Sweet Melissa

Healthy San Francisco: The D.C. - S.F. Connection

Those of you concerned with the fate of Healthy San Francisco — The City’s universal health care plan — ought to be paying close attention to the replacement of United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who will retire this summer.

By way of background, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association has challenged the mandate that employers pay a certain amount per employee, per hour to the program. According to the association, the employer contribution part conflicts with federal law, and since federal law always wins, the requirement that employers pay into the system is unlawful. The city attorney has argued that there is no such conflict. The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether it will take up the case.

In October 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court asked U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan to weigh in on whether this case is important enough for the court to decide. It seems that Kagan is a busy gal these days, what with being on the short list to replace retiring Stevens, and has yet to issue an opinion. (There’s no deadline, but these things are usually done within three to four months.)

I can’t say that I blame her for not wanting to touch this issue while the nomination process is lingering. On the one hand, the Obama administration has recently made it clear that it supports “Progressive Federalism” — basically letting local governments experiment with solutions to various problems. On the other hand, business groups are concerned with the expense and burden of complying with the requirements of little Healthy San Franciscos around the nation. They are calling on Republicans to push for a more expansive view of federal jurisdiction.

You can bet that whoever is nominated to replace Stevens will have to answer questions about the scope of federal law, and Healthy San Francisco will be the example at the center of the controversy. Until then, don’t expect Kagan’s office to jump into the debate.

The Real Reason the Treasure Island Deal is Finally Complete

On December 16, Mistermayor announced that San Francisco and the Navy had finally reached a deal for the transfer of ownership of Treasure Island. This was no small feat, seeing as how The City has been trying to take over the unwanted federal land since 1993, when I was in high school and promising young governor from Arkansas was being sworn in as President.

“Why now?” is thus the obvious question. (Aside from all the hard work by folks in the Mayor’s office, and it being the holidays 'n all.) The main point of contention all these years has been the price of the island. The Navy wanted “fair market value” for the land, and in 2007 with a grim smile unilaterally announced that the price tag was $250 million dollars. Which was not gonna happen. With no real incentive to sell the land, city negotiators have been up against the Navy’s airtight “Because I’m your mother, that’s why,” argument ever since.

Cut to 2009: people are in desperate need of jobs and state and local governments are itching to begin developing federal land. Some members of congress thought it would be a good idea to officially tell the military that “fair market value” isn’t the only metric for negotiating deals to give over former bases. Other sorts of compensation models are now permitted as part of the Defense Authorization Act of 2009, which was passed in October. The Act also requires the Department of Defense to issue a report on its land shedding progress in about 6 months.

In the case of Treasure Island, in addition to the $105 million dollar set amount that developers will pay to the Navy on our behalf, some (as yet undetermined) amount of the net profits from development of the island will go to the Navy. This smacks of, “Oh, yeah? If you’re sure the island is such a treasure (worth $250 mil?!?) put your signature where your mouth is and agree to some profit sharing.” Obviously, I’m on board if that’s the message.

Once the Act directing the Navy to grow an imagination was in place, you can bet that The City’s request to get the island so we can create an eco-sustainable-Xanadu that runs on recycled unicorn horns was at the top of the list. The Democratic Party controls the White House, the House of Representatives and allegedly the Senate, plus our Congresswoman is the Speaker of the House and our Senators are senior stateswomen. (Suck it, rest of nation!) 

According to Director of Joint Development, Jack Sylvan, the next step is to draw up the paperwork and get the Board of Supervisors to sign off on the project. Hopefully, that process will not take another sixteen years. In 2006, the Board agreed to the basic terms of the development plan with only one dissenting vote: Ed Jew. 

Defense Authorization Act Provision in .pdf format here: Download Funding Provision in DAA

2006 Board Approval in .pdf here: Download Treasure Island Term Sheet Approval

Also: Check out Michael Cohen's response to Tony Hall's editorial on the subject of Treasure Island.

WEBSITE BONUS: Interested to understand how the financing for this works? Sure ya are! Here's the deal: 

Under the new plan, a development entity made up of 50 percent Lennar and 50 percent Wilson Meany Sullivan, will pay the Navy $105 million dollars and provide somewhere between $250 and $300 million to get the project up and running. Then some public financing will come in: the island will be subject to a special (read: extra) tax zone and the City will sell bonds based on that special tax revenue. Also, the overall amount of new taxes coming in to The City because of the development will be estimated and bonds sold on that revenue as well.

