[GPSCC-chat] Fwd: Re: [gpca-votes] Discuss: ID 12 - GPCA State Legislative Demands 2012
Spencer Graves
spencer.graves at prodsyse.com
Sun Dec 9 11:42:55 PST 2012
Hello, All:
What's the status of the Green Party Standing General Assembly?
Am I correct that the idea was NOT approved by any authoritative body
authorized to give it any power?
I ask, because Mike Feinstein has declared it to be in session
and asked it to discuss a "set of policy demands of the legislature", to
be discussed and perhaps approved by the California Greens Coordinating
Committee at its January 7 meeting. "The approach is to agree upon five
general issue areas, where the Green Party of California would make a
specific, immediate demand of the legislature, as well express a longer
term GPCA goal and vision. The GPCA would then do publicity and seek to
organize in coalition around these issues." Someone suggested that five
was too many. I agree. Moreover, I think it's unwise of us to issue
"demands"; a 3-year old can "demand" a right to use someone else's
crayons, but a wise caregiver would take appropriate action to prevent
such a "demand" from escalating into a confrontation. However, I think
we could be more effective if we decide to restrict our focus without
denying any of our Ten Key Values.
Below please find my comments on this: I suggest we focus on
"the corrupting impact of our current campaign finance system". I also
suggest we restructure our monthly meetings so the first hour consists
of a presentation and discussion with leaders of other groups focusing
on finding common ground on this issue. To accomplish this, I suggest
we restrict the business of our current meetings to 1 hour. Any topic
that runs over time gets referred to a committee or to the County
Council. If we do this, I think we can position ourselves among the
leaders in this campaign reform movement and attract more people to our
meetings and to the party more generally.
Comments?
Best Wishes,
Spencer
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gpca-votes] Discuss: ID 12 - GPCA State Legislative
Demands 2012
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2012 11:16:40 -0800
From: Spencer Graves <spencer.graves at prodsyse.com>
To: Victoria Ashley <victronix01 at yahoo.com>
CC: gpca-votes at cagreens.org
I think the Green Party would do well to focus primarily on
supporting the growing movement concerned about the corrupting impact of
our current campaign finance system. This movement includes the following:
(1) Full disclosure of the sources of campaign funds (e.g.,
caclean.org, couragecampaign.org, opensecrets.org, followthemoney.org).
(2) Public funding of political campaigns (e.g., Lawrence
Lessig's books on "Republic, Lost" and "One Way Forward", both of which
are discussed in Wikipedia articles by those titles, plus
rootstrikers.org, anticorruptionact.org). These typically include
"democracy vouchers" for $100 which every citizen would get each year or
every 2 years, which each citizen could donate only to one or more
political candidates or initiatives. This amount would generally
increase so it would always be the dominant source of funds in any
election cycle.
(3) Overturning Citizens United (e.g., Move To Amend,
Public Citizen).
A 28th Amendment Conference was held Nov. 17, 2012 at the UCLA
Law School sponsored by the "Money Out / Voters In" coalition of 15
different organizations supporting legislation including a
constitutional amendment to provide either public funding of campaigns
or overturning at least part of Citizens United
(http://interoccupy.net/blog/money-out-voters-in, moneyoutvotersin.org).
Lessig has worked with both the Tea Party and the Occupy
Movement. He notes that both groups share two things: (a) Opposition
to "crony capitalism". (b) Elements who label as treasonous anyone who
talks with the other. His response was to found Rootstrikers to provide
a forum where Right and Left can meet, seek common ground, set aside
their differences, and work together to push serious reform in this area.
I would add media reform (e.g., freepress.net) to this list,
because even if we get public funding of political campaigns, the public
will still be ill informed without substantive investigative journalism,
especially focused on crony capitalism.
I'm proposing to the Santa Clara Green party that we devote,
e.g., the first half of our monthly meetings to a presentation and a
discussion with outside guests from MoveOn, the Libertarians, the Tea
Party, and many other groups, focused especially on finding common
ground for action. If we do this, I believe we will attract more people
to our monthly meetings and to the party itself -- AND we can become
instrumental in pushing these issues.
