With Gavin Newsom dropping out of the governor's race and leaving Jerry Brown as the only Democratic candidate, speculation was sure to rise about Senator Dianne Feinstein and whether she would seek to avenge her narrow 1990 defeat and run for governor in 2010. Sure, most observers don't think she'd do it, but until she flatly denies it, the chatter will continue.

And it's going to continue after the AP caught up with her and asked her about the governor's race. She didn't rule it out, but made it obvious that she's primarily in it for the attention:

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Thursday she will base a decision on whether to run for California governor next year largely on the solutions the announced candidates put forward to deal with the state's fiscal problems....

"What does affect it is watching to see what precise programs are put forward by various candidates to handle what is a very serious structural budget deficit in this state," Feinstein said. "It's of major consequence and California is in considerable distress, and there have to be reforms."

Feinstein said she would take a close look at candidates' dedication to enacting their proposals as well as their ability to develop enough support to enact the changes.

There's really only one way to read this: she's going to endorse Jerry Brown, say he meets her standards, and wait to do so until a moment when it will be of maximum benefit to Brown.

Feinstein and Brown are good friends. She officiated his wedding in 2005, and speaking as someone who's officiated a wedding himself, one of the last things I'd do is challenge the groom in a race for the state's top office.

For those and other reasons, it seems unlikely that DiFi wants to run for governor. Instead she's teasing the media, enjoying the attention she gets. As the interview made clear:

When asked if she had the patience to deal with a state Legislature that has often been described as dysfunctional, she replied: "That's a very good question. It shall be unanswered for the moment."

The reason "it shall be unanswered for the moment" is because she doesn't want to give up the attention she gets out of being seen as a possible candidate. And the "for the moment" statement seems to reinforce the argument I laid out above, that she isn't going to run, and is going to endorse Brown at some moment in the spring of 2010.

California Democrats who think a contested primary is good for the party and good for the ultimate nominee are going to have to keep looking for another candidate - it ain't gonna be DiFi. And thank god for it. As uncertain I am about whether Jerry Brown would be the right person to lead California out of our present crisis, I am completely certain Dianne Feinstein would be the wrong person. Let's hope she decides to retire in 2012 and trouble us no more.

Robert Cruickshank is a historian, activist, and teacher living in Monterey. He is a contributing editor at Calitics.com and works for the Courage Campaign, in addition to teaching political science at Monterey Peninsula College. Currently he is completing his Ph.D. dissertation in US history, on progressive politics in San Francisco in the 1960s and 1970s. A native Californian, he was raised in Orange County and educated at UC Berkeley.

As the vote near on the House health reform bill, it is easy to sink into the specifics of the bill, be obsessed by the debate on key details, and mourn amendments that we really wanted but that weren't included.

But we should look at this bill in its totality, and appreciate how signficant it is, and how much help it would provide if it passes.

Here's my top ten reasons why this is an impressive bill:

1) Near-universal coverage for all, largely through group coverage with its efficiencies and purchasing power to get the best price.

2) The biggest expansion of Medicaid since its creation 40 years ago, completing a unfulfilled commitment for millions in and near poverty.

3) Sliding scale subsidies tied to income: Consumers will pay for coverage not based on how sick they are, but what they can afford.

4) The end of "junk" insurance, and bankruptcies due to medical bills, with a cap on out-of-pocket costs, and even no cost-sharing for preventative services.

5) Fair share financing that is progressive and pays for itself (in fact, it decreases the deficit), including an employer assessment as important as setting the minimum wage for pay back in the 1930s.

6) New consumer protections: New rules & oversight on insurers that include the abolition of underwriting and "pre-existing conditions," minimum benefit standards, limits on age-based rates and on premiums dollars going to administration and profit.

7) A public health insurance option to provide choice, competition, and offer a safe haven against private insurer abuses.

9) More sustainability and improvements for existing programs--like filling the donut hole in Medicare and streamlining Medicaid paperwork.

10) Momentum to do more in the future, politically and policy-wise, in health care and beyond.

Yes, it still needs to be merged with the Senate, which shares many but unfortunately not all of these characteristics. But for the House of Representatives to pass this proposal, and move us closer to these multiple victories, would be a historic achievement.

Health Access California is a statewide health care consumer advocacy coalition of over 200 groups. This article has also been published on the Health Access Weblog.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, the worst Governor for fish and the environment in California history, today praised the Legislature for its passage of a water package including an $11 billion bond that provides a clear path to the construction of the peripheral canal and more dams.

"Water is the lifeblood of everything we do in California," said Schwarzenegger. "Without clean, reliable water, we cannot build, we cannot farm, we cannot grow and we cannot prosper. That is why I am so proud that the legislature, Democrats and Republicans, came together and tackled one of the most complicated issues in our state's history. This comprehensive water package is an historic achievement."

Of course, Schwarzenegger lauded the strong arm efforts of his Democratic collaborator, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, to push the package through the legislature.

"I particularly want to applaud the leadership of Senate President Darrell Steinberg," said Schwarzenegger. "He has been a tireless leader, a relentless advocate for the environment and a true statesman."

On October 11, 2009, Schwarzenegger issued a proclamation calling for the legislature to meet in an extraordinary session to address California's water crisis, "urging the passage of legislation on the many issues facing the state's water system which were ultimately addressed by the water package passed today," according to the Governor's office.

The passage of the water package could not have taken place without the back room deals that corporate environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense and the Nature Conservancy, made with Westlands Water District, Metropolitan Water District, Steinberg and Schwarzenegger to secure a place at the bargaining table. The representatives of these groups in no way speak for the environmental community. Rather than defending the environment and collapsing fisheries, they are collaborating with the Governor and Steinberg to build a peripheral canal, an enormously expensive government boondoggle that would likely result in the extinction of collapsing Central Valley salmon and Delta fish populations, and more dams while indebting Californians for decades to come.

Major unions including the California Teachers Association and SEIU, the five Delta counties and regional governments throughout the Sacramento region opposed the legislation also. The United Farmworkers Union also has $1 million in a war chest to fight the water bond.

This is a tragic day for California's fish populations, recreational and commercial fishermen, Delta farmers and farmworkers, the people of northern California and environmental justice. They have been sold out by treacherous politicians and corporate environmental leaders who care nothing about the impact the canal will have on northern California and the Delta.

At the same time, the battle to stop the canal and save the Delta has only really begun. Principled environmental organizations, environmental justice groups, fishing organizations, labor unions, Delta and northern California water districts, Delta counties and cities, Indian Tribes and other groups will amp up the fight to stop the canal in the coming weeks.

The plans by Schwarzenegger, Steinberg and corporate environmentalists to build the canal in order to export more water from the Delta to corporate agribusiness and southern California will be met by years of lawsuits, protests, direct action and other resistance by the communities impacted. When the $11 billion water bond goes to a vote by the taxpayers, I predict that it will be voted down just like the peripheral canal initiative was defeated in 1982, but it will take a massive mobilization of election volunteers and unprecedented fundraising to do it.

