Cooperation or Obstruction: California Counts Votes on Paralysis Cure
By Don C. Reed
What could be better than bipartisan cooperation, Democrats and Republicans working together for the common good—does not the eagle need two wings to fly?
Sadly, today’s Republican leader appears to think otherwise: opposing all things Democrat. The “new and improved” GOP seems barely willing to stand with Dems for the Pledge of Allegiance. I can almost hear Tea Party-ites grumble, “We don’t support Big Government!”
There are honorable exceptions, of course. In California we will miss David Dreier, a moderate Republican who championed embryonic stem cell research. I honor his service and wish him well. But he is retiring now. And of course Arnold Schwarzenegger fought hard for environmental protections, as well as stem cell research.
But it cannot be denied that the Republican party has changed, and not for the better. Even on matters where once they agreed with Democrats, they now seem compelled to oppose.
Example: paralysis research once seemed an issue on which everyone agreed. In 2004 and 2009, every Democrat and almost every Republican (all but one) in the California Assembly and Senate voted to renew the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act of 1999.
But with budget problems, the program named after my son was approved—but without money.
Naturally we had to find a way to fund it.
Since most Republicans take a “no new taxes” pledge, (and every new tax needs a 2/3 majority, thanks to Proposition 13) there was no help from the general fund.
So, in 2011, Assemblymember Mike Wiechowski (D-Fremont) led an effort to fund the research by a $3 traffic ticket increase, car crash being a major cause of paralysis.
The bill passed two committee hearings before being shot down in Appropriations.
In 2012, we tried again, Assembly Bill 1657, for just a smaller increase. Once more, we passed the Public Safety Committee and the Health committee—and faced a tough struggle in Appropriations. Traffic tickets cost a lot already, and some people cannot afford to pay them. These are reasonable objections.
But what other choice did we have, except to let the research die?
Committee Chair Felipe Fuentes had previously opposed this method of funding. But he weighed the benefits against the negatives, and said:
“Let it go through for just the one dollar.”
This act of leadership and vision may turn out to be the most significant boost medical research has had in years. I have been following paralysis cure attempts since my son’s accident in 1994, and the science is finally coming together, coalescing around a practical cure-- but only if we can locate the funds.
AB 1657 passed Appropriations on a 12-5 vote. Democrats said yes; Republicans said no.
Now, on the main floor of the Assembly, we faced a larger vote.
It was early morning. From where I sat in the free skybox section reserved for citizens to watch their government in action, I could look over the railing, to see a floor full of action.
Every member had a desk, computer, and two buttons to press, one for yes and one for no: life or death for bills like ours.
On the wall were two large black electronic scoreboards, double rows of the members’ names, and beside each one two dots, connected to those magic buttons: one for yes, and one for no…
At 10:00 the hearing began. Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore Fiona Ma gaveled the meeting into order; we stood for the Pledge of Allegiance, especially meaningful in the center of government.
When we sat down, the fighting began.
One by one each bill was presented, briefly argued, and then the vote. Buttons were pressed: red dots lit up.
41 “Yes” votes meant the bill passed; 40 or less meant come back next year.
Hours passed. Lunchtime came and went. I dozed…
Suddenly I heard our bill numbers! AB 1657… I sat up straight.
Assemblyman Wieckowski spoke briefly—no one spoke in opposition-- and Speaker Ma repeated the words: “all vote who desire to vote…all vote who desire to vote…”
The red-dot numbers began to light: changing, and climbing.
35 yes, and 19 no: it was not enough to win.
Roman and I rushed to the elevator, flew to Assemblymember Wieckowski’s office—“Just not enough people back from their lunch,” said legislative director Jeff Barbosa, fingers flying on the computer keyboard, rallying friends of the bill. “The vote will be re-taken at the end of the day,” he said.
We went back and sat some more, watching the drama of other people’s bills.
And then at last, at 5:33 in the afternoon, AB 1657 was raised once more—I held my breath, the numbers climbed.
46 in favor, 24 opposed: votes below.
We had won the Assembly. Now we must persuade the Senate, and then Governor Brown. If we succeed, Roman may one day fulfill Christopher Reeve’s great dream and “walk away from (his) wheelchair forever.” When he does, he will not walk alone; millions will follow.
But I felt a wave of sadness. We had won-- on a pure party line vote.
Every Democrat who voted (46) was for it.
Every Republican who voted (24) was against it.
More than Five million Americans* suffer the quiet agonies of paralysis, our families face crushing medical bills—and partisan politics may block the cure.
http://www.christopherreeve.org/...
Remember in November.
Letters of support for AB 1657 are urgently requested: send to: jeff.barbosa@asm.ca.gov
Voting Yes – 46—all Democrats
Alejo, Allen, Atkins, Beall, Block, Blumenfield, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Campos, Carter, Cedillo, Charles Calderon, Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Galgiani, Gatto, Hall, Hayashi, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Lowenthal, John A. Pérez, Lara, Ma, Mitchell, Pan, Perea, Portantino, Roger Hernández, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, V. Manuel Pérez, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada
Voting No – 24—all Republicans
Achadjian, Beth Gaines, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Cook, Donnelly, Garrick, Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Harkey, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Logue, Miller, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Olsen, Silva, Smyth, Wagner
Source: www.dailykos.com
California’s Everybody-Into-the-Pool Primary Faces Test - Bloomberg
When Californians go to the polls tomorrow for the state primary election, they won’t find three- term Senator Dianne Feinstein running against just fellow Democrats.
