Well, all the California propositions I opposed lost, but so did the ones I supported.

I’m pleased that there’s a large constituency for reform in California; but I’m obviously displeased that it’s not a big enough one to win.

The Governor’s ham-handed campaign had something to do with that. I’m working on a Veteran’s Day post for tomorrow, but shortly thereafter will try and lay out what should be some obvious principles that somehow got missed in the campaign.

This isn’t over. (I’m avoiding “we’ll be back,” but it’s really really hard to do so…)

I’ve been remiss in blogging about the initiatives, but stuff has been happening in my real life, so … sorry about that.

Let me wrap up some concise arguments on the remaining initiatives, and remind you that regardless of whether you’re voting right (like me!) or wrong, get out and vote tomorrow.

Mostly, vote for Prop 77, the anti-gerrymandering bill.Prop 76 sets out a complex set of caps on state government spending, and moves a significant amount of budgetary power to the executive.

I’m wrestling a bit with this one, because of there was ever a proposition that had “Unintended Consequences” spelled out in big red letters, this is the one. The notion of a mechanical set of limits on state policy (limiting spending is in fact limiting policy) kind of creeps me out.

But I’m more creeped out by the flat inability of multiple generations of state politicians to manage the budget.

So I’m a reluctant “yes” on this one. Even the Governor of Colorado – which recently modified a similar spending cap in an election last month – came out in support of it.

Prop 77 is to me the big one. I’ve railed for years about the habit politicians have of choosing their voters, and this is the first and best chance we have to make a change in this.

It’s not perfect, I’m sure that given an infinite amount of time we could do better, but the Democrats had a chance to work out a compromise with the Governator on this and failed, had a chance to mount their own competing vision for redistricting and failed.

This is the one to vote for if you don’t vote for anything else. Lots of reasonable people have come out against it because “it hurts Democrats.” I’m a Democrat (believe it or not) but I’m an American and a Californian first, and the notion that someone would suggest that doing something bad for my state or country is a good thing because it will help my party is flatly offensive to me.

Props 78 and 79 are Big Pharma’s and Big Law’s competing versions of how they will get the cost of drugs under control. Not an issue worth an initiative, and both are too badly flawed. No on both of them.

Prop 80 is an effort to have amateurs reregulate the electrical markets for the state. Nein, danke. That’s a big “no, thanks.”

So to recap:

Yes on 77. yes on 77, and yes on 77.

Yes on 76.

Yes on 75.

Yes on 74.

No on 73, 78, 79, and 80.

Josh Marshall has posted the rough draft of what he hopes will be the definitive Wilson scandal timeline. He’s asking for emendations and suggestions, and on reading it, one immediately comes to mind.

He says:

February 26, 2002:

# Wilson arrives in Niger. After meeting with the former Nigerian Prime Minister, the former Minister of Mines and Energy, and other business contacts, Wilson concludes that “it was highly unlikely that anything was going on.”

Hmmm. Let’s go to the record.
From Page 43 of the Senate report (pdf):

The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerian President Ibrahaim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997 – 1999) or Foreign Minister (1996 – 1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, [redacted] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted “expanding commercial relations” to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that “although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.”

So Josh – how about amending the report to read that “Amb. Wilson was personally told that Iraqi agents were seeking uranium ore, but discounted the importance of the information” – ??

Let’s consider this a test; I’ve respected Josh as a good journalist who happens to be a passionate partisan. One side or the other will win out. I’ll email him and we’ll see.

For the record, my own view on the Fitzpatrick investigation was blogged here awhile ago:

I’ve stayed out of the swamp that is the Rove/Wilson/Plame game for the same reason I stay out of it when TG gets one of her speeding tickets, and is outraged, yes outraged that she has to go to court.

Yes, I know everyone does it, but that’s not going to do you much good in front of the judge when you’re explaining why the officer wrote you for 58 in a 40.

So yes, I know everyone talks to the press, and typically violates all kinds of policies up to and including secrecy, but there’s no way it doesn’t – at minimum – look bad when you’re the one caught doing it.

Aaron is having a competition for the Blogger Deck O’Cards.

I absolutely think that WoC should be the Jack of Hearts. First, because one of us (me) got married while blogging here, and then another of us (Joe) met the woman he’s going to marry at our wedding. I mean jeez, people, how much more “hearts” could you get?

Oh, and I have a secret fondness for the cheesy Dylan song as well…

I’ve been following the French papers a bit in keeping up on the riots in les banlieue.

And found an interesting thing today which I’m mulling over.

In Le Monde, an article discussing the politics around response to the riots mentions in passing that the public housing budget in the 2005 budget had been cut by 310 million euros.