Dan Bacher is an editor of The Fish Sniffer , described as "The #1 Newspaper in the World Dedicated Entirely to Fishermen"

While the Governor and Democratic Leadership are lauding the water deal as an historic achievement, local leaders and environmental groups are lamenting it as the prelude to a peripheral canal that will end the delta as we know it by diverting water away from the delta and to the south.

Said Governor Schwarzenegger:

"Water is the lifeblood of everything we do in California. Without clean, reliable water, we cannot build, we cannot farm, we cannot grow and we cannot prosper. That is why I am so proud that the legislature, Democrats and Republicans, came together and tackled one of the most complicated issues in our state's history. This comprehensive water package is an historic achievement."

He went on to praise Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, who helped push the legislative package to victory in the Senate.

"I particularly want to applaud the leadership of Senate President Darrell Steinberg. He has been a tireless leader, a relentless advocate for the environment and a true statesman."

Proponents of the $11.1 billion comprehensive water package argue that will increase water storage, improve conveyance, promote delta restoration and better ecosystem protection, and will contain groundwater monitoring and ambitious conservation goals.

The bond measure will go to the voters for approval in November 2010.

There are five key provisions from the standpoint of supporters. First the increase storage capacity will enable more groundwater and surface storage that will allow California to capture excess water in wet years to use in dry years and thus will make our water supply more reliable year-to-year.

Second, they argue that improved local water conveyance can reduce water shortages by helping water districts to work together to prevent local shortages and take pressure off the Delta.

Fourth, California will be able to collect data on groundwater levels that could help better manage our water supply. This package also invests in groundwater clean-up - ridding it of chemicals and other contaminants to help protect the public’s health and restore local supplies.

Finally the plan establishes a conservation goal for California that establishes a statewide target to reduce urban per capita water use by 10% by 2015 and 20% by 2020.

The legislative leadership both Senator Steinberg and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass also praised the legislation.

Said Speaker Bass:

“The package includes conservation and storage, groundwater protection, water rights protection, and Delta protection and represents the most significant water infrastructure and policy advances since the State Water Project in the 1960s. This is a responsible plan -- no one is getting 100% of what they want. Everyone who gets something has to give something, too. It is the only way to balance the many different individual interests for the overall greater good of having a safe and stable water supply for the entire State of California.”

Senator Steinberg called it the "single biggest advance in water policy" in decade.

"Through hard work and compromise, we have taken a major step toward ensuring that Californians have a reliable water supply while protecting the natural resources that enhance our quality of life.”

Even national leaders like Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and Senator Barbara Boxer are on board.

Said Secretary Salazar:

“Thanks to the California legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger, Californians now have the opportunity to choose a more secure and sustainable water future. This landmark package is a critical step toward bringing California's water infrastructure into the 21st century while restoring California's Bay Delta, on which millions of Californians depend for clean drinking water and their livelihoods. I applaud the leadership, courage, and vision of everyone who helped bring this desperately-needed legislation across the finish line. We will continue to need all hands on deck - at the federal, state, and local levels - in the coming months as we face the possibility of a fourth year of drought and sobering water realities."

Senator Barbara Boxer in a press release said:

“I commend the legislature and the governor for their successful efforts to approve a comprehensive water package and bond measure that will be presented to California voters. While no legislation is perfect, the bipartisan spirit that led to the passage of these measures will move our state toward meeting the needs of our people, our farming communities and the environment. We must continue to work together, at the state and federal level, on pragmatic short-term and long-term solutions.”

Environmental groups were actually split on this legislation. Among the groups supporting the water package were the California League of Conservation Voters, The Nature Conservancy, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, the National Audubon Society, the Bay Institute, and the Defenders of Wildlife.

However, another group of environmental interests were strongly opposed to the legislation including the Sierra Club California, Planning and Conservation League, Friends of the River, Butte Environmental Council, Restore the Delta, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), California Striped Bass Association, Clean Water Action, the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Winnemem Wintu Tribe, Center for Biological Diversity, Northern California River Watch, the Public Trust Alliance and the Environmental Protection Information Center.

Several major unions also opposed the legislation, including the California Teachers Association and SEIU, the five Delta counties and regional governments throughout the Sacramento region opposed the legislation also. The United Farmworkers Union also has $1 million in a war chest to fight the water bond.

Strong opposition has come from Delta Protection groups such as Restore the Delta:

Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, campaign director for Restore the Delta, issued the following statement regarding the water deal that was passed early this morning by lawmakers:

"The water package that passed in the dead of night epitomizes the dysfunction that has gripped our Legislative process. The package lost any semblance of rational debate and turned into a pork festival with the water bond ballooning to over $11 billion dollars. With our state already facing a massive debt and more red ink on the horizon, how can we afford this?"

Ms. Barrigan-Parilla added:

"In addition, the one bill that would have required a full fiscal analysis and a vote of the state legislature before the peripheral canal could be built, Huber-AB 13 7x, was killed by Legislative leadership because Southern California water interests viewed it as a 'distraction.' Since when is it a distraction to require fiscal analysis?"

Sportfisher groups have also opposed the deal as a blow to the collapsing fishing industry. Zeke Grader, Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermanan's Associations:

"The Bay-Delta is not a reservoir; it is the most important estuary on the West coast and gives life to many of our coastal fisheries. With this bill, the health of the delta and our fisheries lies with an unfunded council with no authority. The majority of its members will be appointed by the governor, and Schwarzenegger has made it clear he is willing to drain the delta if it means more water for land speculators and developers. We have little faith this council will support and act on the pressing needs of our delta and our fisheries, especially if it means putting a halt to the south's attempts at a water grab. This back-room, special-interest bill is fishy for sure, but definitely not because it will restore our industry to its former health."

Among the strongest legislative opponents were Yolo Counties representatives in the Senate and Assembly, Senator Lois Wolk and Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada.

Senator Wolk blasted the plan, painting it as a fiscally irresponsible plan that was filled with special-interest earmarks added during back-room deal-making.

She said on Wednesday:

"This plan will by no means solve the problems in the Delta. First of all, the Delta counties are not involved to the extent they should be and the changes are going to be significant."

She continued:

"There are multimillions of dollars for projects that have nothing to do with water."

Finally:

"The history of water in California has been that the user pays for what they use. This plan turns that on its head. It turns water rights on their head and financial mechanisms on their head and, at the end of the day there is no guarantee that there will be enough water to survive."

Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada also strong opposed the legislation and issued forth the following statement:

“Early this morning, the Assembly voted on what has been called a historic agreement on California water policy and financing. Unfortunately, this agreement, negotiated in a ‘Big 5’ process behind closed-doors and involving a handful of non-Delta legislators, southern California water districts, and select environmental groups, fails to adequately protect the residents and economy of the area most affected—the Delta itself.