Best Wishes,
Spencer Graves
On 12/9/2012 9:16 AM, Victoria Ashley wrote:
> I think it makes more sense to focus on one issue and then five topics
> within that issue.
>
> Advocating issues which either passed or failed in the Nov election
> doesn't seem as constructive (i.e., GMO or renewable energy jobs) as
> creating a message that resonates in a novel way. Single payer seems
> impossible for the Democratic legislature to even consider, at this
> point, with Obamacare imminent. A more restricted set of choices may
> also be easier to build a coalition or get more endorsements.
>
> Voters passed Prop 14 already and apparently could care less about the
> ability to write-in a vote. I think electoral reform is a whole issue
> that needs its own focus, separate from this,*or*, make this only and
> all about electoral reform issues (there are also many dire issues
> they could deal with now).
>
> My first choice is that I would keep the whole effort within the issue
> of finances, which is a top priority for much else to happen in the
> state, and which has many many problems, and then make 5 specific
> proposals within that, with detailed explanations, such as:
>
> *Fix California's Proposition 13*
> xxxxxxxxx
> *
> Create a State Bank of California*
> *xxxxxxxxx*
> *
> Raise the California Minimum Wage*
> xxxxxxxxx
>
> *Tax California's Oil and Capital Gains Transactions*
> *xxxxxxxxx*
> *
> *
> *One more . . .*
> *xxxxxxxxx*
> *
> *
> For many more issues the Green Party calls on the California
> Legislature to take action on, please see:
> http://files.cagreens.org/vote/propdetail?pid=12
>
> -- Victoria
>
> --- On *Sun, 12/9/12, Denise Munro Robb /<denise at panix.com>/* wrote:
>
>
> From: Denise Munro Robb <denise at panix.com>
> Subject: Re: [gpca-votes] Discuss: ID 12 - GPCA State Legislative
> Demands 2012
> To: "Mike Feinstein" <mfeinstein at feinstein.org>
> Cc: "GPCA-votes SGA Voting" <gpca-votes at cagreens.org>
> Date: Sunday, December 9, 2012, 8:27 AM
>
> Those are fine too. I love all of them. I'm just saying if we
> chose a few to focus on we might be more successful.
>
> Denise Munro Robb, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor, Pierce College; UC Irvine Social Science
> Research Network Junior Fellow and Joshua's Mommy
>
> On Dec 9, 2012, at 3:09 AM, Mike Feinstein
> <mfeinstein at feinstein.org
> </mc/compose?to=mfeinstein at feinstein.org>> wrote:
>
> > Starting the Green Party in 1990 and qualifying the GPCA for the
> ballot by getting over 100,000 people registered Green when there
> wasn't even 'Green Party' on the voter registration form, and
> there was originally just a small number of us, was a fantasy that
> became a reality :)
> >
> > Regarding the split roll, all I'm hearing is that the split roll
> will not happen this year, but that its possible for 2016 by
> initiative, and for this year, the legislature is more likely to
> put the 55% on the ballot for schools, cities, counties and
> transportation. The idea is that the 55% is easier than the split
> roll, because the split roll will organize business across the
> state against it, and the 55% is low handing fruit by comparison.
> >
> > Mike Feinstein
> > LA County
> >
> > On Dec 9, 2012, at 1:48 AM, Denise Munro Robb wrote:
> >
> >> Wow. It's quite a fantasy. Might it not be more prudent to pick
> one or two to start with and really push it - like the split roll
> re prop 13?
> >>
> >> And ending top two?
> >>
> >> "Also the Coordinating Committee Recommending" should be
> >> "Recommends"
> >>
> >> Denise Munro Robb, Ph.D.
