Archive for ARDems

Single Payer Health Care a Real Possiblity

Zulma Michaca and Shirley Toy speak at the American River Democrats April meeting

Though the Affordable Care Act—AKA Obamacare—was a major step forward to giving Americans universal affordable health insurance, it still has flaws, notably cost control. And now that the Trump Republicans are continuing to devise an even less accessible system, the California legislature is working on putting a system in place to provide the kind of health care most of the developed already has. State Senate Bill 562 is currently being heard in committees with a real chance of being passed and signed by the Governor. It recently passed the Health Committee and is due to be heard in Appropriations.

At the American River Democrats’ April meeting, we welcomed Shirley Toy and Zulma Michaca from the California Nurses Association. Their organization supports SB 562, because health care (not health insurance)is a human right. The Affordable Care Act was a great improvement, said Toy, but not enough. Costs continue to rise, and ACA didn’t do enough to change that. While the rest of the developed world pays less and gets better care, in the U.S., costs continue to rise while the Trump administration and Republican congress try to reach a compromise to end the ACA, and replace it with something “fantastic.” While the house finally passed their version, the Senate Republicans are struggling to make a less “objectionable” bill, but every proposal so far has robbed millions of the benefits they now have, while cutting taxes for the wealthy.

Meanwhile, American businesses large and small have problems competing with each other, and with international firms who don’t need to provide health insurance to their employees. Companies are forced to bargain health benefits with current and potential employees, while those in the “gig economy” and small business start-ups have to face big bills to get health care for themselves and their families.

The big question for bringing single-payer health care to California is how to pay for it. Toy pointed out that we already pay—and one-third of our insurance money goes to administration, marketing, doctors’ staff who deal with insurance, and profits for the private insurance companies. And the cost hospitals incur for treating uninsured people, especially in emergency rooms, gets built into the fees they charge paying customers. But just saying we already pay too much doesn’t actually fund the alternative! As club member Dr. Bill Durston pointed out, even the best idea needs a funding mechanism—the previous single payer bills would not have worked had there not been a companion bill to cover funding.

The bill currently says “It is the intent of the Legislature for the state to work to obtain waivers and other approvals relating to Medi-Cal, the state’s Children’s Health Insurance Program, Medicare, the PPACA, and any other federal programs so that any federal funds and other subsidies that would otherwise be paid to the State of California, Californians, and health care providers would be paid by the federal government to the State of California and deposited in the Healthy California Trust Fund.” So that means that any money coming into California from the Federal government for healthcare would be funneled into the fund first. Additional money would obviously be needed. The remaining funding is not specific in the current bill, stating “It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would develop a revenue plan, taking into consideration anticipated federal revenue available for the program. In developing the revenue plan, it is the intent of the Legislature to consult with appropriate officials and stakeholders.”

So clearly, funding will also come from a combination of taxes and fees, to be specified in a companion bill, most likely. Though many, especially Republicans (and some Democrats) will claim it is a big tax hike on Californians, it should save money overall, as both the elimination of insurance company overhead, and using the power of large-pool negotiation with providers and drug companies, should allow for big savings. But then there is always the danger of bureaucratic waste and fraud, so the managers—the “Healthy California Board” and their staff—will have to be extremely vigilant in managing the program. If California proposes to provide a viable alternative to the national Trump/Republican plan, all of the citizens will need to see they are getting a good deal for good health care.

What do we get if SB 562, and a companion funding bill, are passed? All California residents will be eligible to enroll in a common health care system (like insurance, but different.) You choose your doctor, and/or “Care Coordinator,” who keeps track of your records and treatment. You may go to specialists without referrals, and coverage includes dental care, emergency, diagnostics, rehabilitation, substance abuse, prenatal care, mental health, prescription drugs, and more. You may also use a health care organization; a non-profit that coordinates care (like Kaiser, and others.)

Rates paid to providers are negotiated to insure both fairness to the doctors, medical staff, facilities, and drug companies, as well as the taxpayers of California who support the system. An immediate savings of at least 25 to 30 percent will come from the elimination of the insurance company costs. The system will be run by an independent board of nine Californians, appointed by the Governor and legislature, and chosen based on a background and expertise in health care; and must have at least one member from the general public, a nurses labor org., another labor org., and someone from the medical provider community. There will also be an advisory committee, representing a wide variety of citizens and representatives of various medical fields.

The political will needed, and fight to get this passed, will be formidable. Conservatives hate any government control of the market, even for essential services like health care. And conservative Democrats are reluctant to go too far, and risk losing support of the insurance and medical industry. While many organizations, like the California Nurses Association, labor unions, and many more support the idea, many doctors may fear losing income under this system.