“I voted ‘NO’ on the whole bill package because of insufficient recognition of senior northern California and Delta water rights, imbalanced and non-elected representation in Delta governance, the lack of clear language explaining the interrelationships among a revamped Delta Protection Commission, the new Delta Stewardship Council and Delta Conservancy, and the remaining question as to what role a new Delta ‘Watermaster’ would play. This lack of clarity creates more confusion and less trust, at a time when we should be moving forward collaboratively to preserve northern California’s largest estuary.

“I understand the urgency of California water reform and do not doubt the sincerity of efforts to date. But change of this magnitude cannot be enacted based on a series of negotiations playing one group against the other while adding sweeteners to win support. Keeping Delta voices at bay and jamming a complicated set of water bills through the Legislature—including an $11 billion general obligation bond that will further bankrupt the State’s General Fund—is fiscally irresponsible and counterintuitive to solving California’s water problems.

“Californians and the Delta deserve better than this taped-together approach to water reform.”

Assemblymember Noreen Evans from Santa Rosa chairs the Assembly Budget Committee. She also issued a statement blasting the legislation.

“This water bond is an historic achievement for all the wrong reasons. It was crafted behind closed doors, never received a public vetting, and was passed on the fly in the middle of the night by legislators who lacked an adequate analysis of it. It brings our debt burden to historic new levels. And, for the first time, it requires the public across the state to finance half the cost of new dams and reservoirs benefiting private interests.

By passing this bond, the Legislature is flirting with financial disaster. Already, the state is unable to pay for services demanded by Californians. We’ve just gone through three horrific state budgets to close a $60 billion gap. And, more troubles lay ahead. We face an $8 billion gap next year and a $15 billion gap after that.

When discussing recent state budgets, the governor and others said the state could not afford to fully maintain its universities, community colleges, HIV/AIDS services, poison control centers, domestic violence shelters, state parks, health care for children, and in-home care for seniors and the disabled. Paying back this water bond will come at the expense of these services that Californians expect.

It’s the same tired story all over again. The Central Valley and Southern California plan to take water from the North by building a peripheral canal. The rub is that they want Northern California to pay for it too. All Northern Californians get from this bond is the privilege of paying the bill.”

Opponents of the bill are concerned with the back-room deal-making that marked the crafting and passage of the legislation, the lack of representation for the Delta Counties like Yolo, and the likelihood that this will lead the way for a peripheral canal that diverts water from the Delta to the South and will eventually lead to the demise and collapse of the Delta and the economy around it.

It is sad that the governor’s Republican enablers in the State Senate have chosen to ignore the pleas of countless California counties as well as thousands of homecare consumers, providers and advocates by allowing the In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) implementation fiasco to continue. Their failure to support SB 69, which would have simply given the counties the time and resources needed to efficiently implement new IHSS requirements, is disgraceful. The bill had passed the Assembly 68-0 earlier in the week.

Last summer, as part of the negotiated 2009-10 state budget, the legislature passed and the governor signed a new law which called for throwing thousands of low-income elderly, blind and disabled Californians out of the IHSS program. This was despite the fact that homecare saves taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars each year by keeping these consumers out of far-more-costly nursing homes or other institutions. Fortunately, a Federal Court judge has temporarily stopped this from happening because it may violate provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Olmstead Act, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

For those clients and providers who remain in the IHSS program, the budget agreement also imposed new requirements calling for fingerprinting, background checks, and other steps supposedly designed to eliminate what Republicans claim is “massive” fraud in IHSS. (Even though the governor, his legislative allies and a few ambitious district attorneys have been screaming about fraud all year, they have never provided definitive proof that it is widespread.)

Unfortunately, in its headlong rush to put these new requirements in place by November 1, the Administration sent information to the counties that was contradictory, confusing, incomplete and, in some instances, possibly illegal.

Furthermore, the Administration failed in many cases to obtain feedback from affected stakeholders—county welfare departments, homecare consumers and providers—before issuing these regulations. In cases where stakeholder feedback was solicited, it generally was ignored.

In most situations like this one—when new rules and regulations cannot be implemented by a deadline date—the previous rules and regulations continue in force. But in this case, the Administration has mandated that because the new rules and regulations weren’t implemented by Nov. 1st, the previous regulations DON’T apply and no new IHSS consumers can receive homecare until the new regulations are implemented. This begs the question: Is the Administration trying to achieve deeper cuts in IHSS than the Legislature voted for by encouraging this administrative chaos?

Instead of working with and supporting the counties by providing them with the time, resources, and accurate information they need to effectively and efficiently implement these changes in IHSS, Senate Republicans have told the counties and thousands of our state’s most vulnerable citizens: “You haven’t implemented the changes by the deadline date? Tough luck.”

They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Doug Moore is executive director of the 65,000-member UDW Homecare Providers Union, California's only union made up entirely of homecare workers.

Citing major health and safety issues impacting over 462,000 children and adults with disabilities, the blind and seniors in the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program, the Assembly Budget Committee, chaired by Assemblymember Noreen Evans (Democrat – Santa Rosa) will hold a follow-up informational hearing Thursday morning (November 5th) at 09:00 AM at the State Capitol in Room 4202 focusing on the implementation of new requirements for IHSS workers (providers) that went into effect at the beginning of this month. The informational hearing comes in the wake of SB 69 failed to pass the State Senate late last night, falling four votes short of passage. The bill, which passed the Assembly late Monday evening by a bi-partisan vote of 68 to 0, would have delayed the November 1st implementation of the new IHSS requirements for workers that counties and disability and senior advocates say is causing widespread “chaos” and “confusion and panic” to IHSS recipients and workers.

The new requirements included mandatory fingerprinting and background checks, in person orientation and new worker (provider) enrollment forms for all IHSS workers. Counties have said they have not received clear directions and guidance or the time needed to implement the new rules by the November 1st effective date and that their offices have been “flooded” with calls, in person visits from people who are scared or in a panic about their services. Advocacy groups and counties have reported more and more calls and problems as a result of the implementation of the new requirements because of delays or confusions of new IHSS workers who cannot be “enrolled” (and paid) to provide services.

Schwarzenegger Administration officials last week said that the State either sent out or was preparing to send out final or clarified instructions that should resolve many of the concerns or issues raised.

Senior Schwarzenegger Administration Officials Won’t Be At Assembly Hearing
In a sign of growing tension on the issue between the Schwarzenegger Administration and the Legislative budget committees controlled by the Democrats, the hearing set for tomorrow, which was previously announced at last week’s sometimes contentious initial hearing on the issue, will include an update from the Administration on how the implementation of IHSS program changes is proceeding – though senior officials in charge of overseeing the statewide program will not be at the hearing.

