding for community support for the people > released.) > Corrections (and rehabilitation) sending has grown at nearly four > times the rate of General Fund spending as a whole since 1980-81. > General fund spending is up by 381% and corrections and rehabilitation > spending is up by 1491% (source; CPB) This cruel and disgraceful > trend > in California's history should be reversed. > > So, what should the Green Party recommend regarding the "spending" > part > of the budget?(Our Platform has many excellent suggestions.) > > And where should the tax revenue come from to pay for all that? > Republican rhetoric about "everyone having to sacrifice" suggests that > those who already are unable to afford adequate food, shelter, health > care, and education should give up still more, such as dental care, so > that millionaires and multi-millionaires don't have to pay more, > although the rich can pay more with no actual deprivation > resulting. As > (the late) Peter Camejo pointed out during his campaigns for > Governor > (2002, 2003, 2006), the lowest-income households pay the largest share > of their income in state and local taxes. > > "Corporate income taxes have declined over time as a share of General > Fund revenues and as a share of corporate profits. If corporations > had > paid the same share of their profits in corporate taxes in 2006 as > they > did in 1981, corporate tax collections would have been $8.4 billion > higher. The yield of the state's sales tax has declined over time, > reflecting the shift in economic activity from goods to services and > the > rise of Internet and mail-order sales that escape taxation. If > taxable > purchases accounted for the same share of personal income in 2007-08 > as > they did in 1966-67, the state would have collected an additional > $16.4 > billion in sales tax revenue." (Source; CPB.) > > While there are some states which require a "supermajority" (that is, > more than a simple majority) to pass their budget, and some states > that > require a supermajority to raise any state taxes, California is the > only > state to require both. That situation allows the most parsimonious > anti-tax legislators (that is, the Republicans) to dictate terms > although they are in the minority in the Legislature. > > Despite rhetoric about how everyone will have to sacrifice, everyone > is > not equally able to pay higher taxes while still being able to meet > their basic needs. During the period 1995 to 2006, the taxpayers in > the > top 15% of the state's income distribution have had their income > double, > while the bottom four-fifths saw their income increase between 8.55 > and > 10.8%. The wealthiest 1% could easily afford to pay higher taxes > while > the vast majority would suffer far more hardship if they had to do so. > > We should try to arrive at a general opinion about set-asides that > have > been enacted by the voters. Prop 98 (the 40% set-aside for K-14 > education) is by far the largest and best known set-aside. There have > been a few others enacted in recent years as voters agree to meet a > very > specific need(such as more services for the mentally ill) with a very > specific tax (Prop 63). We understand there is widespread and > well-founded suspicion that the normal operations of the budget > process > will overlook some important need. Regardless of what we think about > set-asides, we are now being asked to change some set-asides. Again, > these are decisions passed by voters who could not trust the > Legislature > to provide what is needed in a specific area. In my opinion, we > should > oppose attempts to save money by subverting the set-asides. If we get > to the point where basic necessities are adequately and routinely > covered by the elected Legislature, set-asides will not even be > noticed > as an issue. Measures 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E are orders by those who > think > they are our leaders (the legislature) to drop our silly and childish > opinions about what the holes are in the budget. Therefore I > recommend > voting NO on those Propositions. > > However, if we do vote NO on these changes to set-asides, we will have > some unlikely opponents, including State Senator (from Sacramento) > Darrell Steinberg, who (when he was a State Assemblyman) was a > leader in > the successful plan (Prop 63 in 2004) to raise taxes on people with > incomes of $1 million and up, to generate money for community-based > psychiatric services. According to a Dan Walters column in the > Oakland > Tribune on 3/3/09, Steinberg is now supporting 1E, a raid on the funds > set aside but not yet spent, to be spent on state mental health > services > which are otherwise in danger of being reduced. We can view this as a > practical necessity or we can view it as a further evidence of a > dysfunctional state government which should not be rewarded for its > dysfunction. > > The Democrats (especially the liberal Democrats in the Bay Area) are > blaming the proposed budget cuts on the Republicans. As Greens we > should point out (to anyone who will read our Voter Guide) that an > election was held in November 2008. The long-standing problems with > the > structural imbalance between state revenue and state expenditures > should > have been loudly and clearly pointed out during the election season. > The Democrats should have made it clear what kind of budget priorities > they were committed to as a party, where they would raise taxes if > they > had the power to do so, and what expenditures they would reduce. > Others > may correct me, but I do not remember a clear and coherent call for > the > voters to elect enough Democrats to carry out some clear vision. > > There has been a recent gesture in the right direction. State Senator > Loni Hancock issued a statement on 3/3/09 in which she agonizes about > the "great price" we paid with the signing of the spending plan. She > says the 2/3rds vote required to pass the budget "has proved fatally > dysfunctional for California, making it impossible in recent years to > pass budgets on time or with accountability." Of course she blames > the > Republicans. Hancock declares herself in favor of "progressive tax > increases that benefit the average Californian" and says "Things must > change." One change she suggests is a simple majority to pass the > state > budget. She has introduced a constitutional amendment, SCA 5, to do > that. This measure would require a 2/3rds vote so it represents a > propaganda move by Hancock, the kind of move that would be useful if > made during an election season so voters would know what they could > accomplish if they replaced their Republican representative by a > Democrat. > > ### > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Contacts2006 mailing list > Contacts2006 at lists.cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/contacts2006 > > > _______________________________________________ > Contacts2006 mailing list > Contacts2006 at lists.cagreens.org > http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/contacts2006 > _______________________________________________ > gpca-cc mailing list > gpca-cc at cagreens.org > http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cc > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.11.42/2042 - Release Date: > 04/05/09 > 10:54:00 > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Marnie Glickman Executive Director Green Change www.greenchange.org My Green Change page: http://network.greenchange.org/people/marnie Green Change tweets: www.twitter.com/greenchangeorg Green Change is a community of people with Green values: justice, grassroots democracy, sustainability and non-violence. We work together to share Green art, politics and culture. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: