Two 2012 ballot initiatives to raise taxes in California #Occupy

Bob Samuels describes the new ballot initiative on taxes that emerged as a compromise between Governor Jerry Brown's initiative and the California Federation of Teachers' Millionaire's Tax.

1. PERSONAL INCOME TAX:
a. 1% increase on incomes of $250,000 ($500,000 for couples). No change from Governor’s initiative.
b. 2% increase on incomes of $300,000 ($600,000 for couples). Governor’s initiative was 1.5%.
c. 3% increase on incomes of $500,000 ($1 million for couples). Governor’s initiative was 2%.
d. These tax increases remain in place for 7 years. Governor’s initiative was 5 years.
2. SALES TAX: increase quarter cent (Governor’s was half cent). Same expiration as the Governor’s.
3. STRUCTURE: The measure will be based on the Governor’s initiative structure, with the changes noted in #1 and #2 above.
4. REVENUES (NOTE: THESE ESTIMATES ARE PRELIMINARY): This new measure will generate about $9 billion for the 2012-13 budget (up from the $6.9 billion in the Governor’s initiative).

Meanwhile Pasadena civil rights attorney, Molly Munger, the daughter of billionaire Berkshire Hathaway chairman Charles Munger, pushes forward with her own initiative despite Brown's claim that the presence of two tax initiatives on the ballot will kill them both.  Munger's initiative, "Our Children Our Future," increases income taxes on a sliding scale ranging from 4/10 of 1% for households making less than $35,000 and 2.2% for couples making more than $5 million.  It seems unlikely to pass as it raises income taxes on more than just rich people.  The tax increase will raise $10 billion and this will be earmarked for K-12 education.  The initiative has been endorsed by the California Parent Teacher Association (PTA).  Munger has donated $3.4 million to the effort and has already begun airing a very nice television ad.  Munger and Brown are talking but have not yet reached any agreement.

Brown claims that all the money raised by his initiative will go to K-12 education and community colleges but this is only technically true because Brown will reduce other funding to schools and colleges in order to balance California's budget.

Henry A. Giroux on Why Faculty Should Join #Occupy

Henry A. Giroux writes movingly on Why Faculty Should Join Occupy Movement Protesters on College Campuses:

The notion of the university as a center of critique and a vital democratic public sphere that cultivates the knowledge, skills, and values necessary for the production of a democratic polity is giving way to a view of the university as a marketing machine essential to the production of identities in which the only obligation of citizenship is to be a consumer.

Thanks to Jaime Becker for the link.

The Political Context of the March 5 Rally in Sacramento

My speech at the March 1 Rally at UC Davis:


Last time I gave a speech at a rally, as a graduate student, I just winged it and it didn’t go so well--so today I wrote some things down.  I want to talk mainly about the political situation surrounding public education and some new openings in the political context.

Since I arrived here a decade ago, I’ve watched the California legislature and Governors Davis, Schwarzenegger and Brown systematically de-fund the greatest public university system in the world.  Meanwhile, the university has tried to balance its books on the backs of the students.

Over those ten years, many of us (students, faculty, staff and sometimes administrators) have organized, lobbied and protested but the cuts have just kept coming.  In the last three years, the Great Recession has made California’s budget crisis even worse, the cuts have been deeper, and the tuition increases have been just ridiculous.

Part of the problem is Prop 13, the 1978 ballot initiative that required a 2/3 supermajority for any increase in California’s taxes.  This allowed a minority of Republican legislators to hold a blue state hostage to their anti-tax, anti-government, anti-equality agenda and forced us into a budget crisis.  Unfortunately, Californians seemed in no mood to repeal Prop 13 despite the deterioration of California’s public services (and especially its schools).  And any attempt at repeal would certainly be countered by a massive corporate advertising blitz.

It’s a bleak picture.  But lately things are looking up a bit. The Democrats are currently two seats away from a 2/3 supermajority in both the Senate and Assembly and the November election may allow them to achieve it.  In 2008, Californians gave a citizen’s commission (rather than the legislature) the power to draw legislative districts.  Under these new districts, the Democrats will most likely pick up enough seats in the State Senate and MAY be able to do so in the State Assembly.  Two of the closest Assembly races are local.  The 8^th District in East Sacramento County where three Democrats face off against two Republicans and the 9^th district in Elk Grove/Lodi where UC Davis Med School Professor Dr. Richard Pan faces off against two Republicans.  The top two vote getters in the June 5 primary will go on to the November election.

Another development is both hopeful and terrifying.  Governor Brown has placed a referendum on the November ballot to temporarily raise income taxes for the wealthy and sales taxes for everyone.  If the measure passes, he promises an increase for higher education of 4 percent per year for three years.  But if it fails, more cuts.  The measure appears to have the support of a slim majority of the voters at this moment, but only if two similar initiatives are removed from the ballot.

If the Democrats do win a supermajority, the battle to restore UC funding will still be at the beginning.  Democratic legislators, like most politicians, are cowards and many have bought into the Republican argument that tax increases retard economic growth.  We will need to pressure them hard--both during and after the election.  The Governor’s commitment to higher education is also suspect.

We also must pressure the UC and UC Davis Administrations.  Unfortunately, the administration has a very narrow view of politics. It is resigned to meekly lobbying legislators for funding, failing miserably, and then raising tuition.  It has not yet committed to campaigning for a new legislative majority that can re-fund the UC System and forcing that majority to do so.  We must demand such a commitment from the regents, UC President Mark Yudof, and our Chancellor (who happens to be on the defensive right now). 

The protests have been making a difference.  They caused Yudof and the regents to back off the latest round of tuition increases, for the moment.  And 74% of Californians now believe that state funding for higher education is inadequate.  Unfortunately, only 45% are willing to pay higher taxes to restore funding. 

We need to help Californians understand that new revenues will be necessary if we hope to preserve affordable higher education.  We also need to convince them that the benefits of affordable higher education do not just go to individual students but to all the lives they touch. Affordable public education helps Californians to live more prosperous, healthy and meaningful lives, it helps them understand and participate in their democracy, it promotes social mobility and equality of opportunity, and it promotes economic and cultural growth.

The occupy movement has so far remained non-partisan and non-electoral in order to avoid being co-opted by the Democrats and in order to seek deeper levels of change than simply electing a new slate of legislators beholden to corporate campaign contributions. 

That’s probably wise for occupy, but the movement to defend higher education pre-dates occupy and is bigger than occupy.  There are roles and responsibilities for all of us. 

As a movement, we must work at all levels—though not everyone must work at every level—protesting, changing public opinion, lobbying elected officials, and winning elections.  At this moment, we have a political opening—Let’s use it.

I want to end with the names of three websites that I think are especially useful (just google them): ReFund California, Remaking the University, and Fight for your Education.  I also have links to all of these on my blog: after-dinner critic.

Save the University

UC Berkeley political theorist Wendy Brown offers the best statement I've seen of the many facets of the privatization of the University of California.

Fighting Privatization of the University of California #Occupyucdavis

This is an excellent post by Chris Newfield of UC Santa Barbara on the nature of Mark Yudof's "vision" for the University of California, alternatives to it, and some tactical ideas.

An excerpt:

In short, the administration’s defense of UC’s budget has the same logic as that which all over the Western world is lowering living standards for the 99%.  UC leaders continue to envision cuts for the student and employee majority, more control for the corporate minority, and no big university missions for society as a whole. The public university exists always on the defensive, always begging for its health. We’ve lived the whole of the new century under this cloud.  This has to stop.

Some ideas about the struggle to fund Higher Ed in California

Tonight I was at the northern California meeting of the Scholars Strategy Network. A couple of ideas struck me as especially useful. 1. There is a reasonable chance that the Democrats could win a 2/3 majority in the 2012 California legislative elections, making it possible for them to pass tax increases to fund higher education (if pressured enough). 2.Progressive UC faculty and staff should start a PAC to defeat legislators who don't support higher education. 3. The PAC and the student movement should target legislators with universities in their district. 4. The UC administration has a very narrow view of politics. It is focused on lobbying legislators for more funding (and is essentially resigned to failing at that) rather than on leading a political movement that can elect a 2/3 Democratic majority in the legislature. One demand to make of the regents and the embattled chancellors (Birgenau and Katehi) is that they step up and help lead such a movement. Refund California has made a similar demand--that the regents pledge support for a tax increase on the rich to fund higher education.

Strategic Advice from Louis Warren

UC Davis History Professor Louis Warren gives some good advice to the UC student movement. I especially like his point that with the recent redistricting of California, the Democrats may be able to achieve a 2/3 majority in both houses of the legislature in the 2012 election--enabling them to raise taxes to fund education (if pressured enough). This has been impossible up to now because Prop 13 requires a 2/3 majority for raising taxes and Republicans have opposed any and all tax increases. I also like his suggested slogan for approaching legislators (most of whom went to public colleges): "We want the same deal you got!" (an affordable and high quality public education).