In a terse letter to Assemblymember Evans, Kim Belshe, Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency – the agency that oversees the Department of Social Services which in turn oversees the IHSS program statewide that the counties administer locally – said a written update would be provided in advance of tomorrow’s hearing and will “…serve as the Administration’s testimony…” and indicated that neither she or the department’s two top officials who have direct oversight over IHSS will be at the hearing. Both officials – John Wagner, director of the department and Eva Lopez, deputy director of the Adult Programs Division – were at last week’s informational hearing and faced committee members – including the committee chair - who were clearly angry about the Administration’s response on the implementation of the new IHSS worker requirements. The absence of any senior department or agency officials from the Schwarzenegger Administration is unusual at such a hearing by the Legislature, with some seeing it as open defiance of legislative oversight.

Belshe, who along with Wagner and other senior Administration officials, have appeared and testified at numerous legislative hearings over the years, most prominently on the unsuccessful efforts pushing health care reform, did say in her letter to Evans that a lower level department staffer would be available to present the update to the Assembly Budget Committee and to answer questions – an offer that any legislative committee chair would likely find insulting. Some in the Administration however were likely as angry about what they perceived as insulting treatment of the senior department officials last week. Counties and advocacy groups however have pointed out a previous good working relationship with the Department of Social Services that – with the recent implementation of the new IHSS program changes including the new worker requirements – have deteriorated completely, claiming a lack of communication, information and outreach. The Department of Social Services however says it is working under a tight deadline imposed by the Legislature when it passed the revised budget and budget related bills.

While legislative committees cannot force any person – or Administration officials to testify – barring a rarely used subpoena power that the full Legislature would have to approve – it is unusual that senior officials from this or previous Administrations would outright refuse to appear when requested by the committee. The absence of any senior Administration officials at the Assembly Budget Committee hearing Thursday will likely significantly raise tensions even higher on the crisis of how the IHSS requirements are being implemented.

In Belshe’s brief letter to Assemblymember Evans, she wrote:

Dear Assembly Member Evans:

I am not able to attend the second hearing regarding implementation of the In-Home Supportive Services program changes agreed to by the Governor and Legislature as part of the revised 2009-10 Budget. The Department of Social Services (DSS) will provide the update you requested on the status of implementation in writing and in advance of the hearing. Director Wagner and Deputy Director Lopez will not be at the hearing; the written update will serve as the Administration's testimony. The DSS Legislative Coordinator, Patricia Huston, will attend and be available to present the written testimony at the hearing should you so desire.

Sincerely,

Kimberly Belshe, Secretary [California Health and Human Services Agency]

The California Disability Community Action Network, is a non-partisan link to thousands of Californians with developmental and other disabilities, people with traumatic brain injuries, the Blind, the Deaf, their families, community organizations and providers, direct care, homecare and other workers, and other advocates to provide information on state (and eventually federal), local public policy issues.

A half generation after California began the national swing to legalizing the medical use of marijuana, the Golden State is becoming the central front in the drive to legalize, regulate and tax recreational and all other adult uses of the drug.

Last week, Tom Ammiano, the San Francisco Democrat who chairs the Assembly Public Safety Committee, held hearings on his own bill, AB 390, that would treat the commercial sale of pot more or less like the state now treats alcohol or tobacco. At the same time, three initiatives which would accomplish more or less the same objective have been cleared for circulation.

The chances of any of them becoming law – and if so how that law would work -- are uncertain at best. A Field Poll in April and a national Gallup Poll released two weeks ago indicate that that a majority of Californians – and growing percentage of all Americans tilt toward legalization. But the imponderables of the proposals are likely to make the predictably stiff opposition from the law enforcement lobby hard to overcome. And even if AB 390 passes, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has more than one reason to veto it.

Nonetheless, the bills are already serving a useful purpose, intensifying the “open debate” that the governor said he’d welcome. It’s a debate that should make clearer than ever the idiocy of the nation’s – and California’s -- current drug policies. That debate will almost certainly intensify in the months ahead.

At Ammiano’s hearing, Dan Macallair, executive director of the Center of Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco, pointed out that while arrests in California for other crimes – from rape and murder to all other drug crimes -- declined significantly between 1990 and 2008, arrests for marijuana possession increased by 127 percent.

Tellingly, Macallair also points out enormous differences in county arrest rates. Contra Costa County in 2008 had 42 arrests per100, 000 residents; Santa Barbara had 293. Humboldt County had one of the state’s highest arrest rates while adjacent Mendocino County, both places where pot growing is a major industry, had one of the lowest. Those differences can only be explained by law enforcement priorities, not by behavior.

But all the legalization proposals are nonetheless afflicted with imponderables. The Board of Equalization estimate quoted by legalization backers that a tax of $50 an ounce would generate $1.4 billion annually is a slippery guess at best. If the price plus the tax are too high, users will either go back to the illegal dealers or, more likely, grow their own. If it’s lowered, the tax won’t yield nearly what the reformers promise.

Nor can anyone be certain of how much additional consumption of marijuana would follow legalization, much less the medical and social effects.

Robert MacCoun, a professor of Public Policy at Berkeley and one of the nation’s leading experts on drug policy, estimates, on the basis of European drug law reforms, that legalization would increase use by between 25 and 50 percent. But because the new users would be people cautious enough not to have smoked while the drug was illegal, there would be no corresponding increase in driving under the influence and other dangerous behavior. But if testimony at Ammiano’s hearing last week was any indication, it wouldn’t keep opponents from exploiting those uncertainties.

What seems almost self-evident is that legalization would reduce law enforcement costs. Very likely, even a lower level of tax revenues would offset the additional costs in public health.

But in MacCoun’s estimate, the Ammiano bill – and probably any other form of legalization – would quickly bring the federal government down on California users. While U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s new policy not to prosecute either users or dispensaries of medical marijuana legally operating under state law has encouraged drug law reformers, it’s unlikely that similar exceptions would be made for state-sanctioned recreational use or commercial production and distribution.

MacCoun, a pragmatist-centrist in the drug policy debates, who was not invited to testify at Ammiano hearing, points out that the Dutch, who have drawn a lot of attention to their legalization and distribution of marijuana through “coffee houses”, are now under pressure from their European neighbors to change the law. Too many residents of Belgium, France and Germany, it appears, are bringing pot back to places whose residents are not as open minded. In response, the Dutch are beginning to reduce the number of coffee houses.

Richard Lee, a founder of Oakland’s “Oaksterdam University”, a cluster of medical marijuana dispensaries, “cafes”, and head shops in downtown Oakland, and a backer of one of the pot initiatives, told an MSNBC interviewer he wants “to professionalize the industry, and have it taken seriously just like beer and distilling hard liquor.”

