Good News: California Gets A New Senator

Yeah, Biden picked Kamala Harris as his running mate. It was probably the smart political move-- certainly better than Susan Rice, who he really wanted. Everyone seems to like the idea. Obama, who probably had a lot of influence on this choice, said "Joe Biden nailed this decision." David Axelrod coined a new word: "Kamalat." I can't imagine there is one Democratic Party careerist who isn't saying something positive, effusive, supportive. I'm not a Democratic Party careerist so let me just say I never voted for her when she ran for anything here in California and I'll be happy to keep that record going in November. Oh, yeah, she's absolutely better than Biden. I wonder if she'll try to talk him into keeping her pal Mnuchin in place after they win. In any case... I'm way more interested in who Gavin Newsom picks to replace her in the Senate, where she actually does have a stellar voting record, significantly to the left of where Newsom stands on most things.

The most reasonable-- relatively speaking-- right out of the box public comment I saw from any official group came from PDA executive director Alan Minsky:

As we saw during her own presidential campaign, Kamala Harris is a political weather vane. First she was for Medicare for All, then she wasn't. She failed for years to hold police accountable for gross misconduct in California, then touted her commitment to police accountability in the wake of George Floyd's murder. While her penchant for taking positions broadly palatable to the corporate donor class raises concerns about her dedication to progressive principles, her habit of aligning her stance with the prevailing political winds gives us some hope. We will fight every day to hold Vice President Harris to the higher ideals she often espouses, and make sure those winds blow decisively in the direction of a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and a level playing field for working families everywhere.  

Someone knocked on my door the other day. I wasn't expecting anyone. A door knock is strange these days. It was a young lady, appropriately masked, holding a clip board. She asked me to sign a petition for a recall of our bungling corporate Democratic governor. I was happy to. A friend of mine, from the upper echelon of the Democratic Party, called me 2 minutes after Biden announced that he had chosen Kamala as his running mate. My friend told me she hopes Newsom appoints himself to the Senate seat-- "At least we'd get him out of the state."

I don't think this Senate seat is going to a white male, not even one named Newsom. Cross front-runner Adam Schiff off the list, as well as desperate hopefuls Eric Swalwell and John Garamendi. I doubt Newsom will sell it to Tom Steyer. And, I know the whole genealogy thing, but-- like it or not-- Eric Garcetti is viewed as a white man.

My guess is that Newsom's going to pick a proven, well-qualified person with a minority background. There was an on-line rumble for Katie Porter but a freshman congresswoman (also white) is probably not what Newsom has in mind. I also think he's looking for someone from Southern California, which leaves out two other social media heroes-- Barbara Lee and Ro Khanna.

That leaves six people I think he's going to look at-- well, five, because he's not really going to look at Kevin De Leon because he hates him and, Kevin is probably going to run for mayor of L.A. anyway. My list is of all southern Californians, all accomplished members of minority communities and all probably popular choices. Congressmembers Karen Bass and Ted Lieu have a ton of relevant experience-- she was Speaker of the Assembly and he wrote and passed the best legislation out of Sacramento in decades. She's an African-American and he's an Asian-American. He's also a veteran, not a bad thing in the state with the most vets; and he's wildly popular for his outspoken criticism of Trump. If I was making the choice, I can't see how I would pick anyone but Ted. But I'm not; Newsom is and I imagine he's most likely going to chose a Latino.

So... Hilda Solis is very progressive, a former congresswoman who Obama picked to be his Secretary of Labor. She's currently an L.A. County Supervisor. I'd love to see her get the job and I think she'd be a great senator Californians would love.

Xavier Becerra is also a former member of Congress, currently serving as Attorney General, having taken that position when Harris left it to become a senator. He was once thought of as potentially "the next Speaker of the House" and he's been good at the jobs he's had and would also be a relatively popular choice.

I hear, though, that Newsom likes Alex Padilla, the Secretary of State, more. Presumably, a lot will be riding on how smooth the November elections in California go since that's Padilla's biggest job. (The new voting machines in L.A. sure suck bad and thanks to Brad Friedman I now don't know for certain if that's Padilla's fault or not.)

The Republican War Against Science Moves Over To The Senate

Heitkamp & Manchin also voted to confirm Scott Pruitt to the EPA

Wednesday, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra was tweeting about the dangers of the Senate passing a series of regulatory rollbacks that House conservatives already passed in January. Bob Goodlatte's predatory legislation was backed by every single Republican and 5 extremely corrupt and extremely vile Blue Dogs, Jim Costa (CA), Henry Cuellar (TX), Stephanie Murphy (FL), Collin Peterson (MN) and Kurt Schrader (OR), all widely-known for selling their votes to corporate special interest lobbyists and laughing at the prospect of their low-info constituents ever figuring out who they really are. Peterson, in fact was the chief co-sponsor of Goodlatte's bill. The other co-sponsors were mostly notorious GOP bribe-takers like Mimi Walters (R-CA), Ann Wagner (R-MO), Randy Hultgren (R-IL), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Pete Sessions (R-TX), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) and Steve Chabot (R-OH).

Becerra said he was most concerned about the likelihood that if Trump signs the legislation it will obstruct the implementation of laws that protect Americans from toxic chemicals, predatory marketing practices, dangerous labor unsafe public health conditions, and unsafe food and drugs. He is joined in his protest by 11 other attorneys general (Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia).

Becerra wrote that "This Republican Congress is on course to loosen commonsense rules that keep an eye on industries willing to scam the American people or pollute our air and water. It takes us back to the days just a decade ago when Wall Street could use shady and sometimes illegal practices to make money. 8.4 million Americans lost their jobs and millions lost their homes because of the greed-inspired Great Recession."

The Senate version was introduced by Rob Portman (R-OH) and he managed to dig up two very conservative Democrats to co-sponsor it with him, Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), each of whom is on the hunt for corporate contributions for their reelection campaigns this cycle. When Portman and Heitkamp introduced their garbage bill in May, Yogin Kothari of the Center for Science and Democracy wrote that the legislation is bad for science (which helps explain why one of the House co-sponsors was GOP War Against Science leader Lamar Smith. Kothari wrote that the bill "would significantly disrupt our science-based rulemaking process... The RAA (Regulatory Accountability Act) will be felt by everyone who cares about strong protections and safeguards established by the federal government. Think about food safety, environmental safeguards, clean air, clean water, the toys that your kids play with, the car you drive, workplace safety standards, federal guidance on campus sexual assault, financial safeguards, protections from harmful chemicals in everyday products, and more. You name it, the Portman RAA has an impact on it."

The Portman RAA is at best a solution in search of a problem. It imposes significant (and new) burdensome requirements on every single federal agency charged with using science to protect consumers, public health, worker safety, the environment, and more at a time when Congress and the president are cutting agency resources. It also requires agencies to finalize the most “cost effective” rule, which sounds nice, but in practice is an impossible legal standard to meet and would most likely result in endless litigation. This requirement is emblematic of the overall thrust of the bill, a backdoor attempt to put the interests of regulated industries ahead of the public interest.

Basically, because there isn’t public support for repealing the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act, and other popular laws that use evidence to protect the public interest (including civil rights and disabilities laws, worker protection laws, transportation safety laws, and more), the Portman RAA weakens the ability of agencies to implement these laws by rewriting the entire process by which safeguards for Americans are enacted. In doing so, the Portman RAA would impact everyone’s public health and safety, especially low-income communities and communities of color, which often face the greatest burden of health, environmental, and other safety risks.