> >> Assistant Professor, Pierce College; UC Irvine Social Science
> Research Network Junior Fellow and Joshua's Mommy
> >>
> >> On Dec 9, 2012, at 12:01 AM, voting at cagreens.org
> </mc/compose?to=voting at cagreens.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Discussion has begun for the following proposal:
> >>>
> >>> Proposal ID: 12
> >>> Proposal: GPCA State Legislative Demands 2012
> >>> Floor Manager: Mike Feinstein, mfeinstein at feinstein.org
> </mc/compose?to=mfeinstein at feinstein.org>
> >>> Discussion Dates: 12/09/2012 - 01/09/2013
> >>> Voting Dates: 01/10/2013 - 01/18/2013
> >>>
> >>> Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
> >>>
> >>> Background: After the November 2012 elections, for the first
> time since 1933, a
> >>> single party (the Democrats) has at least 2/3 of the members
> of both
> >>> houses of the California state legislature, meaning it has the
> ability
> >>> to pass legislation and perform other functions that require a 2/3
> >>> super-majority (see list of such functions below in 'references'.)
> >>>
> >>> At its November 12th teleconference, the Coordinating Committee
> >>> discussed a process to establish a GPCA set of policy demands
> of the
> >>> legislature in response. The following proposal is
> co-sponsored by the
> >>> Coordinating Committee and the Green Issues Working Group. The
> >>> Coordinating Committee has appointed an ad-hoc drafting
> committee to
> >>> receive input from the SGA and revise the draft statement in
> response;
> >>> and then the Coordinating Committee will review the latest
> update at
> >>> its January 7th meeting.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The approach is to agree upon five general issue areas, where
> the Green
> >>> Party of California would make a specific, immediate demand of the
> >>> legislature, as well express a longer term GPCA goal and
> vision. The
> >>> GPCA would then do publicity and seek to organize in coalition
> around
> >>> these issues.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Proposal: Green Party Policy Demands to the Legislature/Green
> Party Legislative
> >>> Demands
> >>>
> >>> The Democrats now have a super majority of 2/3 in both houses
> of the
> >>> California state legislature. As a result, the legislature is in a
> >>> position to pass many progressive reforms which require a 2/3
> super
> >>> majority, without fear of blockage by the Republicans. The
> Green Party
> >>> believes this historic opportunity should be seized to address
> many key
> >>> issues, especially the following:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Electoral reform
> >>>
> >>> . Place an initiative on the ballot to overturn Proposition
> 14, The Top
> >>> Two Elections System.
> >>> . Restore by legislation, the right of Californians to cast
> write-in
> >>> votes in the general election -- and have them counted.
> >>>
> >>> After these immediate actions are taken, the Green Party
> believes that
> >>> California should move to change its electoral system to one of
> >>> multi-seat districts with proportional representation for the
> state
> >>> legislature; ranked-choice voting for single-seat, statewide
> >>> constitutional office; with public financing of all ballot
> qualified
> >>> candidates, including free media time.
> >>>
> >>> 2. Taxation
> >>>
> >>> The passage of Proposition 30 was only a temporary, short term and
> >>> insufficient approach to California's finances. The state's
> structural
> >>> budget deficit remains.
> >>>
> >>> . Support immediate efforts to lower the threshold to approve
> new taxes
> >>> from 2/3 to 55%
> >>> . Address the state's structural budget deficit and issues of
> fairness
> >>> and equity in taxation through progressive reforms to the tax
> system.
> >>>
> >>> This policy demand has not yet been focused on a long term
> reform of a
> >>> specific tax or taxes. SGA members are asked to comment on how
> best to
> >>> approach this.