To sum up: it looks to me like paying for the project won’t hurt the City’s general fund, but the new tax dollars generated by the project won’t really help The City's coffers, either.

Send in the Frowns - Geithner, Bernanke, and Dudley dutifully attend public flogging

Constant Readers,

What a day! Did you watch the congressional hearing on the AIG bonuses? Of course you didn't. You're cool. Then Obama went and answered reporters' (largely stupid) questions (one guy asked whether Obama cares about his daughters' futures - ooooh good one! [nationwide eyeroll]) and that overshadowed the hearing. So, here are the three highlights:

First up is Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) who, undaunted by the fact that the issue at hand is another grain of sand in the hourglass counting down our demise, actually made a joke about weight loss when laying down ground rules for the hearing.

Oh, who am I kidding?A committee hearing without Barney Frank is like a Giants game without Barry Bonds - love him or hate him, it's a helluva lot more interesting when he's on the field. You tell 'em Frankie!

 

Then Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner showed that he is, in fact, human when he stopped short of calling the AIG  situation a steaming fetid turd that had to be flushed as quickly as possible; he basically says here that prior knowledge of executive pay and bonuses would not have made a difference in making the decision to bail out AIG. He almost seems like one of us. 

 

And finally, check out Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) pointing out the fact that when congress and the president's folks were briefed about the most recent AIG bailout, NO ONE ASKED about executive pay or bonuses.  I think we can safely file that away under "S" for "Shit That Will Never Happen Again." 

 

Want more? There will be another round of questions on Thursday.

--Melissa

Here's a story...of a man named Bobby...Bobby Jindal's Fifteen Minutes

Constant Readers,

There's an episode of the Brady Bunch called The Teeter-Totter Caper in which Bobby and Cindy, angry and hurt at being told they are too young to attend a wedding, attempt to beat the world's record for longest time on a teeter-totter. Media figures come out to cover the event but ultimately the kids fall asleep and fail to break the record of 124 hours.

Now, stay with me CRs, a connection is coming...

The Governor of Louisiana - a Republican named Bobby Jindal whose real first name is Piyush - reportedly chose the name "Bobby" after seeing an episode of The Brady Bunch. And much like his teeter-tottering namesake, he's been engaged in a big, dumb publicity stunt.

Here's what he's saying about the recent local stimulus bill:

On Meet the Press: "I think the best thing they could have done for example is to cut taxes on things like capital gains to lower tax brackets to get the private sector spending again.'' 

"The $100 million we turned down was temporary Federal dollars that would require us to change our unemployment laws. That would've actually raised taxes on Louisiana businesses."

On the White House lawn: "Certainly, I think this could've been a very different stimulus bill written, truly targeted at infrastructure, focused on the kinds of tax credits that get investments moving in private sector." 

And now Republicans are hailing Jindal as the conservative answer to Obama: He's brown! He's svelte! He's the son of immigrants!  He talks good! His wife is purty! Suck it, Democrats!

While I think reasonable minds can differ on whether the President's stimulus package for local governments is a good or bad idea, Bobby is trying to have it both ways - acting as the poster-boy for the anti-stimulus contingent, yet taking almost all the money - and is flat-out lying in the process. Here's what you need to know:

1. Jindal is only turning down $98.4 million dollars. And I use the work "only" because he's accepting $3.72 billion.  Yeah, he really put his foot down. 

2. Louisiana  will still get the $98.4 million. See, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) figured that the Governor of his state, Mark Stanford, would not accept stimulus money (this only works if people use it, y'all) so he inserted a clause that allows state legislatures to vote to accept stimulus money even if the governors don't want to.  And since the money is distributed upon passage of a resolution accepting funding, it doesn't look like a veto would stop the flow of cash. (Sec. 1607(b), (c).)

Democrats are a majority in both the Louisiana State House of Representatives and the State Senate, so you can be they'll vote to get that money.

3. The money Jindal is foregoing is to expand unemployment benefits. What are these benefits? There's two kinds:

a. Reportedly, $32.8 million would go to Louisiana if they allowed people who only worked for three months to get benefits - current La. law requires a person to have worked for one year to collect unemployment.

b. And the state could get $65.6 million if they loosened their laws further to do things like extend benefits to part-time workers or to people who leave their jobs for compelling family reasons. (42 U.S.C. sec. 1103(f)(3).)

4. Jindal's argument against taking the money is that, once the federal money runs out, the changed laws will still remain in force, and will cost businesses $12 million per year in increased taxes - which is what funds unemployment coffers.

