Cal Voters for Obamacare; Back Increasing Tobacco Tax and Wages

A new Field Poll released this week sheds some interesting light on California's progressive attitudes regarding health care. It finds strong and growing support for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), and for expanding Medi-Cal health services to the state's undocumented residents. An expanded Field Poll release also shows registered voters in the Golden State overwhelmingly in favor of an initiative proposal to raise the cigarette tax by $2 a pack to provide more money for health care. The same survey finds even higher support for a hefty increase in the state's minimum wage. The independent, non-partisan Field Poll, established by Mervin Field in 1947 as the California Poll, has long been the most accurate ongoing assessment of political opinion in California.  

The Affordable Care Act is growing in popularity in California. 62% say they favor the law, and only 33% oppose it. The survey found that "Opinions about this cross party lines, and include not only large majorities of Democrats and no party preference voters, but a plurality of Republicans as well." This is likely based on an even stronger favorable perception of the ACA's implementation here, as Covered California. "More than two in three voters (68%) believe that the state's implementation of the ACA in California been successful, while just 20% believe it has not."

The Medi-Cal question found that 58% of registered voters agreed with covering undocumented immigrants not eligible for ACA, against 39% opposed. Last year's numbers were 51% to 45%, evidencing that the humanitarian progressive bent in California opinion is gathering strength.

In May health and labor groups introduced an initiative to hike cigarette taxes by $2 a pack and use the expected $1.5 billion in new revenue to increase reimbursement rates and expand coverage to more people for Medi-Cal. The SEIU union, California Medical Association, California Dental Association and American Cancer Society have thus far raised $2 million to advance the measure.  Field Poll found California voters backing the idea 67% to 30%, with 50% of all voters saying they "strongly favor" the increase. Another 17% say the "somewhat favor" the higher tax. California presently taxes cigarettes 87 cents a pack, a lower rate than 30 other states.

The California minimum wage was raised legislatively from $8 to $9 on July 1, 2014 and will go up to $10 on January 1, 2016. The new proposal would hike it by an additional $1 an hour every year for the next five years, to $15 an hour by 2021. State voters strongly approve, 68% to 30%.

If California goes ahead and implements these ideas it will provide an interesting large-scale test case for the nation as a whole. Here's hoping they all pass.    

Why Iran Nuclear Agreement Makes Sense

The Iran nuclear deal will be voted on in the House and Senate in about a month. Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico is a member of the Intelligence Committee, an engineer, and well-informed on nuclear issues. After examining the prospective deal agreed upon between Iran, the US and five other major powers, he has come to the conclusion that it merits his strong support. It is the best way to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon while avoiding a new war in the Middle East. Heinrich wrote an  op-ed for the Albuquerque Journal. He has waived any copyright issues in the hope of spreading his message and trying to counter the $40 million advertising blitz currently underway by neoconservative war hawks and their wealthy backers. Their campaign urging congressional rejection of the agreement  would likely leave no other option than war. I have posted Senator Heinrich's article below.

Iran deal is a historic opportunity
By Sen. Martin Heinrich / Democrat, New Mexico
Thursday, July 30, 2015 In the first decade of this century when we were entangled in the War in Iraq, Iran’s nuclear program surged ahead rapidly, adding thousands of centrifuges, building complex nuclear facilities and stockpiling highly enriched uranium.
In the absence of real negotiations and before the most recent sanctions, Iran built a nuclear infrastructure that went from 164 centrifuges in 2003 to 19,000 centrifuges today and included large quantities of 20 percent enriched uranium that could quickly be enriched to weapons grade material.
When evaluating the deal we achieved with our allies and partners to prevent Iran from being able to build a nuclear weapon, context, data and details like these matter. Perhaps the most critical data point: Without a deal, Iran could acquire enough highly enriched material for a bomb in 60-90 days.
With a deal, Iran must reduce its stockpile by 98 percent. It must cut its number of centrifuges by two-thirds. And it must allow 24/7 inspections and continuous monitoring of its nuclear infrastructure.
Further, a mechanism is in place that will allow inspections of sites should we suspect covert action being taken to build a bomb anywhere else in Iran.
This accord breaks each path to a weaponized nuclear device, including any potential covert effort. We should welcome each of those developments as major steps toward regional and international security.
I have studied both the science and the politics of the nuclear-age world we live in from an early age. I grew up listening to my father, who served in the Navy in the ’50s, tell what it was like to watch a nuclear blast firsthand and to see the formation of a mushroom cloud over Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands. While studying engineering at the University of Missouri, I worked at one of the largest research reactors in the United States. More recently, I have seen the centrifuges dedicated to the peaceful production of nuclear energy, which are housed in New Mexico.
In the House and now on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have served on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which sets policy on non-proliferation and our nuclear deterrent. I also serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where I have received numerous briefings on Iran’s nuclear program and capabilities. So I am well acquainted with the steps necessary to successfully construct a nuclear weapon and to detect such activity.
The comprehensive, long-term deal achieved last week includes all the necessary tools to break each potential Iranian pathway to a nuclear bomb. Further, it incorporates enough lead time so that, should Iran change its course, the United States and the world can react well before a device could be built; a scenario I hope never occurs, but one that leaves all options on the table, including the military option.
Many of my colleagues in the Senate will object to this historical accomplishment, saying that we could have done better. However, they fail to offer any realistic alternatives.
The only concrete alternative, should Congress reject this deal, comes from my colleague, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who has suggested a military strike.
While the military option will always remain on the table, it should remain our absolute last resort. Our military and intelligence leaders have looked at the potential repercussions should a military conflict with Iran occur. That path would provoke retaliation and very likely lead to a nuclear armed Iran in a matter of just a few years.
For too long, our country has been engaged in military conflicts that have cost our nation dearly in blood and treasure. We must always be ready at a moment’s notice to defend our country, our allies and our interests, but we must also be willing to avoid conflict whenever a diplomatic option is present and possible.
I am optimistic this accord is in the best interest of our nation and our allies. I am still deeply distrustful of Iran’s leadership. But, to make peace, you must negotiate with your enemies.
Any deal with Iran will not be without risk, but the risks associated with inaction are far more dire. This deal sets the stage for a safer and more stable Middle East, and a more secure United States. We must seize this historic opportunity.