And that’s one of the things that worry MacCoun, who has “misgivings about the commercialization of any vice.” Rather than any of the proposals now pending in California, he’d like to see a law that permits home cultivation of marijuana, not commercial production and sale. But that, of course, would undercut one of the arguments now being made for legalization – its potential in easing the state’s budget crisis.

But if the debate that Schwarzenegger says he welcomes moves the country closer to an understanding of the damage it’s doing to itself and to thousands of its citizens, the bills and ballot measures now pending, even if they never pass, will have achieved a great deal.

America is alone among modern nations in the heavy criminalization of drug use and its under-emphasis on treatment and other policies aimed at harm reduction. It has spent hundreds of billions on its “war on drugs”, both in this country and abroad, and has little to show for it other than nests of narco-terrorists abroad, prisons overstuffed with inmates many of whom could more profitably be treated than punished, and a huge and costly army of drug warriors both at home and abroad.

It’s not a moment too soon for the discussion to begin.

Peter Schrag, whose exclusive weekly column appears every Wednesday for the California Progress Report, is the former editorial page editor and columnist of the Sacramento Bee. He is the author of Paradise Lost: California’s Experience, America’s Future and California: America’s High Stakes Experiment. His new book, Not Fit for Our Society: Nativism, Eugenics, Immigration will be published early in 2010.

With the State’s water crisis dominating attention at the State Capitol, the State Senate reconvened its floor session at 11:35 PM, over 8 hours since it recessed Tuesday afternoon, but failed to pass SB 69, a bill that would have delayed the November 1st implementation of several requirements for In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) workers (providers), with a final vote taken just after midnight. The final roll call was 23 votes in favor and 12 votes opposed, with 5 members not voting. No further action on the bill is expected at this point with the failure to win passage and it is not certain what the Legislature – or the counties and advocates will do next.

The initial vote before going into recess was 23 to 10, but because the bill is an “urgency” or emergency bill, 27 votes are needed for passage in the 40 member State Senate. The final roll call vote fell strictly on party lines – with all 23 votes in favor Democrats – and all 12 votes in opposition Republicans. Democrats control the State Senate with 25 seats, and Republicans holding the remaining 15.

The Assembly passed SB 69, with amendments by Assemblymember Noreen Evans (Democrat – Santa Rosa) by an overwhelming final vote of 68 to 0. As previously reported, SB 69 received support from Assembly Democrats and Republicans including Assembly Republican Leader Sam Blakeslee (Republican – San Luis Obispo) who spoke on the Assembly floor urging Assembly Republicans to support the measure.

While IHSS remains a health and safety crisis with most members of the Legislature, both houses have been largely focused Monday and today on trying to pass a long delayed agreement resolve the state’s water crisis.

Counties – representing over 86% of the 462,000 people with disabilities, mental health needs, the blind and low income seniors in the IHSS program, and disability and senior advocates say without a delay in the November 1st implementation, widespread “panic and confusion” will grow worse across the state resulting in people losing workers or not having new workers available so they can remain safely in their own homes.

The new requirements included mandatory fingerprinting and background checks, in person orientation and new worker (provider) enrollment forms for all IHSS workers. Counties have said they have not received clear directions and guidance or the time needed to implement the new rules by the November 1st effective date.

The California Disability Community Action Network, is a non-partisan link to thousands of Californians with developmental and other disabilities, people with traumatic brain injuries, the Blind, the Deaf, their families, community organizations and providers, direct care, homecare and other workers, and other advocates to provide information on state (and eventually federal), local public policy issues.

Mayor Gavin Newsom’s decision to drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination for Governor of California has forced the state’s pundits to face the uncomfortable fact that they are stuck with a field of Poizner, Whitman, Campbell and Jerry Brown.

“Stuck with” because most observers find these people uninteresting as a group.

Poizner and Whitman are “moderates” on social issues (that means they are pro-choice) and hard-line and coo-coos on economic interests. Not satisfied with opposing tax hikes, both have taken extremist positions in an effort to attract support from the dominant conservative wind of the GOP. Poizner would reduce the state’s revenue when the budget will probably have been cut by $25 billion or more from previous years. Whitman promises incomprehensible and impossible cuts in civil service employees

The bankruptcy of their positions – the two frontrunners for the GOP nomination – has been well documented by the older pundits of the state. But having said that, and called them liars to boot, what more is there to say? The same thing for the next 8 months?

The third Republican, Campbell, has marginalized himself out of contention in his party with his positions – as witnessed by his failure to attract any significant funding.

So that leaves Jerry Brown. Community College Board Member, Secretary of State, Two term Governor, candidate for U.S. Senate and for President (several times), Chair of his political party, Mayor of Oakland, and now Attorney General. On the public stage for 35 years – is there anything new that can be said about Brown?

The pundits are bored.

But, at least in Brown’s case, they shouldn’t be bored.

So what is it the people want these days? A Constitutional Convention? Reform of the “process”?

I don’t think so. Those notions will ultimately be filed in the same dustbin of history we find the American Political Science Association’s “Towards a More Responsible Two-Party System”. An effort in the 1940’s to move us toward a British parliamentary system. Pundits liked that idea then, too.

If you manage political campaigns as I do, you are forced to listen to voters whether you like what they are saying or not. And what they are saying today is that they believe our system of government has been broken by lawmaker greed fueled by interest group money.

Now in one sense, none of that is new. Similar accusations have plagued our politics since “factions” (political parties) came into being at the outset of the Republic. But recently, public attitudes have hardened. Individual local incumbents who used to be left off the hook as voters condemned Legislative Institutions are now being blamed as well.
The Legislature’s approval by the public is mired in single digits – all time lows.

And it’s not the system of private campaign contributions that voters blame. They understand politicians have to seek out private monies to wage campaigns. They oppose spending their tax dollars on campaigns – particularly on the campaigns of candidates they don’t personally support.

But when they read about politicians “living large” off money intended for voter information, they become disturbed. When they see special interests using (and hiding) money designed to pay for politician junkets to exotic and luxurious locations, they become more disturbed. When they read the rationale’s for such actions (“important for my policy education”), they are disturbed by the contempt with which they are treated by those who think they’ve fallen off a turnip truck.

Voters don’t see the job of representative as requiring special skills, knowledge or experience. To them it is a moral responsibility – voting for the ‘right’ thing and against the ‘wrong’ thing. And everyone knows right from wrong (which is why Joe the plumber). But money affects that moral compass and turns office-holders into one of “them”. Today, in the collective mind of the electorate, that corruption has become pervasive, not the exception.

As Edmund G. Brown ponders whether to make another run for Governor (which I believe is still an open question), he will know that voters are now demanding dedication and sacrifice from their public officials similar to that required of monks in the middle ages. If he does run, I would be surprised if he doesn’t become a champion for this most dramatic of changes.

And that would be fun to watch.