But there is a lot to recommend it too, even to conservatives. Imagine the boon to businesses large and small if they no longer need to worry about providing health insurance benefits to attract good employees, and for the larger companies who are compelled to provide some form of coverage by law. Workers will have more choice to choose better jobs without worrying about losing or interrupting their health coverage. And entrepreneurs will be free to follow their dreams without the threat of bankrupting their families to buy insurance while they try to launch a small business. Is it worth paying somewhat higher income tax and potential business tax, if the payoff is so great? After eliminating the cost of health benefits for both employees and retirees, businesses will have a huge surplus of cash to help them chip in.  And individuals who have insurance costs deducted from their paychecks today may not even notice a tax increase. A successful launch of this system will no doubt draw more businesses to California once it has proven it works.

healthy california logoThe plan was designed following the model of developed countries around the world who provide better health care to their citizens than the U.S. does today. And as the bill progresses through the legislative process it will no doubt evolve further, especially the funding process. But the time to strike is now, with Democratic majorities and a Democratic Governor, (but one who still needs to be convinced.) For more information about this bill, see Healthy California.org, and let your representatives know you are behind it, especially those who may be on the fence, like Assembly Members Cooley and Cooper, and State Senator Pan.

Ken Kiunke, Communications Secretary

How Does Supreme Court Nominee Stand on Gun Control?

The late Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger called the misrepresentation of the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to own guns “one of the greatest pieces of fraud on the American public” that he had seen in his lifetime. In responding to questions from California Senator Dianne Feinstein during his confirmation hearing on March 21, Judge Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump’s nominee to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, demonstrated that he was a party to that fraud. Please contact your U.S. Senators today and urge them to oppose the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. (Click on this link for contact information for your U.S. Senators.) For more information regarding Judge Gorsuch’s fraudulent misrepresentation of the Second Amendment during his confirmation hearing, please read on.

The Second Amendment states, in its entirety:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Prior to 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court had never ruled that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to own guns. On the contrary, it had been repeatedly established in Supreme Court decisions, in decisions of lower courts, and in reviews by legal historians that the Second Amendment was intended to protect a collective right of the people to maintain armed state militias, such as the current day National Guard, not a right of individual citizens to own firearms. In particular, the Supreme Court ruled in 1939 in the case of U.S. v. Miller and reiterated in 1980 in Lewis v. United States that, “The Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’”

In 2008, however, a narrow 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court reversed over 200 years of legal precedent by ruling in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment did, indeed, confer an individual right to own guns, at least handguns of the type kept in the home “for protection.” The majority opinion in Heller, written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, is internally contradictory and relies heavily on literature published in law journals over the past two decades by a small group of authors with direct ties to the gun lobby. Prior to the Lewis decision, it was virtually unheard of for any legal history expert to argue that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to own guns.

Scalia’s majority opinion in the Heller decision effectively deleted the phrase, “A well regulated militia” from the Second Amendment. In doing so, it opened the floodgates for a torrent of lawsuits challenging all sorts of gun control laws. Although handgun bans in Washington DC and Chicago were overturned, most other gun control laws, including bans on assault weapons, withstood post-Heller challenges.

In questioning Judge Gorsuch during his confirmation hearing, California Senator Dianne Feinstein asked him if he agreed that bans on civilian ownership of weapons such as M-16 rifles that are typically used in military service are consistent with Scalia’s majority opinion in the Heller decision. Gorsuch evaded answering the question directly.

Gorsuch: Senator, Heller makes clear the standard that we judges are supposed to apply. The question is whether it’s a gun in common use for self defense and that may be subject to reasonable regulation. That’s the task as I understand it. There’s lots of ongoing litigation about which weapons qualify under those standards and I can’t prejudge that litigation.

Feinstein: No, I’m just asking you do you agree with this statement, yes or no.
Gorsuch: The statements of, the, uh, Heller decision?
Feinstein: Justice Scalia’s statement.
Gorsuch: Whatever’s in Heller is the law, and I follow the law.
Feinstein: Do you agree?
Gorsuch: Well, it’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, Senator, respectfully, it’s a matter of it being the law, and my job is to apply and enforce the law.

Judge Gorsuch clearly knows, or should know, that the 2008 Heller decision represented a radical reversal of the Court’s prior interpretation of the Second Amendment. He also knows, or should know, that courts have ruled post-Heller that bans on assault weapons do not violate the Second Amendment, but the gun lobby, which enthusiastically supported his nomination by Donald Trump, wants the Supreme Court to rule that civilian ownership of AR-15’s, the civilian version of the M-16 military assault rifle and currently the most popular gun in America, is protected by the Second Amendment. Finally, Gorsuch definitely knows that the Heller decision could be reversed by a change in a single justice on the Supreme Court, and that had Hillary Clinton become President instead of Donald Trump, she almost certainly would have nominated a Supreme Court Justice who would have tipped the balance on the Court and reversed the Heller decision.

In stating, “Whatever’s in Heller is the law, and I follow the law,” Gorsuch is endorsing what the late Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger called “one of the greatest pieces of fraud on the American public” that he had seen in his lifetime. In refusing to answer Senator Feinstein’s question concerning a ban on assault weapons, Gorsuch is also signaling that he would likely vote to expand the category of constitutionally protected firearms beyond handguns protected by Heller to include assault rifles such as the AR-15’s which are currently “in common use.”