...Here are 5 destructive provisions in the Portman RAA as they relate to science and science-based rulemaking. Bear with me as we take this journey into administrative law Wonkville.

1. The RAA ignores intellectual property, academic freedom, and personal privacy concerns.

S. 951 includes harmful language similar to the infamous HONEST Act (previously known as the Secret Science Reform Act) and applies it to every single agency. While the Portman RAA language (page 7 starting at line 19 and page 25 starting at line 14) includes some exemptions that address the criticisms UCS has made of the HONEST Act, the bill would still require agencies to publicly make available “all studies, models, scientific literature, and other information” that they use to propose or finalize a rule.

The exemptions fall considerably short because the language has zero protections for intellectual property of scientists and researchers who are doing groundbreaking work to keep America great. For most scientists, especially those in academia and at major research institutions, much of this work, such as specific computer codes or modeling innovations, is intellectual property and is crucial for advancement in scientific understanding as well as career advancement.

In effect, this provision of the Portman RAA would prevent agencies from using cutting-edge research because scientists will be reluctant to give up intellectual property rights and sacrifice academic freedom. In addition, many researchers don’t or can’t share their underlying raw data, at least until they have made full use of it in multiple publications.

Given that the research of scientists and the expertise built up by labs is their scientific currency, S. 951’s intellectual property and academic privacy language would lead to one of two outcomes:

• One, it would stifle innovation, especially when it comes to public health and safety research, as many early career scientists may not want to publicly share their code or computer models and undermine their careers. Scientists could risk all their ideas and work being pirated through the rulemaking docket if a federal agency wanted to use their information as part of the basis for proposing and/or finalizing a regulation.
• Two, agencies wouldn’t be able to rely on the best available science in their decision-making process because those who have the best information may not want to make their intellectual property public. And of course, agencies are required to propose and finalize regulations based on the best available science. This is even reaffirmed by the Portman RAA (more on that later). Thus, you have a catch-22.

Like the HONEST Act, this language fundamentally misunderstands the scientific process. There is no reason for anyone to have access to computer models, codes, and more, to understand the science. Industry understands this very well because of patent law and because of the trade secrets exemptions (industry data would be exempted from the same disclosure requirements as intellectual property and academic research) but there is no equivalent protection for scientists, whose basic goal is to advance understanding of the world and publish their work.

And while the exemptions attempt to ensure protections of private medical data, they do not go far enough. For example, agencies that rely on long-term public health studies to propose and finalize science-based regulations could still be forced to disclose underlying private health data related to a study participant’s location and more, all of which may lead to someone’s privacy being put at risk.

2. The RAA puts science on trial.

The Portman RAA provides an opportunity for industry to put the best available science that informs high-impact and major rules on trial. In a provision that reminds me of Senator Lankford’s radical BEST Act, S. 951 will give industry an opportunity to initiate an adversarial hearing putting science and other “complex factual issues that are genuinely disputed” on trial.

But what does it mean for science and other facts to be genuinely disputed? The RAA is silent on that point. Hypothetically, if an industry or any individual produces their own study or even an opinion without scientific validity that conflicts with the accepted science on the dangers of a certain chemical or product (say atrazine, e-cigarettes, chlorpyrifos pesticide, or lead), federal agencies charged with protecting the public using best available science would be forced to slow down an already exhaustive process. The thing is, you can always find at least one bogus study that disagrees with the accepted facts. If this provision had been around when the federal government was attempting to regulate tobacco, the industry would have been able to use it to create even more roadblocks by introducing bogus studies to dispute the facts and put a halt to the public health regulations.

This is just another way to elongate (and make less accessible to the public) an already exhaustive rulemaking process where everyone already can present their views through the notice-and-comment period. This provision plays up the “degree of uncertainty” that naturally exists in science, while ignoring a more sensible “weight of evidence” approach, which is exactly what opponents of science-based rulemaking want. This adversarial hearing process does nothing to streamline the regulatory process, but it does make it harder for federal agencies to finalize science-based public health, safety, and environmental protections. The Scopes-Monkey trial has already taught us that putting science on trial doesn’t work. It was a bad idea nearly 100 years ago, and it’s a bad idea today.

3. The RAA adds red tape to the science-based rulemaking process.

The Portman RAA, ironically, includes duplicitous language that requires proposed and final rules to be based on the “best reasonably available” science (page 8 lines 10-14 and page 25 lines 14-18). The thing is, this already happens. Many underlying authorizing statutes, such as the Clean Air Act, have this requirement, and to the extent that this bill is supposed to streamline the regulatory process, this appears to do the opposite. If anything, this is litigation bait for industry, meaning that the legally obscure language could be used to sue an agency and prevent science-based rulemakings to be implemented.

The thing is, anyone can already challenge the scientific basis of regulations since they are already required to be grounded in facts. This just rests upon a faulty assumption that agencies aren’t doing their jobs. The bottom line? Through this and other provisions, S. 951 adds redundancy and procedure when the supporters of the bill are claiming to get rid of it.

4. The RAA has imprecise language that could force burdensome requirements on agency science.

The Portman RAA uses vague language to define agency “guidance” (page 2, lines 14-16) that could be interpreted to encompass agency science documents, such as risk assessments. For example, if an agency conducts a study on the safety of a chemical, finds a health risk associated and publishes that document, would that study be subject to the burdensome RAA requirements on guidance (i.e. go through a cost-benefit analysis)? The language is ambiguous enough that this remains an open question.

Furthermore, by adding additional requirements for guidance documents, such as cost-benefit analysis, it would make it harder for regulators to be nimble and flexible to explain policy decisions that don’t have the binding effect of law, or to react to emerging threats. For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has frequently used guidance documents to quickly communicate to the public and healthcare providers about the risks associated with the Zika virus, an emerging threat that required a swift response from the federal government. Just imagine the amount of time it would take for the CDC to effectively respond to this type of threat in the future if the agency was forced to conduct a cost-benefit analysis on this type of guidance.

Overall, many agencies use guidance as a means of explaining how they interpret statutory mandates. Because they don’t have the effect of law, they can be easily challenged and modified. The new hurdles simply prolong the guidance process and make it more difficult for agencies to explain interpretations of their legal mandates.

5. The RAA increases the potential for political interference in agency science.

The Portman RAA would give the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) the power to establish one set of guidelines for risk assessments for all of the federal science agencies (page 33 lines 16-18). The thing is, this one-size-fits-all idea is unworkable. Individual agencies set guidelines for risk assessments they conduct because different issues require different kinds of analysis. OIRA is filled with economists who are not scientific experts that can appropriately understand public health and environmental threats. Under this bill, OIRA would also determine the criteria for what kinds of scientific assessments should be used in rulemaking. This office should not have the responsibility to put forward guidelines dictating agency science. This is a clear way to insert politics into a science-based decision. My colleague Genna Reed will be expanding on this point specifically later this week because of how troubling this provision is.

For a proposal that is aimed at streamlining the regulatory process, the question must be asked, for whom? If anything, the Portman RAA grinds the issuance of science-based protections to a halt, and adds additional red-tape to a process that is already moving at a glacial pace.

The bottom line is that this latest version of the RAA, albeit different from previously introduced versions in the Senate and somewhat distinct from the House-passed H.R. 5, leads to the same outcome in reality: a paralysis by analysis at federal agencies working to protect the public from health and environmental threats and a potential halt to the issuance of new science-based standards to ensure access to safe food, clean air and clean drinking water, and other basic consumer protections.

There Are Going To Be Special Elections Coming Up-- Here's One In L.A. For Xavier Becerra's Seat

CA-34-- Perez and Gomez

Xavier Becerra was first elected to Congress in 1992 and, until yesterday he was the 4th-ranking Democrat in the House leadership. He's a generally liberalish guy, charismatic, polished, more often on the side of the angels than the rest of the House leadership. Coincidental with his last day as Democratic Party Caucus Chair, Jerry Brown appointed him to fill the Attorney General vacancy created by Kamala Harris' election to the U.S. Senate. Attorney General is probably the second most important state job in California, after governor. From what I'm hearing, Gov. Brown wanted a place-holder and Becerra wants to run for Senate in 2018 (Feinstein's seat, whether she's in it-- unlikely-- or not. She'll be just about to turn 86 when when the next Senate is seated.) Having a statewide, high-profile job gives Becerra the leg-up he needs to run and win. Fine; I don't see anyone better thinking about running anyway.

Now, what about his seat? The special election primary is scheduled for March 7th and the special election runoff will be May 9th. CA-34-- just a few blocks from my house-- is a densely populated, compact, urban district that includes-- for those familiar with Los Angeles-- Boyle Heights in the southeast, the downtown core from the Fashion District through the Financial District, right through Chinatown. The southwest of the district is Koreatown and a bit of the less gentrified part of Echo Park/Angelino Heights, all of Mount Washington, Eagle Rock, Highland Park, El Sereno, Lincoln Heights. On the east it borders on South Pasadena, Alhambra and Monterey Park. The district is about 67% Latino, 19% Asian. Whites make up less than 10% and, with a medium income of $34,752, it's one of the poorest congressional districts in the country-- 422nd out of 435. Parts of the district are rapidly gentrifying and I'd predict that after the next census the medium income will have increased very substantially.

All that said, Romney got a mere 14% in 2012. Locally, Republicans don't even bother to run candidates. Becerra was just reelected with 78.2% of the vote and his opponent was another Democrat. Within minutes of it becoming public that Brown had tapped Becerra for the A.G. gig, former Assembly Speaker John Pérez sent out a press release saying he had already filed. (Becerra had tipped off Villaraigosa who is behind Pérez's run in a big way, prep for his own gubernatorial campaign.) There is no question that Pérez is the establishment pick. The endorsements were ready immediately: congressmembers Karen Bass and Ted Lieu, Controller Betty Yee, ex-Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, of course... He's generally progressive in a California establishment kind of way. He's openly gay to boot.

His likeliest opponents will be Gloria Molina, City Councilman José Huizar or Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez (who will probably announce Monday). Jimmy's a guy with a load of street cred, a grassroots organizer who was just reelected to his Assembly seat with 86.4% of the vote, a district that includes most of the congressional district, from Boyle Heights through Chinatown to Eagle Rock.

Before the above PPP survey leaked out a few hours ago all the smart money was on Pérez. But if Gomez or Huizar decides to run, it looks like either could have a reasonable shot at beating Pérez. Also, keep in mind that lately Los Angeles voters have been uncharacteristically thumbling their noses at the candidates the establishment tries to shove down their throats, so... this could be exciting. It will, in the words of one top union operative, be a "bloody street fight." Now... here's another point of view, different from mine and worth taking into account:

EXTRA: What Do You Do When A Trusted Politician Votes Wrong On Something As Important As The Iran Nuclear Deal?

I had a very painful call last night from one of my favorite congressmen, die-hard, serious, thoughtful progressive Ted Lieu (CA-33-- Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Malibu, El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Venice). It was a tough decision, he told me, but he had decided to vote against the Iran deal. I know what kind of response he's going to get from his base. I was certain he was going to vote for it, so I wasn't prepared for his decision. He sent me a heartfelt 24-page statement that he released to his constituents today.

His district has a lot of Jewish voters, on both sides of the issue, and a lot of Iranian voters, also on both sides of the issue. He told me he worked hard to hear what all the concerns were on both sides and from anyone with a strong feeling about the Iran deal. I'm going to reproduce some of the passages from from a statement that started with: "Whether to support or oppose the JCPOA is a close call. Both supporters and opponents need to tone down the extreme rhetoric-- we are all on the same team."

If you watched the Cheney video last night (embedded again below), it's hard to imagine being on the same team as he is or the same team that the other warmongers who want so very, very much to push us into a war with Iran. Apparently, I failed to persuade Ted that that is some kind of a reality. "Based on my due diligence," he continued, "one fact is clear: those who are certain the JCPOA is a good deal, or certain the JCPOA is a bad deal, are misguided in their certainty."

The truth is that we will not know for years whether the JCPOA-- which is a very complex document-- is a good deal, a bad deal, or something in between. This is because the JCPOA has both significant strengths and significant weaknesses, it changes dramatically over time, and its ultimate success or failure will depend on the future behavior of Iran, the E3/EU+3, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the countries in the Middle East. Scholars have noted this issue is a "close call... Based on the totality of information I have considered, I will be opposing the JCPOA because I believe it is more likely than not that the JCPOA will turn out to be a bad deal.

He goes on to say:

It is with a heavy heart that I come to this conclusion because the JCPOA has significant strengths. I commend the Administration for rolling back Iran’s nuclear breakout time from approximately two or three months to approximately one year at the implementation date of the JCPOA. I also commend the Administration for negotiating snapback sanctions that can be imposed unilaterally if Iran were to cheat. Those are major accomplishments.

There is also a high cost, which is that Iran-- instead of getting gradual sanctions relief based on performance over time-- will instead receive a massive, upfront cash infusion of somewhere between $50 billion and $100 billion that the regime can spend to further its funding of terrorist networks and brutal proxy regimes. The regime will also receive hundreds of billions of dollars more over the course of the JCPOA that otherwise would have been frozen under sanctions.

Nevertheless, if this was the basic contour of the deal-- that we roll back Iran’s nuclear program to a one-year breakout time in exchange for sanctions relief with snapback sanctions as an enforcement mechanism-- I would vote yes on the deal. Unfortunately, this is not the entirety of the deal. The rollback of Iran’s nuclear program under the JCPOA is temporary. After 8.5 years, Iran’s nuclear breakout time starts coming back down, and after year 15 the nuclear breakout time diminishes to just a few weeks or near zero. In addition, the snapback sanctions expire after year 10.

I would, however, even vote yes on a deal with temporary provisions if the relative status of Iran and the United States were roughly the same after the provisions expired. Unfortunately, that is not the deal either. Instead, as a direct result of following the JCPOA, Iran will likely be (1) far stronger than it is today in terms of both its military and economy, (2) at a very short breakout time not just for one nuclear weapon, but many nuclear weapons and (3) capable of delivering nuclear weapons long range, potentially onto our homeland.

Another way of looking at this issue is the following: Should the US agree to a deal that gives Iran massive and continuing sanctions relief but has no restrictions on the number or type of centrifuges that Iran can spin, no snapback sanctions, no arms embargo, and no ballistic missile ban? That’s what this deal looks like after year 10.

By lifting the arms embargo in year five and the ballistic missile ban in year eight, the deal allows Iran to significantly build up its military, export more terror, and acquire or develop advanced ballistic missile technology. The JCPOA also allows Iran, when the nuclear rollback provisions expire, to have a vast nuclear infrastructure. Iran can legally spin an unlimited number of advanced centrifuges and stockpile an unlimited amount of enriched uranium. The situation caused by the JCPOA likely increases the chances of war and conflict, both in the short term and long term, and could fuel an arms race in a volatile region of the world.

Avoiding war has always been one of my two central guiding principles, with the other principle the protection of US national security. That’s why I opposed the Administration’s request for an AUMF to send ground troops to the Middle East; voted for an amendment to this year’s National Defense Authorization Act offered by Representatives Barbara Lee, Jim McGovern, and Walter Jones to withdraw US forces from Iraq and Syria; and opposed the Administration’s airstrikes in Syria.

After considerable thought and study, I have concluded the JCPOA increases the chances of more regional conflict and US entanglement in the Middle East in the short term, and a lengthy, difficult and more deadly war with Iran in the long term. Specifically, my predictions are that the JCPOA will likely result in at least the following three consequences:

• In the short-term (years 1 to 4), regional wars and conflict will likely increase because Iran will use part of the upfront infusion of $50 to $100 billion to fund terrorist networks and violent proxy regimes in a volatile region of the world during a particularly volatile time. This will fuel an even larger arms race in the Middle East and cause Iran’s enemies to retaliate. Our allies in the Middle East have already asked the US to provide more assistance, which could increase American entanglement in the Middle East. Keep in mind the US is currently bombing in Syria (which I oppose); has ground troops in Iraq (which I oppose); and is helping Saudi Arabia bomb Yemen (which I oppose).

• In the medium term (years 5 to 8), regional wars and conflict could get even more lethal. Iran can considerably build up its military-- including ground, air and missile capabilities-- because the deal specifically lifts both the arms embargo in year five and the ballistic missile ban in year eight. (The surprise lifting of these two arms control provisions makes the JCPOA weaker than the framework announced at Lausanne). Iran can also seek to provide advanced conventional weapons and missiles to its terrorist networks and proxy regimes. Moreover, Iran can more easily acquire technology that will allow it to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles.

• In the long term (years 8.5 to 15+), the chances increase of a more protracted, difficult, and deadlier war. That’s because Iran’s nuclear breakout time goes down to a few weeks or near zero not just for one nuclear weapon, but rather for many nuclear weapons along with the potential ability to deliver those weapons onto American soil with intercontinental ballistic missiles. With Iran building up its military and snapback sanctions expiring, options to the American president become more limited. If Iran were to race to build nuclear weapons when the JCPOA’s nuclear rollback provisions expire, the US might not be able to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities with just airstrikes. The JCPOA thus exposes America to a grave, potentially existential threat that would be unlikely to occur but for this deal.

The above consequences occur if Iran complies with the JCPOA. Opponents of the agreement have raised many issues related to what happens if Iran does not comply or cheats, since Iran has previously violated numerous international agreements.

Opponents are concerned about a number of verification and compliance issues, including: the lack of anytime, anywhere inspections at suspected sites; the confidential agreement-- which I and other Members of Congress are not allowed to see-- between the IAEA and Iran on inspections at the Parchin facility; the all-or-nothing nature of the snapback sanctions mechanism that make it difficult to use; and the difficulty of verifying what a closed regime may be hiding in a country that is larger than Germany, France, and Spain combined.

I do not address the above verification and compliance issues because it would not change my vote. I oppose the JCPOA based on my analysis of the existential consequences to the US if Iran simply followed the JCPOA for fifteen years. If Iran were to cheat, then the potential existential threat to America would occur sooner.

I also freely admit that my predictions could be wrong. And if the JCPOA is put into effect, I hope I am wrong. I note, however, that the arms race and more US entanglement in the Middle East are already starting to happen, and the long term problems I identified have also been recognized by others in the foreign policy establishment.

For example, Dennis Ross and David Petraeus, both of whom served in the Obama Administration, wrote “[T]he deal places no limits on how much the Iranians can build or expand their nuclear infrastructure after 15 years. Even the monitoring provisions that would continue beyond 15 years may prove insufficient as the Iranian nuclear program grows. And Iran’s ability to dramatically increase its output of enriched material after year 15 would be significant, as Iran deploys five advanced models of centrifuges starting in year 10 of the agreement.”

Ted then discusses how he arrived at his conclusions and his decision. You can find the rest of it on his official website. Thursday evening (6PM) there will be a candlelight vigil at the Westwood Federal Building (Wilshire and Sepulveda) sponsored by MoveOn, Peace Action, PDA, CodePink and other groups that have been allies of Ted's in the past. Still officially undecded among L.A. Congressmembers: Janice Hahn, Tony Cardenas and Xavier Becerra (came out and backed the deal just now), all of whom have higher political aspirations. Let's all calm down and watch this video again and remember... peace is better than war and the other party is the war party, not the Democrats:

Bernie Sanders' Bill To Regulate Overpriced Generic Drugs Picks Up Steam

Republicans have a different perspective on healthcare-- pay or die

Last October we started looking at Bernie Sanders' investigation into outrageous generic drug pricing under Medicare Part D. The inherent unfairness towards working families is emblematic of the GOP approach to Medicare; it's their version. When the House voted on Bush's Medicare Part D scheme on November 22, 2003, it passed by only 5 votes-- 220-215. 25 Republicans joined nearly the entire Democratic conference to oppose it. The 25 Republicans who opposed it are against all forms of government involvement in healthcare, and the 16 Democrats who backed the Bush proposal were almost entirely reactionary Blue Dogs, only two of whom, Colin Peterson (MN) and David Scott (GA), are still in Congress-- and still voting for Republican policies that wreck the lives of ordinary working families. The rest were all subsequently defeated or forced to retire to avoid being defeated. As Xavier Becerra (D-CA) explained recently on the House floor, "Congress should be in the business of making life better, not worse, for everyday Americans."

Bernie's bill, S.1364, the Medicaid Generic Drug Price Fairness Act of 2015, is winding its way through a Republican-controlled Congress hostile to the very idea of, in Becerra's words, "making life better, not worse, for everyday Americans." In the last few days Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) signed on as co-sponsors, joining Bernie, Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Al Franken (D-MN). The bill would make generic drug manufacturers reimburse Medicaid for excessive price increases (price increases that are greater than the rate of inflation). If Sanders' bill passes it will save taxpayers $1 billion annually, which would cut into excessive profits by the GOP-enabled pharmaceutical corporations.

One of the most common side effects from chemotherapy is neuropathy, extreme pain in the feet, legs and hands. The pain is nerve damage and normal pain killers have no effect on it whatsoever. Lidocaine-based gels, however, ameliorate the worst pains. And the worst pains are pretty bad; it makes many patients suicidal-- many patients. Lidocaine has always been a relatively inexpensive drug. I used to buy a tube for around $25. A tube lasts 2-3 weeks. Suddenly, though, the generic drug manufactures were all bought up and the price went from $25/tube to $300/tube, making it unaffordable to thousands of cancer and diabetes patients in extraordinary daily pain. That's what Bernie and other champions of working families in Congress are trying to combat.