> >>>
> >>> Text to draw from, from GPCA statement on Prop 30
> >>> (http://www.cagreens.org/elections/propositions/30): Greens
> believe in
> >>> comprehensive tax reform including a progressive income tax;
> natural
> >>> resources extraction taxes such as an oil severance tax; pollution
> >>> taxes like a carbon tax; closing corporates loopholes and
> eliminating
> >>> corporate welfare; addressing the problem in Prop 13 that
> commercial
> >>> land is not being taxed via enacting a split roll, and more
> >>> comprehensively enacting a land value tax where the
> socially-created
> >>> value of land is retained by society; and legalizing, taxing and
> >>> regulating marijuana - all while cutting income taxes for the
> average
> >>> worker and payroll taxes for small businesses, so that we
> reward work
> >>> and a healthy environment, penalize pollution and waste, and
> keep the
> >>> unearned profit out of speculation and monopolies.
> >>>
> >>> Also the Coordinating Committee recommending considering how the
> >>> establishment of a California State Bank could be included here.
> >>>
> >>> 3. Health Care
> >>>
> >>> . Enact by statute, a system of Universal, Single Payer Health
> Care for
> >>> California.
> >>>
> >>> Democrats in the state legislature passed a "single
> payer-healthcare"
> >>> bill on three occasions. The bills were vetoed twice by
> Governor Arnold
> >>> Schwarzenegger. The Democrats pulled it the third time because
> Governor
> >>> Schwarzenegger said he would veto it again. It was
> reintroduced in 2011
> >>> when Governor Jerry Brown took office. The democrats failed to get
> >>> enough votes to pass it. With a super majority, the Democrats
> have even
> >>> less of an excuse to not pass this.
> >>>
> >>> The Green Party of California firmly supports single payer
> health care.
> >>> A Green legislature would establish a Single Payer Universal
> Health
> >>> Care system.
> >>>
> >>> 4. Living Wage
> >>>
> >>> . Support immediate efforts to raise the minimum wage
> >>> . Move swiftly to enact a living wage for California
> >>>
> >>> The Green Party of California believes every person who wants
> to work
> >>> is entitled to a job that pays a liveable wage. With reduced
> wages,
> >>> reduced social services, and a widening gap between rich and
> poor, it
> >>> is becoming increasingly difficult for workers to provide for
> >>> themselves and their families. The minimum wage is not enough to
> >>> sustain people.
> >>>
> >>> 5. Energy/Climate Change/Green Jobs
> >>>
> >>> . Immediate closure and decommissioning of the state's nuclear
> power
> >>> plants at Diablo Canyon and San Onofre.
> >>> (http://www.cagreens.org/ga/resolutions/close-california-nukes)
> >>> . Replace the energy through increased conservation,
> efficiency and
> >>> renewable sources, including by enacting a feed-in tariff and
> promoting
> >>> distributed generation and community/public ownership.
> >>>
> >>> The Earth is facing an environmental crisis. In the last
> decade, the
> >>> Earth has experienced some of the highest average temperatures
> ever.
> >>> The United States is responsible for emitting approximately
> 25% of all
> >>> greenhouse gases worldwide. Something must change if we want
> to ensure
> >>> future generations have a liveable planet.
> >>>
> >>> The Green Party of California supports using subsidies,
> incentives and
> >>> regulations to encourage the development of renewable
> energies. One
> >>> example is feed-in tariffs. Feed-in tariffs has been pioneered by
> >>> Greens in Germany. It requires utilities that sell energy to
> pay three
> >>> to four times more per kilowatt-hour to energy producers using
> >>> sustainable energy. This creates a market for renewable
> energy and
> >>> leads to more investment.
> >>>
> >>> The Green Party of California supports incentives that
> cultivate the
> >>> development of renewable energies. A Green legislature would
> create
> >>> incentives, such as feed-in tariffs, to increase renewable
> energy in
> >>> California.
> >>>
> >>> * Additional issues
> >>>
> >>> . Support GMO labelling
> >>>
> >>> Resources:
> >>>
> >>> References: Places where California state law requires a 2/3
> vote of the state
> >>> legislature.