Bill Cavala was Deputy Director of the Assembly Speaker’s Office of Member Services where he worked for over 30 years. He attended undergraduate and graduate school in the 1960’s and received a doctorate in political science at UC Berkeley. He taught political science at UC Berkeley during the 1970's while he worked part-time for the State Assembly.

Cavala left teaching at UC Berkeley for Assembly Speaker Willie Brown in 1981 until his tenure as Speaker ended in 1995, and he has worked for his five successors as Speaker. He now manages election campaigns for Democratic candidates.

An exploratory committee comprised of parks supporters today filed a proposed statewide ballot measure, called the “California State Parks and Wildlife Conservation Trust Fund Act of 2010,” which would create a stable, reliable and adequate source of funding to protect state parks and conserve California wildlife.

The committee, Californians for State Parks and Wildlife Conservation, is currently considering the feasibility of the proposed ballot measure. If it decides to go forward with the initiative and qualify it for the ballot, via signature gathering, the statutory measure would appear on the November 2010 statewide ballot. Early supporters of the proposed ballot measure include California State Parks Foundation, The Nature Conservancy and Save the Redwoods League.

From the vast stretches of sandy beaches along California’s magnificent coastline to the towering redwoods and much-needed recreational areas in the state’s bustling urban centers, California’s 278 state parks, which include state beaches and state historic parks, are priceless public assets and a vital legacy for our children and grandchildren.

However, budget cuts have starved state parks, causing them to accumulate a backlog of more than $1 billion in needed maintenance and repairs. Roofs and sewage systems leak, restrooms are not cleaned regularly, bridges have collapsed, trails are washed out, campgrounds and visitor centers are shuttered and buildings and structures throughout the system are badly deteriorated. Thousands of scenic acres are closed to the public because of reductions in park rangers, and crime has more than doubled. Destruction and vandalism of the parks themselves has grown fourfold, and beachgoers are often unprotected because of decreases in lifeguards.

Twice in the past two years, state parks were on the brink of being shut down. Only last-minute budget reprieves kept them open. But nearly 60 state parks will be shut down part-time or their hours of operation reduced because of this year’s budget cuts, and more park closure proposals and budget cuts are expected next year.

The ballot measure would protect state parks and conserve wildlife by establishing the State Parks and Wildlife Conservation Trust Fund in the state treasury where, by law, it could only be spent on state parks, urban river parkways, wildlife, natural lands and ocean conservation programs. Funding for the Trust Fund would come from an $18 annual State Park Access Pass surcharge on all California vehicles, including motorcycles and recreational vehicles. Larger commercial vehicles, mobile homes and permanent trailers would be exempt. Vehicles subject to the surcharge would receive free, year-round admission to all state parks throughout the year. Californians will no longer pay day-use fees at any state parks. In comparison, park visitors currently pay up to $125 for an annual pass or $10-$15 per day at most parks. Out-of-state vehicles would continue to pay full entrance fees at parks.

“California’s 278 state parks are priceless public assets, a vital legacy for future generations and essential to strengthening our economy,” said Mike Sweeney, Executive Director of The Nature Conservancy in California. “This ballot measure would protect these vital resources and give more Californians access to our state parks by providing free admission to the occupants of all vehicles paying the State Park Access Pass surcharge. This is a small investment that will provide great long-term returns for the health and well-being of our parks and people.”

Rather than living on a budget rollercoaster, state parks and other natural resources would now be funded by a reliable funding stream that would not be used for other purposes. And, with a new dedicated revenue stream in place, state General Fund dollars - that have historically provided a portion of overall state parks funding - would now be available for other vital needs, like schools, health care, social services or public safety.

“In these trying times, it’s essential we keep the parks open to protect a crucial economic engine for California,” said Ruskin Hartley, Executive Director of the Save the Redwoods League. “California state parks also play a critical role in conserving our natural resources by protecting natural areas that are sources of clean air and water and provide essential habitats for wildlife. This measure would help conserve lands that are vital to the health of people and nature.”

The voters’ investment would be protected by strict fiscal and accountability safeguards, including an annual audit by the State Auditor and a Citizens’ Oversight Committee would be created to ensure funds are spent appropriately. The State Legislature would not be able to reallocate the Trust Fund for any other uses.

State parks attract millions of tourists, who spend $4.32 billion annually on park-related expenditures in California, according to a recent study. It found state parks visitors spend an average of $57.63 in surrounding communities per visit. They generate so much economic activity that every dollar the state spends on state parks generates another $2.35 for California’s treasury.

The California State Parks and Wildlife Conservation Trust Fund Act of 2010 was developed by a statewide coalition of interests committed to protecting state parks and natural resources. California’s 278 state parks are priceless public assets, important economic engines, and a vital legacy for our children and grandchildren. However, persistent budget cuts are starving state parks, causing them to fall severely behind in needed maintenance and repairs. The measure would establish a dedicated and reliable funding stream for state parks and natural resources to ensure they can be enjoyed for generations to come.

Before the furloughs began in February about half the customers without appointments at DMV field offices were served within 20 minutes. By October, with three furlough days in place, only 28% of customers were served so quickly. Californians who make appointments with the DMV are still served relatively promptly but with offices shut down three days a month there are fewer appointments available and people must wait longer to get them.

The slowdown reverses a successful 2004 effort by the Schwarzenegger administration to shrink average wait times from nearly an hour to less than 30 minutes.

“One of the Governor’s biggest achievements that has made life a little easier for Californians was reducing long lines at the DMV and improving their services,” Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) said. “Now without saving any money from the state’s budget he has single handedly wiped out those effective improvements.”

The deterioration in service was detailed in a document prepared by DMV officials in response to an inquiry by the Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes as to how furloughs are affecting DMV operations. In their written response to the oversight office, DMV officials say the furloughs have resulted in a “degradation of service levels in nearly all areas of operations.” Their data also showed a significant increase in backlogs on many license applications, investigations and audits.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s order to send state workers home unpaid three days a month this year has failed to save general fund money at the Department of Motor Vehicles and obliterated progress achieved five years ago in cutting the amount of time people wait for service.

The DMV also handles paperwork when tow truck companies and mechanics sell vehicles abandoned at their businesses. The number of such “lien sales” awaiting DMV action tripled between June and September of this year. The backlog of delinquent vehicle registrations pending follow-up by DMV nearly doubled from 8,330 to 16,042 in the same period. And the backlog of applications from people seeking a personalized license plate grew from 5,542 in June to 8,189 in September.

Sierra Club California is strongly urging everybody to take action NOW to stop legislation that could authorize the construction of two dams and a peripheral canal approximately the size and length of the Panama Canal around the Delta.

"We need your help today in order to stop Californians from being sunk with billions of dollars of more debt," said Jim Metropulos of Sierra Club California. "Today, the Governor and legislative leaders are siding with special interests and forcing through a Delta package that would lead to the construction of a peripheral canal that could cost Californians as much as $50 billion."