Attorneys general in Connecticut and Vermont are also looking at possible collusion among some manufacturers. There have been allegations of practices such as buying up several generic drug companies as a way to corner the market-- and set pricing-- for a specific drug.

At the June 6-10 American Medical Association’s House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, the delegates instructed the AMA to pursue efforts to find ways to address the increases.

Many physicians spoke of specific instances of generic drug prices go up multiple times their cost, sometimes abruptly but more often over the past few years. For instance, said Georgia delegate John Antalis, MD, the price of the antibiotic doxycycline now costs $276, up from $70 a few years ago. One physician said a patient called him from a pharmacy to report that the generic version of aripiprazole (Ablilify/Teva) cost more than the brand name of the drug.

At least 12 states require pharmacists to give patients to generic drugs when available and many more allow the substitution. If the plans permitted patients to get whichever version of a drug was cheaper, that could help fight some generic drug price increases. Health plan specifics are a matter of state regulation.

At the AMA meeting, Mario E. Motta, MD, cardiologist in Salem, MA, wondered why generic digoxin, the pharmaceutical version of digitalis (a common garden flower also known as foxglove), cost $180 when it costs about a penny a pill to manufacture and has been used for more than 200 years as an herbal tea.

The key now is to elect more Members of Congress to stand with Bernie and the others taking this seriously. There has been a lot of talk in California about drafting Becerra to give up his safe House seat and run for the open U.S. Senate seat. That's exactly what working families' champions Donna Edwards (D-MD) and Alan Grayson (D-FL) are doing.

I spoke to Donna this morning, and she would certainly be an immediate co-sponsor of Bernie's bill were she to be elected to the Senate next year. Same for P.G. Stittenfeld in Ohio, where Rob Portman as usual is on the wrong side of the issue. "If elected to the U.S. Senate," P.G. told us, "I will always be on the side of the people, rather than the special interests, and that is why on Day 1, I would support the Medicaid Generic Drug Price Fairness Act, ensuring that generic drugs remain affordable to those who need them. Not only is a progressive vision for our health care system the right thing to do, in the case of this legislation it would also save taxpayers a billion dollars." You can help make that happen here.

Why Isn't Congress In The Business Of Making Life Better, Not Worse, For Everyday Americans?

A few days ago we mentioned how musicians who get catastrophically ill-- when they don't die from lack of medical care-- are often driven to financial ruin. We talked about benefit concerts-- more often than not in tiny clubs-- spaghetti dinners and raffles as ways to raise money to save lives. At the same time, Llewellyn Hinkes-Jones was publishing an OpEd in the NYTimes about the other end of the spectrum: gala balls and donor drives to fund drug research-- i.e., the privatization of scientific research.

Tuesday I went to my local pharmacy to refill some prescriptions. The last time I had refilled one was December 8 and the cost was $3.89. Tuesday the exact same generic and the exact same quantity was $77.80. It was one of half a dozen prescriptions I had to refill and their prices had all shot through the roof. When I called Humana to ask what the mistake was, they told me that's how Medicare Part D works. Medicare Part D, the Bush plan that shows exactly what Republican health care is all about. I don't like paying them but I can afford those prices. What do people do who can't? Hinkes-Jones wrote that "instead of decisions about the fate of scientific funding being made by publicly oriented institutions, those decisions are being put in the hands of anonymous philanthropists and ostensibly benevolent nonprofits."

There is nothing to stop pharmaceutical companies from creating their own philanthropies, funding research with tax-exempt dollars and then selling themselves the rights to the intellectual property. Without price controls on the final product that come with public funding, the potential costs of the resulting medicines are limitless.

So far, there is no effort to extend government price controls to venture-philanthropy-derived research. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation did little to lobby for lower prices on the drugs that were developed from the research it funded. As a result, Kalydeco, a cystic fibrosis medication it funded, is one of the most expensive drugs available, at $300,000 a year.

The idea of a public-private research transfer is not without precedent. In 1980, Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act, which allowed publicly funded universities to sell off exclusive licenses on their research to private industry. The act was intended to drive funding for academic research and innovation.

But the resulting race for private funding has created perverse incentives to research blockbuster drugs, even if they are not the most imperative from a public policy standpoint. The impetus to produce more and more profitable research has also driven down the quality of academic work, promoting ghostwritten papers, sloppy peer review and the burying of unfavorable clinical-trial results. Venture philanthropy builds off the model created by Bayh-Dole, but with tax exemptions and a sheen of generosity on top of the lucrative payoff.

One argument in favor of venture philanthropy is that it creates a way to sustain small foundations that study rare diseases that, from a for-profit point of view, aren’t worth investigating.

But while Big Pharma might be faulted for funneling billions of dollars into erectile-dysfunction drugs and off-label drug marketing, researching extremely rare diseases may also represent a misuse of public and private funds. Efforts to cure, rather than treat or prevent, obscure diseases can be expensive, diverting investment from more common afflictions. The high costs of focusing on rare diseases are then eventually pushed onto the health care system by way of egregiously high drug prices. Such a choice involves an incredibly complex moral calculus, one that is best processed by democratic public institutions.

To make medical advancements truly philanthropic, the profit motive needs to be removed from the equation. If the intent is to cure rare diseases, then we should be increasing the budget for the National Institutes of Health and other research initiatives. Instead of gala balls and donor drives, higher taxes on the same rich benefactors could be used to fund the research that isn’t already being supported. Biotech patents developed through venture philanthropy should not have exclusive rights attached to them.

This would allow generic versions of drugs onto the market, which would go a long way toward keeping health care costs down and not driving the uninsured into debt.

When the House voted on Bush's Medicare Part D scheme on November 22, 2003, it only passed by 5 votes-- 220-215. 25 Republicans joined nearly the entire Democratic conference to oppose it. The 25 Republicans who opposed it, are against all forms of government involvement in healthcare. And the 16 Democrats who backed the Bush proposal were almost entirely reactionary Blue Dogs, only two of whom, Colin Peterson (MN) and David Scott (GA), are still in Congress-- and still voting for Republican policies that wreck the lives of ordinary working families. The rest were all subsequently defeated or forced to retire to avoid being defeated. As Xavier Becerra explained Tuesday on the House floor, "Congress should be in the business of making life better, not worse, for everyday Americans."

CA-31-- Will Eloise Reyes Be Congress' First Ever Onion Topper? That's Way Better Than Another Crooked Bank Lobbyist

Speaking about her inspiring life story in her first TV ad, Eloise Reyes talks about the hard work and perseverance it took to go from topping onions as a small child and working her way through school and law school to the middle class and now running for Congress. "I made the journey," she says, "but for people these days, that journey has become so much harder." Eloise isn't a Republican or a corporate tool like her opponent, Pete Aguilar. Republicans and corporate tools want to pull the ladder up behind them and kick the people in the face who are trying to climb out over distressed economic situations. Instead, she says, she will "fight for families working hard to join the middle class and those struggling to stay there."

That's what her hard-pressed Inland Empire district (CA-31) needs. A majority minority district-- stretching from Upland and Rancho Cucamonga, along the 210 Freeway to San Bernardino and along the 10 Freeway through Colton, Loma Linda and Redlands. The median household income is $50,882 (compared to the state median of $57,287. Statewide about 19% of the residents have no high school diploma. In CA-31 that figure is 21%. Statewide, 45.8% of the voting age population turns out, on average, to vote. In the 31st, that drops down to 39.7%. Eloise wants to work on bringing all these figures up. Politically, her entire raison d'être is about helping to lift up her neighbors.

“I’m running for Congress to do a job-– not to get a job or keep a job," she told us today. "Congress is broken because career politicians who have their own self interest at heart have advocated for the wealthy and big corporations and left the middle class behind. It’s time to invest in bringing jobs back to our district, keeping the promise of Social Security and Medicare and passing comprehensive immigration reform that provides a true path to citizenship. Washington is not going to change me. I was born here in the Inland Empire. As a twelve year old I picked onions in the fields to pay for school clothes and after college and law school I returned home to raise my family and open a small business. My roots are in the Inland Empire and I will bring your voices-– and values-– with me to Congress.”

Her main opponent, the DCCC's failed corporate shill, Pete Aguilar, is a former lobbyist for Arrowhead Savings and Loan, which his shady behavior helped drive into bankruptcy. Aguilar is desperate for a job in Congress but he's barely related to the community and has always been a pawn and a front-man for the Republican-dominated Chamber of Commerce. They appointed him to the Redlands City Council and they appointed him mayor. And, of course, Steve Israel bought right into this empty suit. Hilda Solis, who was the congresswoman from CA-31 before President Obama appointed her to his Cabinet as Secretary of Labor, endorsed Eloise last February, even though Israel was beating the bushes for support for the empty suit. At the time, this is what Solis said: "In this day and age when the powerful special interests are gaining even more power, the working families that make our country strong need a strong voice and their own tenacious fighter in Congress. Eloise Gomez Reyes is the person for the job. She has spent her entire career fighting for working families and people who can’t fight for themselves. She will bring that same tenacity to the fight to bring jobs to the Inland Empire. Eloise is one tough lady and she will not be intimidated by the extremist leaders of the GOP or their big bank accounts."

Xavier Becerra, the senior House Republican in Southern California and a close Pelosi ally was even more forceful about Eloise's outstanding credentials to be the next Member of Congress from San Berdoo:

Eloise is a proven leader who will get the job done in Washington for the working families of the Inland Empire. Quite frankly, I know she’ll work tirelessly on behalf of those who work hard, play by the rules and deserve a fair shot at the American Dream. That’s why today I’m endorsing Eloise Reyes for Congress.

I work with our leadership day in and day out, pushing on the obstructionist House Republicans to strengthen the ladders of opportunity and build an economy that works for all Americans. Having someone like Eloise among our ranks, I know, she will be not only an ally to myself and Leader Nancy Pelosi, but a strong voice for the Inland Empire, for California, and for working families all across the country.

Eloise is the American Dream fulfilled. Her story is mine and yours. My father was a construction worker and when my mother, a newlywed, came to this country she spoke no English. They sent their four children to college in America. Eloise started work at the age of 12 in the onion fields. Imagine the children of immigrants like Eloise and myself standing up, side by side. Imagine passing paycheck fairness, or comprehensive immigration reform, or raising the minimum wage.

This Californian is endorsing Eloise Gomez Reyes for CA-31 because she will be an effective leader and legislator for you.

...As Tip O’Neil once said, "all politics is local." I have been watching this race very closely for some time and I know that Eloise can win this race, but not without your support. Together, we can protect and renew el sueño Americano-- the American Dream for the next generation.

The photo below is Pete Aguilar, on any random evening. Look at that mess. He wants to go to Congress to be the Democratic version of Trey Radel (and Vance McAllister). There is just no comparison between him and someone of Eloise Reyes' character, intellect and honor. If you'd like to make sure she's the next Member and not Aguilar, please consider contributing to her grassroots campaign here.

Steve Israel's handpicked candidate, Pete Aguilar

Another Shakeup In The Inland Empire Congressional Race (CA-31)

After huge endorsements for Inland Empire progressive Eloise Reyes from Southern California progressive leaders Rep. Xavier Becerra, Rep. Lucille Roybal Allard, state Senator Ed Hernández, and ex-Secretary of Labor/former CA-31 Congresswoman Hilda Solis, the DCCC's Steve Israel was forced to back away from his love affair with corrupt conservative empty suit Pete Aguilar. He added the district rather than Aguilar to the Red-to-Blue list. Perhaps that was enough of a signal for Rep. Grace Napolitano in a neighboring district to co-endorse Eloise (along with her old friend Joe Baca, who is also running in CA-31).

And yesterday, Long Beach progressive, Rep. Alan Lowenthal, who the DCCC had persuaded to back Aguilar many months ago, issued this statement in support of Eloise's campaign:

"Eloise has spent her entire career fighting for injured workers and I’m confident that she’ll continue to be a strong fighter for working families in Congress. And like me, she is committed to providing a safe school environment for our children. She’s done an outstanding job putting together her campaign and I believe she would make a fine representative. A dual endorsement is therefore appropriate in this case."

Eloise, who has made it clear she aims to join the Congressional Progressive Caucus as soon as she's elected, has also been endorsed by Progressive Caucus chairman Raúl Grijalva. Aguilar, a corrupt ex-bank lobbyist, is from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party and while Eloise is being endorsed by progressives he's sucking up to the Wall Street-owned New Dems and seeking their endorsement.

Yesterday, Third Way corporate whores used Politico to attack Markos from Daily Kos and go after the uplifting progressive vision of real Democrats that drives sold-out, right-wing "business" Democrats like Steve Israel and Pete Aguilar crazy. Markos and the Third Way sell-outs were arguing about the Senate:

Who cares if seven of the 10 were replaced with Republicans? Ten years ago, Democrats had 49 members in the Senate. Today they have 53 plus Bernie Sanders and Angus King. And even if they lose the Senate this year, which they won't, it won't be much more than a rental as 2016 is a stellar map for us (up to 10 potential pickups).

So is it better to have Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller in a 49-seat minority, or is it better to replace them with better Democrats in a 55-seat Democratic majority? Only morons would argue for the former, but apparently, that's what Third Way wants to be.

But it's an important dynamic in House races as well, where Blue Dogs, New Dems and other fake Dems from the Republican wing of the party have been coddled and encouraged by Israel, himself an "ex" Blue Dog, usually at the expense of progressives and grassroots Democrats. It's precisely what we see going on in the Inland Empire, where Israel and his coterie is hoping to slip in another "mystery meat" candidate who's just looking for a career trajectory and may well aspire to nothing more than a K Street lobbying job someday after he does enough favors for Big Business at the expense of ordinary working families. Just look at him. Does this embarrassing mess look like a congressman?

Senator Ed Hernández And Congresswomen Jackie Speier And Grace Napolitano Buck The Machine To Endorse Eloise Reyes

This pathetic mess somehow "forgot" to mention to California progressives that he's been begging the corrupt, anti-working family New Dems to endorse him

Dr. Ed Hernández, former president of the California Optometric Association, is the state Senator representing the 24th district, which stretches from East L.A. through Monterey Park, Rosemead, and El Monte out to Azusa and Covina. Hernández is chairman of the Senate Health Committee and one of the most respected Los Angeles legislators in Sacramento and a powerful advocate for working families. Last night he stood with a growing list of anti-corruption public officials against an attempt by Steve Israel and his Los Angeles lackey, Eric Bauman, to force ex-lobbyist Pete Aguilar down the throats of Democrats in the Inland Empire (CA-31) again.