> >>>
> >>> . Initiatives
> >>>
> >>> The California state legislature may place measures on the
> ballot for a
> >>> public vote, either as legislatively-referred constitutional
> amendments
> >>> (ACA or SCA) or legislatively-referred state statutes. Referred
> >>> constitutional amendments require a 2/3 vote of each house of
> the state
> >>> legislature for passage, then may be submitted to the voters
> in the
> >>> next election.
> >>>
> >>> . Taxes
> >>>
> >>> Article 13 Section 3 of the California State Constitution
> requires a
> >>> 2/3 vote by both houses of the state legislature for passage
> of any tax
> >>> increases.
> >>>
> >>> . Override
> >>>
> >>> An effort to reverse or 'override' a Governor's veto of a bill
> approved
> >>> by the state legislature requires a vote of two-thirds of the
> members
> >>> of each house of the state legislature. The Governor can also
> exercise
> >>> a line-item veto, where the amount of an appropriation is
> reduced or
> >>> eliminated, while the rest of the bill is approved. A
> line-item veto
> >>> may also be overridden by a two-thirds vote in each house.
> >>>
> >>> . Urgency Measure
> >>>
> >>> A bill affecting the public peace, health, or safety, which takes
> >>> effect upon the Governor's signature. Such a bill requires a
> 2/3 vote
> >>> of each house of the state legislature for passage.
> >>>
> >>> . Urgency Clause
> >>>
> >>> A bill which contains an urgency clause takes effect upon the
> >>> Governor's signature. A vote on the urgency clause must
> precede a vote
> >>> on the bill and requires a 2/3 vote of each house of the state
> >>> legislature for passage.
> >>>
> >>> . Rule Waiver
> >>>
> >>> A request to exempt a bill from the application of either a
> standing
> >>> rule of either house of the state legislature or a joint rule
> of the
> >>> entire legislature. In most cases a rule is waived so a bill
> can be
> >>> heard after a particular deadline. A rule waiver must be
> approved by
> >>> the Rules Committee, and then by a 2/3 vote of the house
> involved, or
> >>> both in the case of a Joint Rule.
> >>>
> >>> . Amend Political Reform Act of 1974
> >>>
> >>> Proposition 9 created the Fair Political Practices Commission
> (FPPC) to
> >>> enforce political campaign, lobbying, and conflict of interest
> laws in
> >>> the state of California. Any bills that amend this Act have a
> >>> two-thirds vote requirement for passage, and are subject to a
> 12-day
> >>> waiting period before final passage of each house.
> >>>
> >>> . Call for a Constitutional Convention
> >>>
> >>> According to Section 2 of Article XVIII of the California
> Constitution,
> >>> if two-thirds of the members of each house of the state
> legislature
> >>> agree, a question as to whether to call a convention or revise the
> >>> constitution goes on the state's next general election ballot.
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------
> >>>
> >>> Note that in the case of California, 2/3 means 2/3 of all
> members in
> >>> the legislature, not 2/3 of those voting. This means at least
> 54 in the
> >>> affirmative in the Assembly and 27 in the Senate, regardless
> of how
> >>> many others are voting.
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------
> >>>
> >>> This list is based upon information from the websites of the
> California
> >>> State Assembly and State Senate and other sources, and is being
> >>> confirmed with the California Legislative Analyst.
> >>>
> >>> Full details are available at:
> >>>
> >>> http://files.cagreens.org/vote/propdetail?pid=12
> >>>
> >>> Please send your comments to gpca-votes at cagreens.org
> </mc/compose?to=gpca-votes at cagreens.org>.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you and have a wonderful day!
> >>> --The GPCA SGA Voting System Admin
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> gpca-votes mailing list
> >> gpca-votes at cagreens.org </mc/compose?to=gpca-votes at cagreens.org>
> >> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
> > __
>
--
Spencer Graves, PE, PhD
President and Chief Technology Officer
Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc.
751 Emerson Ct.
San José, CA 95126
ph: 408-655-4567
web:www.structuremonitoring.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20121209/11ad90f4/attachment.html>
More information about the sosfbay-discuss
mailing list