It’s ironic that Gorsuch, like the late Antonin Scalia, claims to be an “originalist,” basing his decisions on the original intent of the framers of the constitution. In his introductory comments before his Senate confirmation hearing, he paid tribute to the late Antonin Scalia, stating: “He reminded us that words matter—that the judge’s job is to follow the words that are in the law—not replace them with words that aren’t.”

If words matter, then what is it about the phrase, “A well regulated militia,” that Neil Gorsuch doesn’t understand? And where in the Second Amendment does he find the words, “a gun in common use for self defense?”

Recognizing that Gorsuch was not going to give her a straight answer concerning whether he thought bans on assault weapons were consistent with the Heller decision, Senator Feinstein went on to ask him whether he agreed with Fourth Circuit Court Judge Harvey Wilkinson who wrote in the case of Kolbe v. Hogan that the Second Amendment was ambiguous and that the ambiguity should be resolved by legislators representing the people who were directly affected by gun violence, not by judges who were relatively insulated from it. Again, Gorsuch refused to give a straight answer.

Gorsuch: I begin by saying I hold Judge Wilkinson in high regard. He is a very fine man and a very fine judge.
Feinstein: Can you say yes or no?
Gorsuch: No, I’m, I wish I could, um, but…
Feinstein: I wish you could too.
Gorsuch: You know, the Supreme Court of the United States isn’t final because it’s infallible, as Justice Jackson reminds us. It’s infallible because it’s final. And, uh, Judge Wilkinson had his view, and the Supreme Court has spoken, and, and, Heller is the law of the land, and Judge Wilkinson may disagree with it and I understand that, um, and he may, but he will follow the law no less than any other judge in America. I am confident of that. Um, he’s a very fine judge who takes his oath seriously.

Gorsuch knows that the Supreme Court is neither infallible nor final. It’s not uncommon for the Supreme Court to reverse a previous ruling. According to the Government Accounting Office, the Supreme Court has issued rulings that overturned all or part of previous decisions on 236 occasions from 1810 through 2016. The 2008 Heller decision has been called by some legal scholars one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in U.S. history. Heller may be the law of the land today, but Heller overturned the rulings in Miller in 1939 and Lewis in 1980. If confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice, Gorsuch himself could choose to be the deciding vote in overturning the radical Heller decision and in returning the Second Amendment to its original meaning. It’s clear from his answers to Senator Feinstein’s questions, though, that Gorsuch does not intend to do so.

The issue of the Second Amendment is only one of many on which Judge Neil Gorsuch refused to provide a straight answer to questions from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee during two days of confirmation hearings. His evasive answers on the Second Amendment alone, though, along with his endorsement of a fraudulent misrepresentation of the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to own guns, are reason enough to deny him a position on the Supreme Court. Please contact your U.S. Senators today and urge them to oppose the appointment of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Thanks for your support of Americans Against Gun Violence and our efforts to stop the shameful epidemic of firearm related deaths and injuries that afflicts our country. If you haven’t already done so, please become a paid member and consider making an additional donation if you’re able. Please also visit the Facts and FAQ’s page of the Americans Against Gun Violence website to learn about other actions that you can take right now to help stop gun violence.

We can’t call ourselves a great nation until the day when rates of firearm related deaths and injuries in our country are at or below the rates in other high income democratic countries. In order to achieve that goal, we must reverse the fraudulent misrepresentation of the Second Amendment in the Heller decision and adopt stringent gun control laws comparable to the laws that have long been in place in every other high income democratic country of the world. I look forward to working with you to make that day come sooner rather than later.

Bill Durston, MD
President, Americans Against Gun Violence

Reaching Out to Muslims

The American River Democrats welcomed Yannini Casillas, a representative from CAIR—the Council on American-Islamic Relations—to their March meeting. Ms. Casillas spoke about pre-conceptions, misconceptions, and the nature of Muslims in the U.S. and around the world, and Senate Bill 31, the California Religious Freedom Act.

Yannini Casillas speaks to the American River Democrats

Casillas opened her talk with “Islam 101.” She said that the Islamic faith is very diverse, and that the largest percentage of Muslims are Asian, with Indonesians being the greatest number. She said the media does a poor job covering the Islamic faith, and that there is a big difference between certain cultures and the Islamic religion. ISIS does not represent Muslims any more that the Ku Klux Klan represents Christians.

Muslims are largely peaceful and diverse, and will adapt to the culture they belong to. The tenants of their faith are prayer, fasting, charity, and pilgrimage. They believe you cannot force anyone to do anything; it is the “hand, tongue, and heart” that will guide people to social justice on earth. Women have rights as well, and repression seen in places like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan reflect their culture, not the religion. When asked about LGBT rights, she said that everything is between the individual and God; that Muslims are to respect the human, and it is not okay to hurt anyone.