In recent weeks, former CA-31 Congresswoman and ex-Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, endorsed Reyes, as did House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra and progressive East L.A./Downey Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard. Aside from Senator Hernández, yesterday, as the California Democratic Party convention was beginning in Los Angeles, one of the most powerful and eloquent voices for women's equality on Capitol Hill, San Mateo Congresswoman Jackie Speier, came out loud and proud for Eloise Reyes.

Rep. Speier: "I am endorsing Eloise Gomez Reyes today because the working families of the 31st District need a fighter like Eloise to stand up to special interests. We thought 2012 would be the year we would turn the seat from Red to Blue but it slipped away. We can’t let that happen again. Eloise has proven herself the strongest candidate in the race and it’s a plus that another woman will be joining us in Congress where only 18% of the members are women. I am proud to endorse her."

Yes, clearly Pete Aguilar is not "another woman." He is also the furthest thing a politician can be from "a fighter to stand up to special interests." When the corrupt Chamber of Commerce Republicans who ran the Redlands City Council needed a shill to front for their greed-and-selfishness agenda, they appointed fake Democrat Pete Aguilar, a failed and corrupt bank lobbyist, to the council to do their bidding. Tailor made for Steve Israel, who drafted him to run in 2012, empty suit Aguilar promptly lost an open D+5 seat to not one, but two Republicans, giving the Inland Empire the shame of being the bluest district anywhere in America with a Republican congressman.

Israel then made up some ridiculous story that Pete lost because his ill father, Herman, had died on primary day and peddled it to the Beltway media so he could recruit Aguilar again for 2014. And Israel did recruit him again-- but the story has no basis in fact. His father wasn't ill and didn't die on primary day-- or any other day. Herman Aguilar is very much alive and well. A bunch of bozos in Congress believed Israel's bullshit too and allowed him to use their names as Aguilar endorsers. Several have told me they were considering withdrawing their endorsements of Aguilar but seemed afraid of Israel's wrath. They can do what Rep. Grave Napolitano did last night. She did a dual endorsement-- though not of Aguilar, of course.

Napolitano, who represents a largely Hispanic district that includes Covina and much of eastern L.A. County, is an old friend of former Congressman Joe Baca and felt she couldn't not endorse him. But yesterday, she also endorsed Eloise. "Eloise, like myself, has had a long career in the private sector before running for office," she explained. "Congress needs more women who can relate to working families and their daily struggle to balance work and family… While I have also endorsed former Rep. Joe Baca, a friend and former colleague, I am not rescinding his endorsement. Eloise is a strong and viable candidate."

There was a not so subtle message there that Baca is not "a strong and viable candidate." And Aguilar has already proven that he wasn't by losing so baldy in 2012. Upshot: L.A.'s Boss Tweed, Eric Bauman, delivered an empty endorsement at the convention today for Steve Israel's empty suit.

Help fight the Machine? Help elect Eloise Reyes here.

Meanwhile, across the continent, the Republican Party's right-wing fringe-- about half the party, at least-- held their annual CPAC straw poll. And despite the GOP Establishment having raised the price to keep riffraff (Libertarian Paulistas) out, Rand Paul won-- by a landslide and by a lot more than the 25% with which he won last year, crush Ted Cruz. Here are the final results:

• Rand Paul- 31%
• Ted Cruz- 11%
• Ben Carson- 9%
• Chris Christie- 8%
• Scott Walker- 7%
• Rick Santorum- 7%
• Marco Rubio- 6%
• Paul "Brown Paper Bag" Ryan- 3%
• Rick Perry- 3%
• Bobby Jindal- 2%
• Condoleeza Rice- 2%
• Mike Huckabee- 2%
• Sarah Palin- 2%

Real Momentum Is Building For Eloise Reyes In The Inland Empire

The Inland Empire's crooked political elite

Friday we mentioned that the endorsement-- and a real endorsement, not a perfunctory one-- of progressive Eloise Reyes by Rep. Xavier Becerra could signal the end of the road for Steve Israel's lame, empty suit, handpicked candidate, Pete Aguilar.

We also mentioned that no one in the Inland Empire knows who Steve Israel is. And Israel recruiting some schlemiel freshman, like Eric Swalwell from Dublin (due east of the Oakland Airport on the 580 on the way out to Livermore) isn't going to mean anything to anyone anywhere. Voters-- and donors-- in CA-31 were more interested in why Israel couldn't deliver local Hispanic Members of Congress, and particularly not progressives like highly respected Lucille Roybal-Allard and Linda-- not Loretta-- Sánchez. The very characteristics that have made Joe Baca anathema to so many progressives in the L.A. Basin-- from his innate conservatism and his willingness to ally himself with Big Business interests against the interests of ordinary working families to his crude disrespect for women-- have made sensible political leaders hesitate and block out Israel's siren song of Pete. What do you see when you look at the picture above? That's Pete Aguilar surrounded by every slimy, crooked Republican power broker in the Inland Empire, from Jerry Lewis (to the right of Pete in the photo) and Gary Miller, right down the food chain to the bagmen and thugs. And what about this photo. Is that drunken, coked up mess what anyone wants for a congressman?

It wouldn't surprise me one bit to hear that Lucille Roybal-Allard and Linda Sánchez sign up for the Eloise Reyes team sometime this week. And one of the most respected and revered political leaders in the region, Hilda Solis-- a progressive, beloved environmental champion and ex-congresswoman who beat a crooked Steve Israel-type incumbent, anti-Choice/pro-NRA/Big Business-oriented Marty Martínez in CA-31 in 2000-- has been talking up Eloise and will probably take time out from her own supervisorial campaign to campaign for Eloise… perhaps as soon as... this afternoon? Until recently, Obama's Secretary of Labor, Hilda knows a Democrat from the Republican wing of the party when she smells one. Her own congressional opponent from 2000, Marty Martínez, frequently betrayed his constituents by voting with the GOP and, when they ended his career by backing Hilda (62-29%), he switched parties, officially became a Republican and never returned to live in southern Califiornia, staying inside the greasy, sleazy Beltway instead.

I might add that, like Becerra, Hilda Solis has been a close ally of Nancy Pelosi's and it would be hard to imagine her going up against Steve Israel's strategy-- no matter how lame and how likely to lose-- if Pelosi said not to. This should be an interesting week. If Hilda Solis, Linda Sánchez and Lucille Roybal-Allard all come out for Eloise… well, maybe Boris can try putting on a rally for Pete Aguilar with Herman (his not dead father), Orange County Blue Dog Loretta Sanchez and… Eric Swalwell? Or perhaps the rumors are true about Pete and Boris decamping for CA-35. It's less of a schlepp than Kharkov was for Viktor Yanukovych-- and I'm sure Gloria McLeod would introduce Pete to all the Chamber of Commerce types in the area he doesn't already know from his days as a crooked Savings and Loan lobbyist.

Maybe Israel should try beating Republicans and stop wasting DCCC resources trying to help sleazy conservatives beat progressives in Democratic primaries in districts he knows nothing about. Just a thought.