As of Friday, October 30, there were no less than 20 water bills introduced, including many over 100 pages long. Environmental groups from around California weighed in Friday with their opposition to the dangerous proposed water legislation

The Sierra Club California, Planning and Conservation League, Friends of the River and the Butte Environmental Council have joined Restore the Delta, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), California Striped Bass Association, Clean Water Action, the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Winnemem Wintu Tribe, Northern California River Watch, the Public Trust Alliance and the Environmental Protection Information Center in opposing the legislative water package, including the estimated $9 billion general obligation bond.

Metropulos noted that the Delta policy package creates the Delta Stewardship Council to manage the Delta, the majority of whom will be appointed by the Governor. The Council will decide on the whether to build a Peripheral Canal and how big the canal should be.

"Since the Governor already supports the largest canal possible, it’s likely that the Council will approve a canal as long and as wide as the Panama Canal, capable of sucking the Delta dry," he said. "In addition, the Council fails to include adequate representation of Delta interests."

The Department of Water Resources also wants to build two new large dams to create Sites and Temperance Flat reservoirs. Sites, proposed for the Sacramento Valley's west side, would divert water from the Sacramento River, while Temperance Flat would be built on the San Joaquin River east of Friant Dam.

"For decades, Friant Dam has diverted so much water that sections of the San Joaquin River have been completely dry," noted Metropulos. "After years of lawsuits, a small part of the original flow was restored this year."

Metropulos emphasized, "These projects will not save the Delta, or the Sacramento or San Joaquin Rivers. They will destroy them. Nor will these projects solve our current water crisis, since they will take years to build."

Metropulos noted that the state needs a comprehensive water package to address California's water needs and to protect the Delta ecosystem, but it "has to be done the right way - in a way that benefits all Californians and the environment."

"We cannot go back to the 1950s. Instead of wasting billions on dams and a canal, we should prioritize aggressive conservation programs, replace leaking pipes, increase water recycling, clean polluted groundwater, encourage graywater use, and promote greater water efficiency in agriculture.This package does not go far enough in these areas," Metropulos added.

Please email your legislators TODAY and ask them to vote NO on the water bills. Click here.

Dan Bacher is an editor of The Fish Sniffer , described as "The #1 Newspaper in the World Dedicated Entirely to Fishermen"

The State Senate adjourned its long Monday evening floor session dealing with major bills addressing the State’s water crisis and will meet again Tuesday morning at 11:30 AM. The State Senate could take final action on SB 69 sometime on Tuesday, as passed by the Assembly late Monday evening, that would delay the November 1st implementation of new requirements – including mandatory fingerprinting, criminal background checks and in person orientations.

The Assembly passed the measure just around 10:30 PM Monday night by an overwhelming initial vote of 60 to 0 – with that vote total in support of the bill likely to grow before the Assembly adjourns this evening (as of 12:08 AM the Assembly is still in session and has recessed for an hour to likely work on bills dealing with the state’s water crisis).

Assemblymember Noreen Evans (Democrat – Santa Rosa) introduced amendments to SB 69 that replaced the previous contents of that bill with the new provisions dealing with the IHSS crisis.

The measure won support from both Assembly Democrats and Republicans, including Assembly Republican Leader Sam Blakeslee (Republican – San Luis Obispo) who rose to speak briefly in support of the bill on the Assembly floor saying that “I want to thank the Speaker for help with the amendments and would encourage our members to put up aye votes on this item.”

Evans said SB 69 was clean-up legislation to ABx4 19 (“x4” refers to the 4th special or extraordinary session) that contained the Governor’s reforms to the IHSS as approved by the Legislature controlled by the Democrats, in late July.

“There was chaos in the system” Evans said that was having a health and safety impact on thousands of IHSS recipients. She mentioned the problems and concerns raised by advocates and counties at last week’s joint legislative informational hearing by the Assembly Budget Committee and Senate Budget Subcommittee #3 on Health and Human Services Committee hearing.

The bill, as amended would require the following:

• Requires the Department of Social Services to conduct a stakeholder process – which Evans said did not occur – on working out the implementation of the new IHSS worker (provider) requirements.
• New rules and guidelines regarding the implementation would be implemented within 60 days of the completion of that stakeholder process
• Stakeholder process must be completed by February 1, 2010

Assemblymember Sandre Swanson (Democrat – Oakland) and Assemblymmber Wes Chesbro (Democrat – Eureka) both spoke in strong support of the bill.

Swanson said he hoped the Legislature would look carefully at reductions to the IHSS program, including the new requirements, to see if it is truly helping or harming the program.

Chesbro, a former state senator, said he met with the director of the Public Authority in Sonoma County on Friday regarding the impact of the many program cuts to IHSS which he said were “devastating” but that “…these amendments is a step in the right direction and should help”.

Evans said her amendments would result in a much better implementation of ABx4 19 as passed by the Legislature last summer.

While the bill faces a major hurdle in getting the Governor’s signature – the overwhelming support from both Assembly Democrats and Republicans will make it harder for the Governor to veto the measure.

New IHSS Requirements Part of Budget Deal

The new requirements, passed last July by the Legislature controlled by the Democrats and approved by the Governor as part of the 2009-2010 revised state budget, included mandatory fingerprinting and criminal background checks, orientation, for all IHSS workers.

Those requirements were included, along with unannounced home visits and fingerprinting of IHSS recipients (with specific exemptions), in ABx4 19, (the “x4” stands for 4th special or extraordinary session) that legislative Republicans and the Governor said were needed to provide tools for the state and counties to combat fraud and abuse in the IHSS program.

The bill however had an earlier effective date – when the bill was enacted (July 28, 2009) which the Department of Social Services pushed back to November 1, 2009.

Last week at a joint informational budget hearing by the Assembly Budget Committee and the Senate Budget Subcommittee #3 on Health and Human Services, Schwarzenegger Administration officials, represented by John Wagner, director of the Department of Social Services and Eva Lopez, deputy director, said the State intended to move forward with the November 1st implementation date, saying that it would be releasing final or clarified instructions and information that should address the concerns raised by the counties and advocates.

The Department of Social Services is the state agency that oversees the IHSS program statewide, which will in 2009-2010, serve over 462,000 children and adults with disabilities – including developmental, persons with mental health needs, the blind, and low income seniors. Over 376,000 persons provide the in-home services as providers (workers).

Counties – who have responsibility to administer the IHSS program locally - and disability and senior advocates however raised major objections saying that the Schwarzenegger Administration is moving too fast without providing clear instructions, translated materials, answers to concerns and conflicting information, and necessary funding for counties to implement the new changes.

