Anderson@Large

California is Busted

I am headed to California, which is on the brink of a fiscal meltdown. The not-so-golden state is so broke it can’t buy a crippled crab a crutch.

I went to Stanford Law School because it is located in California. While I am a city girl to the bone, I enjoyed wine tastings in Napa Valley, camping in Yosemite National Park and hiking in Muir Woods.

I lived in Russian Hill for a few years after graduation. One of my favorite pastimes was walking up the hills of San Francisco.

When I went out of town, I would look back at the skyline and wave good-bye. But that was then. Now, I shake my head and think, WTF?!

San Francisco spends $180 million each year on homeless programs, but the city has lost control of its public spaces. Street people sleep on sidewalks and panhandlers are everywhere.

And get this: Illegal immigrants are given sanctuary and a photo identification card to make it easier for them to access city services.

San Francisco’s $438 million budget deficit is a microcosm of a state that is spending beyond its means.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger acknowledged that "health care and other services for illegal immigrants cost California taxpayers as much as $6 billion a year." With a projected $24.3 billion deficit, the state is expected to run out of money in July.

And as for a federal bailout, President Barack Obama and taxpayers say, No way, Jose.

Besides, the federal government is also busted.

CA Supremes Uphold Same-Sex Marriage Ban

In November, California voters passed Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

The ballot initiative passed 52 percent to 48 percent.

Opponents of Prop 8 didn’t like the election outcome and immediately filed lawsuits to overturn the will of the people.

Earlier this week, the California Supreme Court upheld the ban on gay marriage. In a 6-1 decision, the Supremes set aside their “own personal beliefs and values” and ruled:

Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

The Court let stand the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed before the measure went into effect.

Andy Pugno, chief legal counsel of ProtectMarriage.com, said no big deal:

Second, the Court’s decision to continue recognizing those same-sex couples who obtained marriage licenses prior to the passage of Prop 8 should be kept in perspective. Remember that a large number of the marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples were for out-of-state residents traveling to California -- which will not be recognized anyway in the vast majority of their home states. Moreover, if California goes as Massachusetts did after legalizing gay marriage, a substantial portion of the still-recognized gay marriages will be dissolved by divorce within a few years. In the end, only a tiny number of gay marriages will continue to be recognized. What really matters is that the vast majority of what was at stake in this case -- the right of the voters to amend the state constitution to restore traditional marriage going forward -- ultimately proved to be a complete victory for us!

While opponents of the ruling are not able to exchange wedding vows, they vow to “win marriage back.” They plan to put an initiative on the ballot in 2010 to restore “marriage equality in California.” This time, they will reach out to African Americans. Their message: Gay marriage is a civil right.

On Saturday, supporters of gay marriage will march from Selma, California to Fresno “in a symbolic sign of respect to the social movements before us.”

In the meantime, gay and lesbian couples have the wedding bell blues.

Obama Picks Sotomayor for SCOTUS

President Barack Obama’s nomination of federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is being widely praised.

For now, Republicans are holding their fire. In a statement, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said:

Republicans look forward to learning more about federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor’s thoughts on the importance of the Supreme Court’s fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law. Supreme Court vacancies are rare, which makes Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination a perfect opportunity for America to have a thoughtful discussion about the role of the Supreme Court in our daily lives. Republicans will reserve judgment on Sonia Sotomayor until there has been a thorough and thoughtful examination of her legal views.

Rush Limbaugh, the self-styled “leader of the conservative movement,” is not withholding judgment. Limbaugh told his listeners:

But here is why, even though she may not be able to be stopped, here is why Sonia Sotomayor needs to be opposed by the Republicans as far as they can take it, because the American people need to know who Barack Obama really is, and his choice of Sonia Sotomayor tells everybody, if we will tell the story of her, who he is.

Whatever. Sotomayor’s confirmation will be smooth sailing.

But her supporters aren’t taking any chances. The Coalition for Constitutional Values, spearheaded by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Alliance for Justice and People for the American Way, is mobilizing grassroots support for Sotomayor.

For more info, go here.

African Americans Still Hoping for Change

During a news conference marking his 100th day in office, President Barack Obama punted the question about African Americans’ double-digit unemployment rate.

Dr. Ron Walters, director of the African American Leadership Center and professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland, took note:

However, Obama does not seem to understand two vital things. First, because these vulnerable communities were suffering before the current set of crises, if they are to be made viable (and not go back to a “normal” state of disadvantage), it will take double the effort. Second, his theory seems to presuppose that African Americans and others have now -- or will have -- equal access to the resources that he has made possible, without state and local politics that favor Whites and other groups. So, where are the supportive tools? Without them, no targeted strategies can be successful.

In a recent letter to the editor, Charles Ogletree Jr., a Harvard law professor and informal adviser to Obama, observed the playing field is still not level:

Given the abundant evidence of continued inequality -- including the effects of unconscious or implicit bias -- in the United States, I argue that the NAACP is not only very necessary but is placing its emphasis exactly where it belongs: on dismantling structural impediments to full citizenship for African Americans in this country.