California's Direct Democracy Troubles

This is a great piece on the idiocy of ballot initiatives in California. Drop those F-bombs John Burton! Direct Democracy Troubles - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 12/05/11

Letter from Chair of Davis Division of the Faculty Senate, Linda F. Bisson

Dear Colleagues:

Many of you have asked me to issue a preliminary assessment of the events occurring on November 18, 2011, and to describe the actions taken to date by me and Executive Council. I know I have asked extraordinary patience of you while I undertake the job that I was appointed to do as your Chair of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate. As a scientist it is not in my nature to get ahead of the data; as a faculty member I put the students first. When I saw the first video of the brutality on the quad I felt as if I had been stabbed in the heart, a feeling I know the majority of you share.
My first communication to the Chancellor on Friday, November 18th was to make sure the charges against the students would be dropped and all medical bills would be covered; she had already made the decision to do so. My second immediate demand was that those directly involved be placed on leave. I learned that although she had requested this be done she has more limited authority than I thought over our police force. Finally, I asked that the police presence on or around the quad be diminished and if necessary I would have faculty patrol the quad to ensure the safety of our students. The members of Executive Council were prepared to be there themselves and to contact their committee members and faculties to back up this position. I had immediate responses from graduate and professional school students to also patrol the quad. The Chancellor assured me that this would not be necessary. Executive Council members periodically went by the encampment once it was reestablished to check on the wellbeing of the students. Executive Council met with the students of the Occupy movement on Wednesday, November 23rd to ask if they felt safe and if there was anything we could do to make them feel safer. They said they felt safe as long as the police were kept away.

Many of you have sent me emails about the man in the grey suit filming the crowd on November 18th with concerns about the intent of that filming. I have asked the Chancellor and she has told me that she does not know who that individual is nor why he was filming the crowd and appeared to be with the police. I will continue to press on this issue.

Second, during the tragedy on the quad we were holding an Executive Council meeting with the Chancellor. I had not been in the loop on decisions that were being made so I had as an agenda item a discussion of her intentions with respect to the Occupy movement and student demonstrations. We learned that she had already called for the tents to be removed and that this was happening as we were being told of her decision. There was no consultation with the Senate regarding this decision. She assured us at that time that although the police had been told to remove the tents as is apparently a UC policy, she had clearly instructed them to do it peacefully and without force unless physically threatened or attacked. Further the reasons for the order to remove the tents were health and safety related, due to poor sanitation practices. As a microbiologist, who teaches sanitation, I know this is indeed a problem. We registered our opposition to the use of excessive force probably just as it was happening. During the meeting, the Chancellor was seated next to me and I know she did not receive any communication from the field. She did get called to the hallway and came back and her report of what had happened was identical to the statement that she subsequently made to the press and that you all have heard and that turned out to be egregiously incorrect as evidenced by the videos released by the press. When I asked the Chancellor about this the next day, she said she had repeated what she had been told by her staff concerning the events of the quad, and it was not until later that she saw the videos released by the press herself. Some Executive Council members thought the clearing of the Occupy movement was timed deliberately during our meeting to prevent any meaningful consultation; others viewed it as simply unfortunate timing. As a consequence, the tenor of my conversations with the Chancellor has been quite different from that of the main campus and I will give a full report at the Representative Assembly meeting.

Third, I started investigating the culture and origin of our repressive policies. I received immediate assistance from the systemwide office of the Academic Senate in sourcing these policies. Bob Anderson called for an emergency teleconference meeting of Academic Council in which I participated. I believe our polices are historic, many a legacy of the incident involving the active shooter at Virginia Tech., and the sharp criticism in the press of campus police being “mall cops” at that time. I know changes were mandated by both state and local governments after that event. I personally do not think one should send inexperienced and untrained individuals against an active shooter. However, I also do not think one should send a SWAT team to issue citations for minor violations.

Executive Council has taken three actions: First, to issue our statement that many have thought was weak but that reflected a commitment to get the facts first. We called for an independent investigation into the events on the quad and I advised the Chancellor to abandon her plans for formation of a taskforce as it would likely not appear credible. Further, if an administrative task force was necessary I believed it should be formed by someone else. We continually emphasized the need for independence of the task force. The result of this request was the decision by the Office of the President to conduct the administrative inquiry. Second, we have formed our own Special Committee to examine the events leading up to the actions taken on the quad and also to review our policies, procedures, culture and climate to make strong recommendations for change. I have read the Brazil report issued by the Police Review Board of UCB in 2010 after an incident in 2009 and agree with most of their recommendations that obviously have not been adopted (http://administration.berkeley.edu/prb/6-14-10_prb-report.pdf). Our Special Committee may have different or additional recommendations of its own. I will do everything that I can to make sure our report is not ignored. Provost/Executive Vice President Pitts has assured me personally that policies will change. Third, I called for a special meeting of the Representative Assembly. I report directly to the Representative Assembly and will have more to say on Friday when we meet. Representative Assembly meetings are public and open to all faculty. The Chancellor will be there. We will hold the meeting in the Mondavi Center to allow for full attendance by the faculty. Executive Council intends to introduce a resolution at that meeting commending our students. I hope to have the text of that resolution finalized and out to all departments and their Representative Assembly members prior to the meeting on Friday.

I am continuing to look into the events of November 18th, and will issue periodic updates to the faculty. I have found many things that I would like to propose that we change, but ask for your continued patience as I am still uncovering new information.

Sincerely,

Linda F. Bisson, Chair
Davis Division of the Academic Senate
Professor: Viticulture and Enology