Trump Phenomenon Tip of Iceberg

What's going on with the Donald Trump phenomenon? I got a note from friend Tim Garner who sent me a link to an opinion piece by Glenn Reynolds in USA Today expounding on the popularity of not only Donald Trump but also Bernie Sanders. You can go to it here. Reynolds's basic point is that the political class is out of touch with everyday Americans and their concerns, and people are looking for solutions outside of the bromides they typically hear from the same old insiders. Reynolds writes, "Trump’s rise is, like that of his Democratic counterpart Bernie Sanders, a sign that a large number of voters don’t feel represented by more mainstream politicians." He is unquestionably right in that assessment.

Where he isn't right is in his contention that the "ruling class" and the political class are the same thing, and in his statement that the big problem is that this ruling class presents an unbroken wall where "On many issues...the Republican and Democratic establishments agree." Anyone who has been paying even minimal attention the past several years is aware of the across-the-board gridlock resulting from irreconcilable Republican and Democratic views on things like health care, taxes, war, immigration, LGBT rights, climate change, the minimum wage, international relations, Medicare and Social Security. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have made reversing income inequality the cornerstones of their respective campaigns, for instance. In neither of the recent top-tier nor the second string Republican debates was one word spoken of it. The ruling class are the billionaires with the money. They work hard to game the system so that the political class are their puppets. The GOP almost completely is. The Democrats are not yet fully so.     

There is no question these candidates are indeed, as the author states, tapping into an angst among the rank and file that feels increasingly alienated from the political and/or ruling class. The root of the angst is that the standard of living and opportunity ladder for average Americans has stagnated for over three decades now. The problem of focusing this discontent is that the disaffected are not of one mind. The Tea Party types who like Trump (Cruz, Paul, Carson, et. al.) think government is the problem and want to devolve it. The Leftish types who like Sanders think corporatism and plutocracy are the problem and want strong government under the people's control to rein in this ruling class and force it to share the profits with the workers and provide more opportunity (free college, medical care and so on) to the average folks. It will be fascinating (maybe frightening) to see how this eventually explodes.

Getting the billionaire and corporate money out of the political campaign process is, in my view, the prerequisite for heading off the explosion and restoring better responsiveness. I am, as you likely know, in sympathy with what I referred to as the Leftish analysis.

Book Appearance in Fresno

I've been invited to introduce my book Liberally Speaking: Why Liberalism is Right for America to the Fresno County Democratic Party Central Committee's monthly meeting tonight.  This will be a 5-10 minute thumbnail near the beginning of the meeting's agenda. The meeting begins at 6:30 P.M. I will be able to offer signed books for sale, which are $21.60 including tax.

The Fresno Democratic Party meets at its office, 1035 U Street, Fresno, California, 93721-1419. I would like to thank Fresno Central Committee members Doug and Estella Kessler for extending this invitation and getting me on the agenda. They have also been good friends of the College of the Sequoias Young Democrats.

Is the USA Still a Democracy?

Former President Jimmy Carter made an important statement on the Thom Hartmann radio program July 27. Asked about the effects of the Citizens United and McCutcheon Supreme Court decisions that have opened the political process up to unlimited secret campaign contributions, Carter said the United States is becoming an oligarchy. Hear his comments here.
 
 Here is the text of the exigent part of the interview.

HARTMANN: Our Supreme Court has now said, “unlimited money in politics.” It seems like a violation of principles of democracy. … Your thoughts on that?

CARTER: It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over. … The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody’s who’s already in Congress has a lot more to sell to an avid contributor than somebody who’s just a challenger.

This follows a recent New York Times story that found more than half the $388 million raised by the Republican candidates for president in June came from just 130 families and their businesses.