A new report from Demos.org, “The Downslide Before The Downturn,” found that 84 percent of the black middle class is standing on shaky ground”:

A legacy of racially biased policies plays a role in influencing economic security. But the vulnerability of the African-American and Latino middle classes must also be addressed by policies supporting the basics that will strengthen the middle class as a whole. Based on the areas in which families have lost the most ground in recent years, the needed policy efforts include helping families to build assets and reduce debt, addressing the housing crisis, and addressing the healthcare crisis

Still, polls show African Americans are increasingly optimistic. But their optimism is based more on hope than reality.

Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, told The Hill:

This is less about African-Americans saying they’ve experienced economic progress and more about saying the election of President Obama sent a signal to them about their place in American society.

Memorial Day 2009

Summer unofficially begins this weekend. So, get ready for muffin tops, sagging pants and tramp stamps.

Before heading off to the beach or an air-conditioned Cineplex, say a prayer for the 4,299 Americans who have died in Iraq. And there's still no end in sight.

In his Memorial Day Proclamation, President Barack Obama saluted the men and women who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom:

Members of the United States Armed Forces have placed our Nation's safety before their own for generations. From the first shots fired at Lexington and Concord to the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, these brave patriots have taken on great risks to keep us safe, and they have served with honor and distinction. All Americans who have enjoyed the blessings of peace and liberty remain in their debt.

As we remember the selfless service of our fallen heroes, we pray for God's grace upon them. We also pray for all of our military personnel and veterans, their families, and all those who have lost loved ones in the defense of our freedom and safety.

Lest we forget.

Blowing the Whistle on Stimulus Spending

Well, that didn’t take long. During the White House Recovery and Reinvestment Act Implementation Conference, Vice President Joe Biden issued a warning to the nation’s governors:

We’ve asked a lot of the American people, a great deal of the American people, in supporting this effort. And so this is a different deal. This is not your usual federal grant going to states. And I want to be blunt with you, off-script here: The fact of the matter is all that is legal is not acceptable. Let me say it again. Just because it may be legal, it is not acceptable -- some of it.

New York Gov. David Paterson’s former ousted chief of staff, William Cunningham, reportedly was negotiating a new employment contract while he was “working on the distribution of federal stimulus funds.” If the reports are accurate, Cunningham’s actions are neither legal nor acceptable.

Newsday reports:

Gov. David A. Paterson’s former chief of staff took a brief turn helping the state distribute stimulus money on Long Island before he exited government for an executive job at North Shore-LIJ Health System.

But if William J. Cunningham III is valued by North Shore for all his many friends in government, in his role as a vice president in charge of governmental relations, those ties cut both ways. Experts say he may have landed himself in an ethical minefield because North Shore is seeking more than $200 million in stimulus aid from his old boss.

The state’s ethics law prohibits Cunningham, as a former member of the governor’s staff, from lobbying any state agency on any matter for two years after he leaves government. He is barred for life from dealing with any specific matter he worked on for the state. And because he served as a top deputy to Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi until he went to work for Paterson in April 2008, he is still barred from dealing with the county for another year under Nassau’s ethics code.

In their, um, defense, the health system says Cunningham will focus on lobbying Washington. Apparently, his new employer didn’t get the memo about the restrictions on lobbyists. So, they may not know that ProPublica is tracking who’s lobbying on the stimulus.

Biden also asked the American people for their help in keeping them honest.

As the founder of Tracking Change Wiki and member of the New York State Stimulus Oversight Working Group, I’m doing my part.

The Stimulus Oversight Working Group may file a complaint with the New York State Commission on Public Integrity calling for an investigation of Cunningham’s alleged ethics violations.

If you see something, say something. Become a citizen watchdog with ProPublica’s Adopt a Stimulus Project.

Tea Party Time

Like millions of Americans, I pay my credit card balance in full and on time. I’m old school so I use credit cards for the convenience and the rewards programs such as Amtrak Guest Rewards.

I grew up in New York City, where nearly 70 percent of the residents are renters. While the American Dream of homeownership never resonated with me, I understand why it’s in my interest to help distressed borrowers.

Yes, credit card companies rip off consumers. President Barack Obama’s call to protect American credit card holders was long overdue.

And yes, the Senate and House are to be commended for passing credit card reform legislation that bans usurious and misleading practices.

But it’s neither fair nor “okay” to stick me with the bill for helping irresponsible credit card users.

The New York Times reports:

At first glance, the sweeping credit card legislation that passed the Senate on Tuesday looks like a huge victory for consumers. The bill, after all, contains relief from penalty fees and certain interest rate spikes.

But for people who pay off their bills each month, and milk the card rewards programs for everything they’re worth, there is some cause for concern.

For months now, the card companies have been threatening to cut rewards programs sharply to make up for revenue lost because of the new restrictions.

I’m a coffee drinker. But if fees are imposed on me for doing the right thing, I can learn to like tea parties.