L’annulation de 310 millions d’euros de crédits dans le budget 2005 (Le Monde du 5 novembre), affectés à l’insertion et au logement social dans les banlieues, ne peut que renforcer leur défiance. “Il est impératif que toutes les leçons soient tirées de ces émeutes. Autant sur les failles de la politique de la ville que sur l’organisation des services publics” , dénonçait, le 3 novembre, le Forum français des maires pour la sécurité urbaine (FFSU). Au fil des crises depuis un quart de siècle, la politique de la ville a en effet subi de multiples inflexions. Aux Grand Projets urbains du gouvernement Jospin de la fin des années 1990 a succédé “le programme national de rénovation urbaine” , mis en oeuvre depuis 2003, par Jean-Louis Borloo, ministre de la cohésion sociale. Au “traitement social” des banlieues dont la droite stigmatisait les échecs, s’est substitué un projet, certes ambitieux mais centré sur le logement et l’habitat.

The response of the French council of “mayors for urban security” was simple – the problem is both urban policy and the organization of social services to the public.
I’m going to dodge the issue of whether a dependent welfare class – confronted with a decline in the government’s commitment to fund their benefits – can be expected to react this way.

I’ll move directly to the meaty question:

In the face of national fiscal crises – and a dependent minority who has been in essence, pacified through generous welfare programs – what happens when you can’t afford those programs any more?

What is the social and political fallout of unintegrated minorities who can’t sustain themselves, and whose subsidies are being cut off?

Remember Yglesias’ notion that hope for democratic progress in Iraq had been defeated – not under challenge or at risk, but kaput?

Maybe not.

Iraqi blogger Ali, writing at Free Iraqi was concerned after the elections:

After the results of the January elections appeared, many Iraqis who were hoping for a democratic Iraq were discouraged. The results not only showed a significant dominance by the religious She’at parties but also gave a serious warning sign that democracy, while what the vast majority of Iraqis want, still may divide Iraq into three small countries or lead to a civil war given that the decades of oppression mainly directed towards the She’at and Kurds may cause these two to always vote along sectarian and ethnic lines, which subsequently would cause the Sunnis, who are till that time seemed to be living in the past and not accepting the fact that they’ve lost power, to vote similarly.

I myself was very discouraged during that time and started having serious doubts that democracy would ever work in Iraq. My best thoughts in the beginning were that we needed a civil war. I thought that it was probably inevitable once the Americans leave and may in the end convince everyone that the only way to succeed is to accept and tolerate each other instead of trying to dominate or isolate themselves. A couple of things gave me hope though, the fact that we have another election coming soon and that the elected government was doing terrible.

But then he reviews the current politics and politicians, and finds one he likes:

It may look strange to many that I consider a man like Mithal Al Alousi as a significant player in Iraq’s politics and it was even stranger months ago. There are reasons why I believe this guy will have a major effect on Iraq’s politics in the near future. While still not as well-known or popular as Allawi or even Chalabi, the man and since he was expelled by Chalbi from the “National Accordance” following his visit to Israel has been gaining support very rapidly. When he started his own party “The Democratic Iraqi Nation Party” a year ago he had only 1600 members in it. Today, only in Hilla he has 15000 registered members in his party. He’s a secular Sunni that gained a lot of support in the south among She’at. That’s something that gives hope. Moreover, and to me this is the most important point, he’s the only Iraqi politician who says it loud and clear all the time that Iraq’s interests lie in a strong strategic alliance with the United States and the free world, and people are not pushed away by that or by his visit to Israel for that matters but in fact it’s having the opposite effect!

and talk to his neighbors:

With these factors considered, the main element that will change Iraq’s fate remains by far the brave and smart Iraqis who may have followed their emotions in the start but that’s changing now. A committed Sunni relative of mine said to me while we were talking about the next elections and the general situation, “I’m sorry Ali, this time I won’t vote for you, I’ll vote either for Allawi or Mithal” I told him that we have joined Mithal and he seemed to be relieved that he was going to vote for someone he believes in and still not breaching his commitment to his family or tribe. He didn’t know how happy and optimistic he made me seeing that he was using his brain, not what traditions, sectarian or tribal laws tell him, to decide on what he thinks is good for him, his family and his country.

Check out his whole post. He’s not mindlessly saying “all is well;” he’s providing a ground-level view of what politics looks like.

And that’s what Iraq needs – politics to replace thug power. I deeply hope Ali helps bring it to be.

It should be clear from reading my stuff that I am generally supportive of unions. Our system of government is designed to allow for – even encourage – the collision of interests as a way of restraining the power of any single interest, and until unions came along, the interests of workers were generally undefended.

But all interests – even admirable ones – can over-reach.