You'd think this Republican would know a thing or two about sunset provisions - since that's how they sold us tax cuts during the Bush administration. A "sunset" provision is a built-in expiration date on a law, so changes to the La. unemployment laws could be written to automatically end in 2010.

But Jindal knows all this. He's not dumb, he's just loving the publicity of seeming fiscally conservative even in the face of his own hypocrisy and misinformation. He's scheduled to give the Republican rebuttal to Obama's speech tonight - where I'm betting it will become clear Jindal has bitten off more than he can chew. He'll criticize the stimulus package (while accepting 98% of it) and kiss his own ass for foregoing a teensy (yet important) part of it, meanwhile most Americans support the plan and love Obama.

Step away from the teeter-totter, Bobby. This will only end badly.

-Melissa

Thank You, Kansas City

Constant Readers,

I was doing some research for Thursday's page in The Examiner and decided to flip on CSpan to catch some of the hearing on the Madoff scandal at the House Financial Services Committee. (It's been a slow week in local politics.) The hearing was supposed to yield some grandiose ideas for systemic changes in the enforcement office of the Securities and Exchange Commission.  (Complaints to the S.E.C. about Madoff spanned almost 10 years people. Clearly, there is some 'splaining to do.)

Which might have been possible if any one of the Grade A ball-dropping douchebags from the enforcement arm of the S.E.C. were actually there to be publicly humiliated. Imagine my disappointment when the only folks who showed up were S.E.C Inspector General David Kotz and Stephen Harbeck, chief executive of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. Obviously, since Kotz's office has not completed its investigation into the S.E.C.'s galactic bungling, all Kotz could do was sit there and agree with the angry committee members and promise to "get to the bottom" of all this.

For his part, Harbeck explained that the SIPC is funded by the securities industry, but is limited to giving victims of theft $500k apiece. (The SIPC has about $1.6 billion to make payouts, so you know, good luck with all that.) If [um- "when"] they run out of money, he explained, they'll just come and ask congress for more!

So, I zoned out and continued pecking away to the hum of impotent and exasperated rage in the background until Emanuel Cleaver, II (D-MO) spoke up. This certainly got my attention. I don't know how Kotz kept a straight face, but I would have audibly giggled, then snorted, then had to leave the room.

As we approached the end of the 4.5 hour hearing, Congressman Al Green (D-TX) finally let loose with a pun I'm sure he'd been dying to make all day...

But lest you think this wasn't a serious hearing, I'm including here the testimony of Allan Goldstein, who lost his entire life savings to the Madoff. It's sad, y'all.

Not that we needed any more reason to be upset at Madoff. And the people from the S.E.C. who weren't there.

--Melissa

The Patriot Act: Bill Richardson Will Not Be Commerce Secretary

Constant Readers,

There is something maddeningly familiar about New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's recent withdrawal from consideration as Commerce Secretary.

Is it the fact that he is the King of the Pump-Fake - having withdrawn from consideration as John Kerry's Vice-President, the U.S. Presidential race and now Commerce Secretary?

• No...that's not exactly it. 

Is it because his defense of the legal investigation that is causing the fatal delay is worded so carefully as to be suspicious?  Here's a game: one of these statements was made by Rod Blagojevich, and one was made by Richardson. Can you tell the difference?

(a) "I'm here to tell you right off the bat that I am not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing..." 

(b) "Let me say unequivocally that I and my Administration have acted properly in all matters..."

The answer doesn't really matter because, as you can see, neither takes issue with the facts. Only that those facts don't constitute a crime or wrongdoing. (In Richardson's case, the facts aren't pretty - see bottom of post.)  In a pay-to-play investigation, it's hard to convince the public of one's innocence when you admit to accepting contributions from the same company that "won" a lucrative contract within months of the "gift." This hairsplitting about criminal culpability is both common and useless in the court of conventional wisdom.

In case you are wondering: (a) is Blagojevich and (b) is Richardson. 

Note that New Mexico was recently ranked by journalists as the third-most politically corrupt state in the union; beating out Illinois - #10 - but losing to Rhode Island at #1 and Louisiana at #2. Really, Rhode Island?

• But no, familiar as Richardson's defense is, that's not what I'm thinking of either...