Casillas said that CAIR is working hard fighting the Trump administration’s Muslim ban. She pointed out that even people like Muhammad Ali Jr., the American-born son of the world famous boxer, was detained and questioned by officials. CAIR is training people on their rights, and working with law enforcement officials to fight harassment and vandalism against Muslims.

Particularly concerning are actions by the FBI. There are over 100 cases in California alone of agents coming to investigate Muslim people at their homes and workplaces. They are fishing for terrorist leads, and intimidating people to provide information, threatening to report uncooperative people to ICE agents.

California Senate Bill 31, authored by Ricardo Lara, prohibits state or local agencies from providing or disclosing to federal authorities information regarding a person’s religious affiliation for use in a national database. Though such a database would apply to all religions, the target is clearly Muslims. (Though, of course, any group, including Jews, Hindus, or atheists, could be next.) The bill requires a two-thirds majority vote, but fortunately enjoys some bipartisan support, with a Republican listed as a co-author. It passed two committees unanimously and, as of this writing, awaits a Senate floor vote, before moving to the Assembly. (It requires a two-thirds majority vote because it is an “Urgency Bill” which will take effect immediately on passing.) Casillas encouraged everyone to contact their state representatives to support this bill.

How else can you help? Get to know your Muslim neighbors! Visit an Islamic center, like The Islamic Society of Folsom, and meet the people there. (I have a friend who is a Christian pastor and visits the center on a regular basis, and finds it quite rewarding.) And watch out for hate incidents against Muslims, or any people of a different culture. Women are more often victims of these crimes because they are usually more visible due to their dress. Report these incidents and intervene if possible. If you see a stranger, especially someone who may be from another culture or religion, smile and say hello!

Ken Kiunke, Communications Secretary

Report from Ami Bera Town Hall

Recently Louise Lopez attended Ami Bera’s Community Engagement Forum, and shared this report on the Moms (and Friends) on the Left Facebook page.

Congressman Bera addresses the crowd at his community forum. (Twitter – @RepBera)

March 11, 2017

Following topics were covered as responses to questions that were asked of Ami Bera.

1) Investigation of Russian Interference in the Election

Bera’s response: We need to protect the integrity of our democracy with an independent investigation. The congressman supports the Protect Our Democracy Bill which calls for such an independent investigation of Russian interference.

2) Travel Ban

Bera’s response: Co-sponsored the bill opposing the first Muslim Ban and is co-sponsoring the bill which opposes the Muslim Ban 2.0. This ban provides the wrong message to the world. It is dangerous and is also causing an increase in hate crimes at home.

3) President’s conflicts of interest

Bera’s response: A resounding ‘yes’ to an investigation. We need to ask for his tax returns.

4) Format for Town Halls (a Town Hall where he is the only speaker)

Bera’s response: Has held regular Town Halls from his first term. He started out as the sole speaker, but found that questions were often posed that would be better directed to others—State Assembly Persons or local city council members, for example. So he began inviting others respond to specific questions along with him. He has no problem with holding some meetings with no one else present on stage.

5) Is Donald Trump mentally ill?

Bera’s response: We should keep in mind that Donald Trump legally won this election via the Electoral College. He does not want the presidency or the government to fail. Bera is, however, concerned about Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric, both before and after the campaign. Trump should listen carefully to his own words. The president also needs to step up: Post-9/11, President Bush visited a mosque. Trump is doing nothing along those lines to speak out against hate crimes. Also, “Someone needs to take his Twitter account away.” We are not the only ones reading his tweets, they become front page news in foreign countries as well and are cause for concern among our allies. Also, with regard to foreign countries, Bera is concerned about the diminished role that foreign diplomatic policy is being given by this administration while the military is being built up at diplomacy’s expense. When pressed on the question as to Trump’s mental health, Bera did say he felt Trump was a narcissist.

6) Rising Cost of Health Care

Bera’s response: Bera has publically rejected the current Republican bill, the AHCA. There are two things a federal health care plan should address: access and cost. The original ACA addressed access, but did not change the cost structure. The thought was to address this as well after initial passage, but the Republican majority’s complete opposition made this impossible previously. We don’t want to take away access, but we do need to find a way to make health care more affordable. We also need to address the cost of prescription drugs. The president should be bringing us together to work on these issues. Presently, we need to continue to protect the 20 million people who have gained healthcare under Obamacare as well as looking at cost. We have a good example of a successful plan in Medicare—this is a system that works well for older people and we should be talking about how to get younger people to be able to buy into this type of health care. Bera returned to the topic of health care later in the meeting with the following comments: He stands firmly with Planned Parenthood. It is disappointing to have an exchange with only 1 option. This creates a monopoly, not competition. To be viable, younger folks need to participate. Allowing people under 26 to remain on their parent’s policy is an example of this. We need to expand the possibilities by expanding different options.

7) Gun Violence and the Gun Lobby

Bera’s response: The majority of Democrats and Republicans– -at least those not in Congress—can find common ground with regards to gun laws. This is not about repealing the Second Amendment, it’s about keeping our communities safe. People with a history of violent criminal activity including domestic violence, as well as mental illness should not be able to easily acquire weapons. To that end, Bera supports background checks and a waiting period before a gun can be obtained. We should all be contacting members of congress regarding this issue.