New rules that may alter the political landscape put Feinstein head-to-head with 23 challengers of all stripes -- Republican, Libertarian, American Independent, Peace and Freedom. The two who get the most votes, regardless of party, will move on to the general election in November.
The so-called top-two system is intended to fight partisan gridlock that has paralyzed lawmakers from Sacramento to Washington. In theory, politicians will no longer be forced to stick to party dogma to avoid being ousted in the primary, allowing voters more choices.
“The rules of the game have changed,” said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, a Sacramento-based nonpartisan group that has advocated for open democracy. “Democrats and Republicans no longer have a lock on the process.”
The new procedure, passed in 2009 by the California Legislature and approved by 54 percent of voters a year later, was backed by a strange-bedfellow coalition that included then- Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, and Democrat Willie Brown, the former San Francisco mayor who was speaker of the Assembly for 15 years.
Similar systems are in place in Louisiana and the state of Washington, and there are efforts to make it law in Arizona. California’s new rules apply to the candidates for the Legislature, Congress and statewide elected offices.
Democrats Against Democrats
The top-two primary may mean that in heavily Democratic or Republican districts, two candidates from the same party could advance to the general election. That may be influenced by independent voters, who make up 20 percent of the electorate, and will be new to the system.
That may force Democrats and Republicans toward more moderate positions, Alexander said.
“Up until now, they have had no say in the primaries,” she said of the independents. “If some of those folks get elected we could see an impact in the power struggle in the Statehouse.”
With the primary looming, California lawmakers have withheld action on the state’s resurgent $15.7 billion budget deficit. Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, blamed legislators for making the deficit larger by failing to pass some budget cuts he sought in March.
‘Just Paralyzes Them’
“They won’t make a budget decision until after June 6,” the day after the election, California Treasurer Bill Lockyer, a Democrat, said in an interview. “This is a bad idea. The know they have to make cuts and the cuts are unpopular and if you are Democrats, who have to write the budget, this just paralyzes them.”
Voters will also be asked whether to add $1 to the tax on a pack of cigarettes, raising the levy to $1.87, and steer the extra revenue toward cancer research and stop-smoking programs.
Opponents led by Altria Group Inc. (MO) and Reynolds American Inc. (RAI), the parent of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, the two biggest sellers in the U.S., raised more than $40.7 million to fight the measure, compared with about $10 million from supporters including the American Cancer Society and cycling champion Lance Armstrong, a cancer survivor.
The cigarette-tax measure, known as Proposition 29, was supported by 50 percent to 42 percent, with 8 percent undecided, in a Field Poll released May 31. The telephone survey of 608 likely voters, conducted May 21-29, had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.
Voters also will be asked to reduce the total number of years a lawmaker can serve, from 14 to 12, in either the Senate or the Assembly. Currently, a legislator can serve a maximum of six years in the Assembly and eight years in the Senate. The proposition would permit all 12 years to be served in either chamber.
The term-limit proposition was favored 50 percent to 28 percent, with 22 percent undecided, in the same Field Poll.
To contact the reporter on this story: Michael B. Marois in Sacramento at mmarois@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stephen Merelman at smerelman@bloomberg.net
Source: www.bloomberg.com
California High-Speed Rail Losing Support, Poll Shows - Bloomberg
A majority of voters no longer support building a $68 billion high-speed passenger rail system connecting California’s population centers, a new poll shows, even as Governor Jerry Brown is pushing the project forward.
While 53 percent of voters approved a bond issue for the project in 2008, a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll published in yesterday’s edition of the newspaper, found that 59 percent would oppose it if given another chance to vote.
Brown, a 74-year-old Democrat, allocated some of the $9.95 billion of bonds for the system in his budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1, even though a deficit in the spending plan has ballooned to $15.7 billion. He wants voters to increase sales and income taxes or slash 3 weeks off the school year while still spending money on the rail line.
“California voters have clearly reconsidered their support for high-speed rail,” said Dan Schnur, director of the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll and director of the Unruh Institute of Politics at University of Southern California. “They want the chance to vote again -— and they want to vote no. The growing budget deficit is making Californians hesitant about spending so much money on a project like this one when they’re seeing cuts to public education and law enforcement.”
The state-run authority charged with building the system revised its business plan in April amid public opposition, chopping $30 billion off the cost.
Bullet Train
The bullet-train project, eventually linking San Francisco to Los Angeles, would cost $68.4 billion, down from the $98.5 billion estimated in November, according to the California High- Speed Rail Authority. The proposal saves money by upgrading existing commuter and freight lines in some areas, rather than build new track, and counts on funds from California’s new program selling pollution credits.
“Over the past several months, the California High-Speed Rail Authority has made significant and positive changes to its plans for constructing and operating a high-speed rail system,” Dan Richard, the board chairman of the authority, said in a statement in response to the poll. “We made these changes in direct response to public input from across the state.
‘‘The result is a revised plan to deliver the benefits of high-speed rail sooner and at significantly less cost to the taxpayers.’’
Brown’s budget includes $6.1 billion in infrastructure costs for the first 130 miles (209 kilometers) of the project. Of that, $2.8 billion is from state bonds, according to the Finance Department.
California is the only U.S. state working to lay tracks for trains to run as fast as 220 miles (354 kilometers) an hour, after Congress cut off 2012 funds for such projects.
The USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll surveyed 1,002 registered voters May 17 through May 21. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
To contact the reporter on this story: Michael B. Marois in Sacramento at mmarois@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stephen Merelman at smerelman@bloomberg.net
Source: www.bloomberg.com
No comments:
Post a Comment