In the case of government, one of the problems is that the employees are also constituents. That is to say that they also help select those who – in turn – make the decisions that govern the work conditions, pay and benefits which those constituents receive. That kind of back-scratching happens at all levels; the California Citizens Compensation Commission sets the salaries for legislators, and includes members who do business with the state.

That problem is amplified in this era of ‘electoral politics for hire.’

The reality is that a moderate-sized constituency with significant money can easily dominate state politics in the same ways that the old business interests did back in the Union Pacific days. And that is, exactly, what is going on today in California.

Increasingly, our penal policies are being set by the prison guards’ union; our educational policies by the teachers’ union; state compensation is wildly out of whack as state employees, who enjoy job security and benefits packages well above those in the private sector now appear to outearn them as well.

Currently a California Highway Patrol officer will earn 90% of their final salary (which may include significant overtime, which is often allocated to those about to retire) in retirement as early as 50.

Add this budget overhang to work rules which make it more difficult to flexibly manage state employees, and suddenly the ability of state government to effectively deliver the services we pay taxes to get is pretty seriously challenged.

I think that the simple fact that the teacher’s union alone has budgeted over $50 million into opposing this measure…which gives you an idea of the magnitude of cash they have available for political spending.

It’s too much cash, the effects are visible and pernicious, and it’s time that the balance of power in state government was tipped away from state employees.

For those reasons, I’m voting for Proposition 75, and encourage you to as well.

Check out Omar’s profile over at Norm Geras’ place.

I’m proud to have shaken Omar and his brother Mohammed’s hand (hugged them actually), and their faith in the future – tested as is it by the harsh reality of their present – inspires me every day.

I look forward to a sharing meal with all three brothers – Omar, Mohammed, and Ali – sometime soon.

Proposition 74 would lengthen the duration of the “probation” period during which new schoolteachers could be dismissed at the end of the year without cause from two to five years.

After this period, dismissing teachers with unsatisfactory ratings would be simplified.

Job protections are often a good thing; the notion that one’s livelihood depends on the whims and mood of one’s supervisors isn’t a good thing. But conversely, at some point the web of protections gets so strong that it’s virtually impossible to fire bad employees, and around that time the enterprise begins to be run for the benefit of the employees rather than the other stakeholders.

In vastly simplified blog-speak, that’s a big part of what has happened to public schools in much of the country. They are no longer run primarily for the benefit of the children or community, but instead have become the captives of their employees.

My ex’s husband (who is a great friend and I usually call my “brother-in-law”) left his career in Hollywood to become a high school teacher at a high school in a near-bankrupt poor school district about five years ago.

When we get together to make plans for Littlest Guy, we talk a lot about politics, and his work. He’s a dedicated progressive, can’t understand my support of Bush or the war, but – to put it simply – sees the need to significantly shake up and reform the public education establishment.

He’s voting for 74, as am I.

Teachers (and others) deserve some protection against whimsical or retaliatory firing. But our children, the schools and the taxpayers who pay for them deserve a staff that isn’t marking time until retirement with little concern for the quality of their work – for the quality of education our children get.

So over the next few days, I’ll go through my thoughts on the California initiatives.

I’ll start with what is, for me, the most difficult decision – Proposition 73.

The gist of the proposition would require that pregnant minor girls would have to have parental consent to get an abortion, or lacking that, consent from a juvenile court.

A tough one for me.

I have no daughters, only sons. I’ve paid for some abortions in my time, and while I’m not tormented by those memories, neither am I exuberant about them. Personally, I subscribe to the “legal, safe, and rare” formulation where abortion is concerned.
But – to set out something which I think closely parallels abortion (although abortion is to me far more complex, because it represents the intersection with three sets of rights – the woman’s, the to-be-born fetus’, and the father’s) – I also believe strongly in the individual right to own guns. And in the notion that that right may be limited by reasonable regulations.

One of the reasonable regulations on gun ownership says that minors may not buy guns, or in many states, possess them without an adult’s presence.

I don’t think that’s a bad thing. And yes, I know about the idyllic days when kids would bring their 30-30 to school on the opening day of deer season.

Similarly, I’m a strong supporter of some core right to abortion – probably not including late-term abortions. But I’m troubled at the idea that a girl who cannot get her ears pierced (or here in L.A., her bellybutton pierced) without Mon or Dad signing off can go to a clinic and have an abortion with no adult supervision or involvement except by the abortion provider.

So I was spinning around this issue pretty tightly, until TG and I discussed it. She hates initiative law in general (she works with lawyers, and thinks that we ought to leave it to the pros – riiiiight).

But she made the telling point on this to me when she said “I’d support this if the Legislature passed it. But it just doesn’t seem to rise to the level of the kind of issue we ought to be passing in initiative law.”

She’s right.

So I’ll be voting – more than a bit reluctantly – “No” on Proposition 73.