8) HR 1215, which would limit the right to sue in Elder Abuse cases and negate California laws already on the books.

Bera’s response: Bera was not familiar with this bill and will look into it.

9) Stance on Refugees and Sanctuary Cities (this question seemed to reference votes which were not in support of these issues during previous terms).

Bera’s response: He is not against refugees. These are people in need of our help. With regards to illegal immigrants: police officers, nurses, and teachers should not be working as immigration officers. Children shouldn’t be living in fear that their parents may not be there when they get home. He did vote against a specific Sanctuary City bill because he does feel that illegal aliens who are criminals should be held by local agencies for deportation.

10) How can we achieve our objectives when Republicans control the majority of the Senate, Congress and the Presidency?

Bera’s response: As a result of the recent election, people are coming out from all over the country and speaking out. We need to continue making our voices heard. There will be elections this year as well as in 2018 and 2020. If we don’t show up and vote, we lose our voice.

10) Climate Change

Bera’s response: Climate change is real. As a member of the Science and Technology Commission, he will fight to protect the EPA. He noted that the EPA had being scrambling to save data out of concern that it could disappear. He lauds the return of investigative journalism as also having a positive effect in this area. He will fight to protect California’s climate laws.

11) What can be done to better represent the middle class?

Bera’s response: We cannot just be a party of opposition, we need to be a party that stands for something. To that end, we need to maintain a strong public education system. We need to provide an affordable college education, this is a forming of paying it forward. We need to create jobs which pay decent wages. We need to figure out how to rebuild trade and manufacturing jobs. An example would be coding technology. We’re not teaching our kids how to code but other countries are. We should also focus on America’s infrastructure, but we also need to teach kids these skill sets. It would be a good idea to bring instruction of vocational skills back to high schools.

Note: *At this point he also stated he was against school vouchers. This would only take away from public schools which all children already have access to.

12) Deregulation of Wall Street

Bera’s response: Will vote against the repeal of Dodd Frank. He will also fight against assaults on the media and gives them kudos for the job they are doing.

12) Why don’t you partner with local progressive groups?

Bera’s response: Because he is responsible for representing all 720,000 members of his district, it would be inappropriate to do so. He is willing to come as a private person to speak to various groups, according to his availability.

13) Hate crimes/hate speech

Bera’s response: We will do what we can to fight back. When this occurs in schools, schools need to figure out a way to deal with it. Incidents need to be reported and CARE as well as other groups can help with diversity training and instruction on how to push back against bullying.

At the end of the allotted time, Bera made these additional statements, not in response to specific questions:

Democrats and Republicans must come together. Different states may have different challenges, but we still must come together. With consideration to executive orders, if Republicans hated them when Obama made them, they should hate Trump making them as well. The founders designed the legislative branch to be the strongest—this is where our laws should be coming from. The job is to negotiate, debate and find a middle ground so that we can move forward. Otherwise, we will be stuck in a cyclical back-and-forth and stay the same.

Our thanks to Louise for this great report, and all who showed up to let Congressman Bera how we feel and how much we care!

(Note: Louise Lopez is not a currently a member or affiliated with the American River Democrats.)

Indivisible Sacramento Rep Visits ARDems

Scarlette Bustos addresses a packed crowd at the American River Democrats meeting

It was a packed house at the American River Democrats’ February Meeting, as many current and brand new members filled every seat and then some, while the club welcomed guest speaker Scarlette Bustos, representing Indivisible Sacramento, part of a nationwide movement to resist the Trump and Republican agenda.

Ms. Bustos introduced herself the the Sacramento-born daughter of Nicaraguan refugees who grew up inspired by people stepping up to contribute to their community. She got involved in campaigns and issues herself. She opened with a sobering thought—the Republican establishment will happily give up Donald Trump, and impeach him if (or when) he gets too far out of control, leaving everyone else in the Congress and his appointees (like VP Mike Pence) behind, running the government. Should that happen, the people who are so energized today may not care so much any more—but we cannot allow that to happen! His agenda—or worse—will remain a devastating legacy that will still need to be fought against.

The room was packed at the February American River Democrats meeting!

Bustos introduced the Indivisible Guide, a Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda. She said the best way to affect your leaders is to call their office, as an individual citizen or as part of a group—like the American River Democrats, or whatever clubs or groups you may belong to. Make you call concise and short, talk to a single issue and thank the staff member who deals with you. Calling is usually the most effective method, as it is hard to ignore, but mailing postcards is also a good way. Emails to the office are easier to ignore, so not as effective. If you have the time, showing up at the office is by far the best way to make your point—it shows a strong commitment to being heard!

Besides the Indivisible Guide, Bustos recommended signing up for Jennifer Hoffman’s Weekly Action Checklist for Democrats, Independents, and Republicans of Conscience to get a weekly email of action items. She also recommended breakupwithyourmegabank.org, by Green America, dedicated to encouraging banks to invest in a just and sustainable society, and pulling your money out if they don’t! (More information on contacting your representatives, and other progressive groups may be found on our Information & Links page on this website.)