The California Disability Community Action Network, is a non-partisan link to thousands of Californians with developmental and other disabilities, people with traumatic brain injuries, the Blind, the Deaf, their families, community organizations and providers, direct care, homecare and other workers, and other advocates to provide information on state (and eventually federal), local public policy issues.

Barack Obama must succeed. After so many young people and first time voters invested their hopes in his presidency, his failure would elicit a level of despair that would plague the Democratic Party for decades to come.

The Democratic message was resurgent in 2008. Millions of new voters teamed up with Obama to reassert the government’s role in improving lives and protecting the public interest. A wave of optimism swept over the country and restored faith in America’s ability to renew itself domestically and regain moral standing internationally.

No symbol better characterized young people’s investment in Obama than the millions of “Hope” posters that appeared in windows across America.

But is Obama’s leadership meeting the expectations of these new civic participants?

The charitable answer is “not yet.” Obama’s indecisive White House is a case study of Washington’s finger-in-the-wind style of followership.

Nine months into his presidency, Obama has yet to take a strong leadership position on three compelling issues of our time: Regulatory reform of the financial system, health care reform, and the war in Afghanistan.

Instead of pushing bold solutions, he has deferred to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and their committee chairs in the House and Senate. In the case of Afghanistan, the president seems to be biting his nails behind the scenes while his administration conducts “a top-to-bottom review of our policy.”

A year after Wall Street’s collapse and the near meltdown of the global financial system, President Obama has still not signed a major piece of financial reform legislation. Franklin Roosevelt, by comparison, had overhauled almost the entire banking system within his first 100 days in office.

And the trillion-dollar rescue mission meant to stabilize the financial sector and stimulate the economy? Most of the money has gone to shore up big banks and corporations while few stimulus dollars benefiting the middle class have actually been spent.

On the subject of health care reform, the president has been equally passive. His ambivalent language on critical matters such as the public option and the mixed signals coming from 1600 Pennsylvania have muddied the waters of the debate.

Both the House and the Senate appear to have determined that a public option is a crucial component of true health care reform legislation. Just last week, Harry Reid overruled a more conservative plan worked out between Obama and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus.

Obama’s contribution seemed to be a series of compromises aimed at attracting the vote of Republican Senator Olympia Snow. The bold, assertive leadership expected of President Obama on this millennial issue has just not been there.

The war in Afghanistan is perhaps the best example of Obama’s rhetoric failing to match reality. During last year’s campaign, he repeatedly asserted his credentials as the only candidate to unequivocally oppose the Iraq War. He differentiated his candidacy by criticizing Hillary Clinton’s Senate vote to support funding for the war while she proclaimed opposition to it.

Obama used Clinton’s vote as an example of the political doublespeak that he pledged to eliminate as president. Now that he sits in the Oval Office, Obama is in danger of committing the very sin he railed against last year. He has yet to articulate a clear policy in Afghanistan while the fighting escalates each day. More American lives were lost this month than at any time in the conflict.

Such congenital ambivalence is not the quality Obama voters thought they were sending to Washington. If Obama turns out to be just another Beltway pol, his disillusioned army of first time participants may never return to the front lines.

Clint Reilly’s initial foray into political consulting at age 23 developed into a successful 26-year career in politics, during which he founded the nation’s largest political consulting firm of its time. Reilly managed winning campaigns for a wide variety of high-profile candidates, including current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and former California State Senate President Pro Tem Dave Roberti. Recently, Reilly has led the battle to preserve media competition in the Bay Area via two landmark anti-trust lawsuits (Reilly v. Hearst and Reilly v. MediaNews, et. al.). Reilly was chairman of the board of Catholic Charities/CYO from 2002 to 2006 and is active in a variety of civic and charitable causes. This article first appeared on www.clintreilly.com/ and is republished with his permission.

There is no amount of corruption, incompetence and ineptitude sufficient to make it acceptable to take hostages at gunpoint in an office building, as an Edmonton, Alberta injured worker is alleged to have done last month.

That much should be obvious. It should also be obvious that there are some systemic problems within our Workers' Compensation systems that lead to such grossly unfair treatment of injured workers that some are pushed literally to the brink of their sanity and lose the ability to tell right from wrong and commit criminal acts in total desperation!

These are good folks who believed that the system was there to help them in case they got injured at work. But when they got immersed into the machinations and workings of the state Workers’ Compensation system, they got a very rude awakening! Many of these injuries were caused by the gross negligence of their employers who know that they can’t be held liable for causing these injuries!

Worker’s injuries are often physically devastating. Imagine worker A whose hand is smashed off in a machine where a safety device is by-passed by his employer so that production runs faster! Imagine worker B who falls from a non-engineered faulty scaffold and is paralyzed for life.

While these good folks are trying to heal and get back to work, they found that the insurers will do everything in their power to make sure that they don’t get there! More effort is expended to put them on the trash heap of society and make them reliant on the public dole than to help them transition back to work or other suitable employment.

Now, they will simply throw an inadequate sum of money at you and let you vocationally rehabilitate yourself without one red cent to help support you and your family while you are going to school. We have the legislature to thank for that.

To the insurers it’s simply called “defending the claim” and to them it’s just simply about the money. Don’t think that these people are compassionate caregivers, because they’re not! They will continue to refer to injured workers as “claimants.” As long as they don’t have to refer to them as human beings, they won’t treat them like human beings. That unfortunately is the reality!

Workers’ Compensation stopped being about truth, justice, fairness, equity and honesty a long time ago. Now it’s just simply about what you can try to prove before the court!

You simply cannot imagine what goes on in the mind of a hard-working man or woman who is on the verge of losing everything that he or she has worked for throughout their working life simply because the insurance company is more focused on cost control of the claim than obeying the law!

Hey it’s called “Workers’ Compensation,” not “Insurers’ Compensation” or “Employer’s Compensation”! But it’s the worker who feels it’s benefits less and less as time marches on.

The insurance industry still benefits from full indemnification against civil liability while the poor injured worker sees his benefits eroded away year after year. He can’t get treated by his own doctor anymore unless he pre-designates his physician ahead of time and should he need medical care now or in the future, the insurance company will delay and or deny it using a stall and scam technique known as “Utilization Review.” It happens every day and no one wants to stop it.

Don’t think that we’re immune from tragedy here in California. Remember the tragedy of applicant’s attorney Jay Bloombecker of Santa Cruz who was killed by a disgruntled client several years ago.

It’s time that the legislature did something about these systemic problems before we have to face more tragedies in the future. There are plenty of loose cannons out there and it doesn’t take a whole lot to set them off since Governor Arnold declared war on the injured worker!

Sam Gold is an injured worker who is also volunteer director of the first national injured workers advocacy organization, the National Organization of Injured Workers. NOIW sponsors the first regularly scheduled television program, Injured On The Job, exposing the fraud and corruption in America's Workers Compensation systems, in a manner that the television viewer can easily understand.