Is it the fact that his withdrawal speech, to wit: "I could not in good conscience ask the President-elect and his Administration to delay for one day the important work that needs to be done," sounds derisory and disingenuous coming from a man who admittedly shirked his duties as governor for at least a year while running for President? Are we supposed to believe that he is now selflessly dutiful? 

• Hey! That's it! That's the part we've heard so often!

This: "there is nothing wrong and I was not asked to step down - I'm just being a good citizen" baloney sounds just like the old, "I'm leaving to spend more time with the wife and kids" line. Which invariably means something like: (1) I want to go rob department stores, (2) I want to divorce my wife and get a lucrative lobbying job, or (3) I gave government contracts to my friends and then lied about it.

In other words: Duck! Because it sounds like there is something wrong and he did have to step down.

In this case, it is likely more specifically thus:

(1) the evidence against Richardson/CDR is stronger than Richardson thought in November when he told Obama's people that it was no big deal, and (2) Rahm Emanuel will cut a motherfucker. Seriously. He's scary. You better not even think about embarrassing Obama on Rahm's watch. So, it's not like Richardson really had a choice here once he learned that the case against him is not going to magically disappear. 

Great statesman or not, for now, Richardson will have to settle for being the Governor of New Mexico. Until Batman takes over, that is. 

--Melissa 

BONUS: Here's quick timeline of allegations against Richardson and CDR

October 2003: New Mexico state legislature approves Governor Richardson’s Investment Partnership plan (GRIP) whose purpose was to refinance $400 million in state bonds and to sell new bonds to pay for transportation infrastructure improvements. Richardson had been shopping the plan around since at least September of 2003. (Download GRIP Endorsement.)

October 3, 2003: David Rubin, President of CDR Financial Products Inc., a Beverly Hills, California-based company gives $25k  to Moving America Forward Inc., a political action committee formed by Richardson.

March 2004: Of six bidders, CDR is selected to advise the New Mexico Finance Authority on interest-rate swaps and restructuring escrow funds for $1.6 billion of transportation bonds issued by the agency.  CDR ultimately made $1.48 million on the deal ($951,566 for advising on derivatives tied to the bond issues and $443,265 for restructuring the escrow funds of refunded bonds).

May 2004: CDR gives $75k to ¡Si Se Puede! Boston 2004 Inc., formed to help pay Richardson's expenses at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. 

2005: Rubin gives $10k to Richardson's gubernatorial re-election campaign.

Thus, instead of denying that he engaged in sketchy behavior, Richardson's defense apparently will be that he genuinely believed this Beverly Hills financial products peddler was just interested New Mexico state politics.  Ahem. Okay. Good luck with all that.

Now that we're all feelin' patriotic...- UPDATED

UPDATE TO THIS STORY: Seems like the Charmless Chambliss went on Fox News and said that the reason he's been forced into a runoff is because there was a "high percentange of minority vote" and "we weren't able to get enough of our folks out on Election Day."

You can see the video and read about some other unsurprisingly awful statements he's made here.

Constant Readers,

Allow me to introduce you to Max Cleland, a former Democratic United States Senator from the great State of Georgia, where I was born and raised. Here is a short clip to give you a little flavor of his awesomeness. 

So, why is Mr. Cleland a former senator? Because back in 2002, a douchenoozle named Saxby Chambliss defeated Cleland by shamelessly exploiting post 9-11 fear and painting Cleland as soft on national defense. 

Did I mention Cleland is a Vietnam veteran?

And that he is missing both legs below the knee and his right forearm as a result? 

And yet, Saxby Chambliss (who has never served in the military) ran this ad against Cleland:  

But Mel (one might ask) we've come so far since then! We've just seen the triumph of hope over fear on a national scale! Why in hell are you telling us all this?

Because a Democrat named Jim Martin just challenged Saxby Chambliss for his senate seat. And since neither man got 50%+1 of the vote (a libertarian got about 3%) there will be a runoff on December 2. And this is not just any old senate seat. With 57 democrats now in the Senate, we need to get as close as we can to the magic number of 60 democrats in the senate.

[Note: It takes 60 votes to close debate and vote on an item. Without the ability to close debate, Republicans can filibuster all day long and prevent the Senate from ever voting on things Republicans don't like. This is one reason why, despite the fact that the Dems have had a majority in the Senate since 2006 (if you include Independents) they haven't been able to do much.]

Incidentally, Jim Martin's son lives in San Francisco and the Martin family is close with the Darden family. The Dardens and the Griffins (yeah, us) attended the same church in Marietta, GA. George "Buddy" Darden, was a longtime member of the House of Representatives, and a mentor to  me when I  first got interested in politics in high school. He even got me my first job as an intern. His wife, Lillian, was my kindergarten teacher. Small world, huh?