Besides reading the Indivisble Guide you can sign up to join their Facebook group—search Indivisible – Sacramento, or email IndivisibleSacramentoCA@gmail.com to subscribe to their newsletter. You can also follow Sacramento Indivisible Regional Action Network on Facebook. Bustos noted that these organizations are not chartered Democratic Party clubs, as they also wish to involve independents, Green Party members, and even Republicans who see the need to stop the “Trump Movement.”

Groups like Indivisible, and the many others now becoming active, are taking a cue from the “Tea Party” movement that rose to prominence early during the Obama administration. They were very effective in stopping a lot of the progress he tried to make, and turned-over both the House and Senate within two years of Obama’s election. The stakes are even higher for us now, as the progress we did make is being torn down daily by this administration. Can we hope to do as much as the Tea Party did – or even more? It will take a lot of grassroots efforts. That old saying is still true—Think Global, Act Local—and call your representatives today. If it gets to to the point where they know you when you call, Scarlette said, you know you’re being heard!

Democrats Moving Forward in 2017

In the wake of Donald Trump’s election, our club president, Barbara Leary, presented an informational session about how our club and others like us fit into the overall structure of the party, and how we can make an impact on elections and issues.

This is basically how the Democratic Party is organized, from grass roots to the presidential elections, and how we may get involved!

The Clubs – organize fundraising, notify members to help phone bank, canvas neighborhoods, educate members about candidates and issues, host elected official speakers for Q&A, host advocacy representatives for ballot measures.  Working with other clubs to share ideas, voter registration, booths at fairs is an important component of success in a “red” district. Terry Schanz, the Chair of the Sacramento Democratic Party, stated the the local clubs are “the roots of the party” that make the party strong.

Democratic Party of Sacramento County (DPSC) – chartered clubs each have one group representative and one alternate; the club pays dues.  Individuals may also run for a 4 year term seat, individual pays dues.  Monthly meeting at which endorsements are considered, resolutions and platforms are reviewed and endorsed.  Selects representatives to CADEM convention.

CADEM – the California Democratic Party. Delegates selected to each Assembly District every 2 years through elections held in each District (7 Men, 7 women). The County parties have a set number of delegates as well, assigned by each chartered County party. Annual meetings take place, resolutions and party platform changes are considered in alternate years by the E-Board.  Candidate endorsements take place every 2 years. E-Board meetings take place twice a year. Meetings alternate between sites in Northern and Southern California. Caucuses—Progressive, Environmental, Senior, Latino, Veteran’s, etc. CADEM.org

Democratic National Committee – delegates chosen to attend the convention every 4 years.  There are 3 ways of being selected and the application process is outlined and applications are available on the CADEM website.

Why do we need to organize? What and who do we need to organize? Volunteers of all ages, willingness to research, time taken out of the day to day routine

OUR COMMON PRINCIPLES:

Here are few:

  • Universal Health Care
  • Freedom of Religion for All
  • Social & Economic Justice
  • Ending Citizens United—taking money out of politics
  • Comprehensive Public Education
  • Climate change action
  • Universal Health Care
  • Social & Economic Justice
  • Public (not private charter school) education
  • Gender Equality
  • Reducing Gun Violence
  • Immigration Reform
  • Prison Reform
  • Resisting the Trump Agenda

There are barriers to progress, including hate speech and divisive language within the party. This doesn’t mean we don’t strive to make change, but name calling, yelling, and blaming with less than all the facts at hand will not help unite us.

What our club needs to keep growing and be strong:

  • More active board members, transition to new participants to survive as a thriving club.
  • A Membership Chairperson/Outreach
  • Voter registration coordinator – Folsom Lake College, New Citizens Events, and other opportunities.
  • Members who will research and become active in issues, and report on progress or other information to include on the website, Facebook page, and to present at a meeting.
  • Precinct captains
  • Hosts for phone banks
  • Educational outreach coordinator/liaison to like-minded groups
  • Activity coordinator – marches, inter-club tabling

Other ways to help:

501 C-4 Political donations to clubs and the Democratic Party are used to support the election of candidates/issues—End Citizens United, DPSC, CADEM, candidates. 501 C-3 organizations file Lawsuits, defend of protesters, support for programs facing massive cuts, etc. Sample list of Organizations to join/donate to – the ACLU, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Center, Planned Parenthood, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, Southern Poverty Law Center, the Brady Foundation, Americans Against Gun Violence, etc.

Despite everything, we are lucky to live in California. We just elected two-thirds majorities in both houses of the legislature, we have a Democratic governor, and our officials have made it clear they are behind the fight against Trump and his efforts to undo climate change laws, take away affordable health care, deport millions, and the rest. If any good can come from this, California may once again try to institute a single payer health care system, if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. They passed a system in 2008, only to be vetoed by then Gov. Schwarzenegger. We may have another chance to show the country a system that works!

But we must hold our leaders accountable, pay attention to their votes and action, and contact them regularly. Most of us in this area are represented in the state houses by two Republicans—Kevin Kiley and Ted Gaines. They will need to hear from us on those important issues! Some of us are represented by Ken Cooley, a Democrat who doesn’t always vote the way we like (he didn’t support overtime pay for farmworkers, for example.) He needs to hear from you as well. And our Congressman, Ami Bera, who many of us worked hard to elect, to his credit tries to cross party lines to get things done. But that sometimes means he will also sometimes vote for issues you may not approve of. Let him know as well!

Help for Childhood Immigrants

dacaDeferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is an immigration option for undocumented immigrants who came to the United States before the age of 16. Although DACA does not provide a pathway to lawful permanent residence, it does provide temporary protection from deportation, work authorization, and the ability to apply for a social security number. But President-Elect Trump has promised to end DACA when he takes office. Whether he keeps that promise or not, Trump will not be President until he is inaugurated on January 20, 2017. Until that time, DACA will remain in place and USCIS, the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, will continue to process both initial and renewal DACA requests.

It should also be noted that if Jeff Sessions is nominated and confirmed as Attorney General, he will likely push ending DACA and any immigration reform.

But our Congressman Ami Bera, (whose re-election was just recently confirmed), offers support for those in need.

One of the staff at Dr. Bera’s office contacted us with more information. They are advising people with DACA status to contact an immigration attorney through the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).  They noted that each case is approached individually, depending on each person’s needs, and that this group is the most trustworthy resource for up to date information. There is a link under their quick links to find a lawyer in each area and there are a number of attorneys in Sacramento.

The staff suggested contacting several and asking enough questions to sort out who would be the best fit for you.  Right now the US Congress and State Legislators are also trying to sort out how to work various issues out.

Lawyers can be expensive, and larger firms are usually more costly than smaller or individual firms, so be sure to ask what the costs are for a consultation, for hours of work, etc.

Also, if you’d like to talk to someone in Congressman Bera’s office you can call 916 635-0505 and ask for Jeanine.

American River Democrats make several endorsements

The American River Democrats’ September meeting was filled with information about upcoming issues, and the club made several endorsements for the November ballot.

Andrew Kehoe, an advocate for Sacramento’s Measure B was on hand to introduce us to the measure and the benefits it would bring to the area. Measure B is a half-cent sales tax targeted to transportation projects and maintenance in the county. Kehoe pointed out that with the current quarter cent tax expiring, the effect would be just a quarter cent above the current rate.

Mike Penrose of the Sacramento Transportation Authority was also on hand to provide more information about the impact and status. Measure B would adopt a “Fix-It-First” approach in the first five years of implementation-“filling pot holes” and making needed repairs and improvements to existing roads, distributing the money to Sacramento County communities and unincorporated county areas. It would also provide future funding for some larger scale projects, such as the Capital Southeast Expressway, a highway connecting Folsom, Rancho Cordova, and Elk Grove south of the 50 Freeway. Also, widening the Capital City Freeway between downtown and Interstate 80, extension of light rail service to the Natomas area and the airport, and much more.

There is still much concern about the environmental impact of some potential projects, especially Discovery Park if light rail is extended. Penrose pointed out that any new projects still have to go through environmental review and public approval process, and that Measure B only provides a funding mechanism.

The club voted to endorse Measure B. for more information visit www.MeasureB-Yes.com.

Melissa Romero of Californians Against Waste also joined us to discuss Proposition 67, the plastic grocery bag ban.

A state-wide ban one single use plastic grocery bags was passed by the state legislature in 2014, in an effort to reduce the overwhelming pollution caused by these lightweight, throwaway plastic bags, which end up trashing our streets, neighborhoods and parks, and often end up in our waterways and eventually the ocean (where waste plastic has become a huge problem.) The state was set to join dozens of individual communities (like the city of Sacramento) in banning their use, replacing them with re-usable bags. However, the plastic bag industry rushed to gather signatures to force the law into a ballot measure, delaying its implication, possibly nullifying it entirely.

The devastating environmental impact of the millions of bags we use daily is well-known, but visit www.cayeson67.org to learn more. The club voted to endorse a Yes vote on Prop. 67.

Another measure on the ballot that looks like a companion bill is Proposition 65. This measure, at first glance, may seem like an environmentally friendly move. It will establish that IF a plastic bag ban is passed, the money stores collect to provide re-usable bags will go to the Wildlife Conservation Fund.

There are a number of problems with this initiative, which was placed on the ballot by the same industry that is trying to kill the plastic bag ban. First of all, the reusable bags the stores may provide are not free—they will cost considerably more than the current bags, and more than the 10 cent minimum fee they will be required to charge. The stores will incur a loss every time a reusable bag is sold, both discouraging them to provide them, and forcing them to pass the loss on to consumers in higher prices for groceries—whether the customer bought a bag or brought their own.