Anyway, for all these reasons (and because I'd be there anyway) I'll be attending a fundraiser for Jim Martin's runoff effort on Tuesday, November 11 from 6pm-9pm at the House of Shields. Suggested donation is $50, but any amount works. You can also donate online here: http://www.actblue.com/page/sfbloggersformartin/

Jim's son Frank Martin, City Attorney Dennis Herrera and lots of other fancypants people will be there.

Incidentally: why is the event being held tomorrow? 

Because it is Veterans Day.

--Melissa

Dear America,

Thank you.

Love,
Melissa 

She Who Shall Not Be Named - Debate Primer

Constant Readers,

Y'all, I am totally breathless and can't get this post up fast enough! There's a video of a certain someone who will be debating Joe Biden tonight - but I can't embed it. That person is debating other candidates for the governorship of Alaska in 2006. It is long, but fascinating! (And I haven't been paying much attention to her, so forgive me if I am the last person to see this.)

Here it is: The 2006 Alaskan Gubernatorial Debate

Look at about 16:16 when she says she'd oppose abortion even if her own daughter was pregnant due to rape. Holyfuckingshit lady!

Many of you will be playing drinking games tonight while you watch the debate. If the 2006 debate is any indication as to how she'll do, expect her to:

1) Answer the question she wants to be asked (read: is prepared to ask) instead of the one actually posed. Twice asked to name bills passed by the legislature (one good, one bad) she instead named actions by the then-current governor. Though all politicians do this to some degree, the explicitness with which she does it made my stomach feel funny. Like when I'm watching American Idol auditions.

2) Give nonsensical answers. When asked where else in Alaska she'd like to live if not in Wasilla, she claimed "the Valley" - only the moderator pointed out that Wasilla is actually in the Valley. Even the audience was snickering.

3) Be a romanticizing pander-bear. She could not STFU about hunting, fishing, snowmobiling and other Alaskan-y things. It's good filler for when she has no idea what she's talking about. So, pretty much every question. Drinking when she does this could lead to death.

4) Avoid hypothetical questions citing the fact that they are hypothetical. For real.

5) Do a great job. Seriously. All her shortcomings aside, she did well in 2006. I'm no fan, but she should not be underestimated.

--Melissa

Straw Woman

Constant Readers,

As you know, I usually write about local politics, but several people have asked me about my thoughts on Sarah Palin. You know, because Sarah and I both have "mommy parts"...and, really, there's nothing more local than that.

Like a man who is sent out to get a silver necklace from Tiffany in a turquoise box but comes home with a turquoise necklace from a silver-haired woman named Tiffany, McCain has brought us a vice-presidential candidate who is female but not exactly what we independent ladies were looking for.

Instead of the ERA, we got the NRA.

Instead of a book reader, we got a book banner.

Instead of Hillary Clinton (or even Olympia Snowe!) we got a woman who has spent her whole life chasing and using male attention, most recently crossing the fine line from beauty pageant contestant to taxidermy aficionado.

Instead of economics and foreign policy experience, we got someone for whom economic policy is foreign. Just what John "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should" McCain needed…

Remember him?

Why would he pick such an unqualified disaster?

To win women voters? Puh-lease. Women who love Palin were already going to vote for McCain. The rest of us can see that Palin's nomination does for women what Clarence Thomas' appointment to the Supreme Court did for black people: nothing. Maybe worse.

Then why choose her?

So we'll sit around thinking of her daughter's virginity instead of the re-virginizing of the Republicans with their promises of promises of change after being in control for so long. So her husband's old DUI's will overshadow the drunken spending binge the Republicans have been on since 2003. So the crazy conservative love affair with Palin will dominate headlines freeing up McCain to woo independent voters.

Florence King once wrote that "familiarity doesn't breed contempt, it is contempt." And I have no doubt that, in time, the shine will wear off of Palin and she'll be added to history's list of unremarkable VP candidates. But the Republicans are banking on at least two months of this rodeo clown distracting the angry bull that is the American populace while they try to jump off and pretend they haven't been kicking us with spurs for eight years.

And so this is the first and last essay I will write about Palin because I, for one, will be advancing her the irrelevance promised by the passage of time.

As any hockey mom can tell you, we must keep our eye on the puck.

--Melissa