Worse still, if passed, this measure will be in place even if Proposition 67 fails, waiting for the next time it is tried. And it is entirely possible that if both measures pass, and Proposition 65 gets more votes, its provisions could in effect nullify Proposition 67 entirely! (If both pass and 67 gets more votes, 65 will be nullified.)

The club voted to endorse a No Vote on Prop. 65.

Another guest at the September meeting was Brandon Rose, who is running for SMUD Board, District 1 (covering the eastern Folsom, Fair Oaks, Orangevale and Citrus Heights area.) Brandon is an Energy Specialist in the California Energy Commission’s Renewable Energy Office, Air Pollution Specialist with the California Environmental Protection Agency, and an elected official on the Fair Oaks Recreation and Park District for the past 8 years. He has also served as Chair of the Sacramento County Treasury Oversight Committee and President of the Environment Council of Sacramento. He has the endorsement of six current SMUD Board members, including Nancy Bui Thompson of District 2 (Folsom/Rancho Cordova.) Visit www.BrandonRose.net to learn more about him and his goals and background.

The club voted to endorse Brandon Rose for SMUD Board of Directors.

For a list of all official endorsements by the American River Democrats, see our Endorsement Page on this site.

17 Propositions in the Fall Election

At the American River Democrats meeting in August, Ken presented a discussion of the seventeen choices California voters will be facing in the November Election.

Here is a handy guide to what they each mean, and recommendations on each.

2016 props

Of course, the get the full details of any of them, review your Voter’s Information Guide when it arrives in the mail, or visit the California Secretary of State’s website.

American River Democrats endorse Rob Rowen

Rob Rowen speaks at the American River Democrats' May meeting.

Rob Rowen speaks at the American River Democrats’ May meeting.

Rob Rowen, candidate for California Senate District 1, visited the American River Democrats at their May meeting, and received their official endorsement in his race to unseat Ted Gaines. The large district represents Folsom, El Dorado County, including El Dorado Hills and Lake Tahoe, Placer County, including Rocklin and Auburn, and all the further north counties-Shasta, Lassen, Modoc, Siskiyou, Nevada, Plumas, Sierra, and Alpine.

Rowen shared some of his interesting history. He attended Shasta College, and was a pitcher in the Los Angeles Dodgers minor league system in the mid 1980’s. He then joined the Army, and followed that by starting his own business – a trucking company out of Redding, California. An accident resulted in back injuries requiring five surgeries, and the possibility that he would never walk again. “I’m a fighter” Rowen said of overcoming those injuries.

Rowen describes himself as a lifelong “moderate” Democrat, who grew up in a union household, understanding the working class struggles. His father was a teacher, and his brother is a 20-year veteran of the police. His moderate stance stems from his support of gun rights. He is a gun owner, as many of the rural citizens from his area are, but he does support the level of gun control currently in place in California, including background checks, and assault weapon restrictions.

One of Rowen’s key issues is health care, and mental health. Homelessness seen in cities in the first district like Redding, and beyond to the rest of California and the U.S., is the result of a broken mental health care system. Income inequality is also contributing to homelessness, and hasn’t been this bad in a century.

Rowen said he’d like to invest in mental health treatment, and expand availability by allowing more treatment from Nurse Practitioners. It used to be that County Hospitals all had mental health care available, but that has gone away over the past 30 years. While he applauds the progress of the Affordable Care Act, the problem is that it didn’t make more doctors available, especially in high poverty areas. He supports moving to a single payer system.

Meanwhile, the incumbent, Ted Gaines, has had eight years to help bring changes and help to the district, but has instead measured his success in his ability to raise money for his campaigns. Gaines has raised $360,000 from the insurance industry (and ran for Insurance Commissioner last election.) Rowen said he will not take corporate money for his campaign, because he doesn’t want to be beholden to their interests.

Rowen has participated in debates in the campaign, but since Ted Gaines was not willing to join in, they have been “Tea Party” events featuring Rowen and Republican Steven Baird. Rowen said that he has learned that Gaines is very unpopular in the rural north. He has only been to Siskiyou County once in his eight years, and has accomplished little to support his district. In fact, when Rowen was first urged to run for office, it was suggested that he challenge Brian Dahle, the Assemblyman from the same area. But Rowen said that despite their many differences, he could see that at least Dahle cared about getting things done for the people of the area, something he has not seen Gaines work for.

rowenforsenate

Rowen said that he is centered around doing for others, and is “fiscally constrained”, wanting to insure that taxpayer money is spent carefully and where it makes sense. He wants to support improving fire, water, infrastructure, jobs, veterans issues, and healthcare for the Northern California constituents of the first district.

After his visit to the American River Democrats, the club voted unanimously to endorse him. He will need to get enough votes to be in the top two of the three candidates in the June 7 election in order to appear on the ballot in November. (If he doesn’t, District 1 voters will have a choice between a business conservative and a tea party/state of Jefferson advocate.)

To learn more about Rowen, visit RowenForSenate.com.