Eloise and Xavier-- fighting for working families

UPDATE: That Was Fast-- Hilda Solis Endorsed Eloise

“In this day and age when the powerful special interests are gaining even more power, the working families that make our country strong need a strong voice and their own tenacious fighter in Congress. Eloise Gomez Reyes is the person for the job. She has spent her entire career fighting for working families and people who can’t fight for themselves. She will bring that same tenacity to the fight to bring jobs to the Inland Empire. Eloise is one tough lady and she will not be intimidated by the extremist leaders of the GOP or their big bank accounts,” said Solis.

Gomez Reyes said, “Hilda Solis and I have both worked hard and took on the status quo to push open closed doors and shatter glass ceilings. And then once we achieved success we both took up the fight to help those less fortunate. From one tough lady to another: Thank you Hilda! Thank you for your endorsement and thank you for your friendship and for your inspiration. I won’t let you or the working families of the Inland Empire down!”

House Democratic Party Inside Baseball

Becerra, Grayson, Ellison-- actual leaders, not money-grubbers

I'm never really comfortable with a corrupt out-of-touch Beltway committee parachuting into an American congressional district and telling the Democrats there who their candidate for Congress should be. In the old days, even the worst DCCC chairmen-- think Rahm Emanuel-- used to tip-toe, at least publicy, around interfering in primaries. Not so the cloddish, reptilian Steve Israel. He's interfering in more Democratic primaries-- and pretty much always on behalf of the more conservative and more corrupt candidates-- than any other DCCC chairman in history. Yes, Steve Israel is worse than Rahm Emanuel! Emanuel, at least, knew how to win races. Israel is a congenital loser.

I wasn't thrilled to see the DCCC come thundering into the FL-13 special election on behalf of Alex Sink with the intention of burying Jessica Ehrlich. FL-13 is a blue district that the DCCC has mishandled for years. Obama beat McCain there in 2008 and Romney there-- even with a Republican-friendly gerrymander!-- in 2012. But the willfully incompetent Florida Democratic Party and an even lamer DCCC never effectively went after the GOP incumbent, Bill Young. A two-cycle strategy, anathema to all DCCC chairmen, could have easily taken him out. This year, before he announced he would retire-- and before he died-- a MoveOn poll by PPP showed a generic Democrat would have beaten him 48-43% and that after voters were made aware that Young backed the harmful Republican government shutdown, he would have lost 51-42%. Only 33% of respondents said they approved of the job Young was doing.

Last year, Jessica Ehrlich ran against Young and lost, 189,552 (58%) to 139,671 (42%). She raised about half the money Young did. The DCCC refused to back her candidacy and didn't spend a nickel on her campaign. This year, it looked like the DCCC might back her-- at least until former gubernatorial candidate alex Sink jumped into the race. There was never any question who would win that primary but the DCCC couldn't resist now that they've declared they intend to interfere with primaries whenever they want to. They immediately set about to drive Ehrlich out of the race. (Another fair-weather friend, EMILY's List, withdrew it's endorsement of Ehrlich and endorsed Sink.) Yesterday the DCCC strategy succeeded and Ehrlich, bitter and frustrated, gave up and went home.

A poll released Wednesday morning confirmed what everyone already suspected: FL-13 voters are ready to elect Sink and they she would have won a primary against Ehrlich and will win a general election against any of the third tier candidates the GOP is putting up. None of the GOP candidates got above 31% against Sink. And in a Democratic primary, Sink was crushing Ehrlich 69.6-10.6%. Sink and Ehrlich are both moderate Democrats. Neither appeared more or less progressive than the other and both fit nicely into DCCC centrism. So why would the DCCC come in so heavily?

In CA-31 I've been watching what Steve Israel is doing to push his empty suit loser of a candidate, Pete Aguilar against progressive attorney, Eloise Gomez Reyes. This is the bluest district in America (D+5) with a Republican incumbent-- in this case, extreme right-wing multimillionaire Gary Miller-- and the only reason Miller won the open seat last year was because the DCCC screwed up the election by getting behind Aguilar, who came in third, behind two Republicans! Refusing to even speak with Eloise, Israel immediately endorsed Aguilar again and has been pressuring California congressmembers to back him. I've spoken to half a dozen of them who are not pleased that Israel lied to them about Aguilar and about Eloise. But that's how he rolls-- and Democrats in Congress don't do anything about it. Progressives, especially, are so policy-oriented that they avoid power struggles-- which inevitably involve fundraising-- even though those power struggles are what keep them from accomplishing their policy goals.

With just a few exceptions, I've almost given up on current Members to do anything about the caucus leadership. Open positions always seem to go to the most corrupt Members, the Steve Israels, the Joe Crowleys, the Rahm Emanuels, Steny Hoyers and Debbie Wasserman Schultzes. I asked some of the Blue America candidates who they would like to see replace Pelosi is she steps aside, as she has indicated she plans to. Conventional wisdom is that the job would fall to someone unsavory, a virtual Hobson's choice between Hoyer and Wasserman Schultz. But I asked them to not even think of those kinds of realities and instead just imagine an ideal world, not a corrupted one. Most of the candidates said they're not familiar enough with the DC players to make a rational choice. But several did have something to say that made some sense. Tom Guild, for example, said that he's "not familiar with some of the current members of the U.S. House" and added that "since I’m an Okie, I don’t spend much time in the nation’s capital. I’m open to consider any number of possibilities as the next Speaker of the House. The one person who I met when he spoke to the Oklahoma Delegation to the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, and visited with when he came to Oklahoma City to speak at our state party headquarters, is Keith Ellison. Congressman Ellison is intelligent, well spoken, and principled. Those would be the three things I would consider in voting for leaders in the U.S. House. Keith would be a good chief spokesman for House Democrats. I’m open to others who are also intelligent, well spoken, and principled who would also be good spokespersons for House Democrats." Good instincts there.

Nick Ruiz has a lot of skepticism about current leadership and he wasn't eager to comment. Coming from an academic background he approached the question theoretically at first: "Leadership requires serious risk-taking and a sort of fearless preoccupation with social inclusivity and solidarity, and an almost uncanny sense of attention and effort paid to the sphere of possibility-- all while often sacrificing your own political hide. Leadership has an ability to tolerate isolation and social discomfort. Leadership is lonely. Leadership makes mistakes. But its resolve is never questioned. I don't see any leaders in the House today." But in the end he posited that if Pelosi really does step aside, "I think we should have a serious conversation about Alan Grayson becoming leader of the Democratic caucus. No present member is better equipped or more effective at channeling the kind of change of pace and energy needed to push the Democrats into their own light. Nobody's perfect. But we're better than the present caucus suggests; much better. Stay tuned for the 2014 election, because we're about to prove just who Democrats are again, and what we can do to represent the best interests of America's working families and individuals. Alan Grayson is an integral part of that future equation."

Let me finish up by going back to Eloise Reyes, the progressive candidate in Southern California who Steve Israel is trying to stiff. "Under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, we have begun a new and vibrant tradition of electing a Speaker of the House who defies the odds and brings a wealth of bold, progressive values to the Democratic Caucus. Years and even decades down the road, our model of House leadership will continue to be shaped for the better by Nancy Pelosi’s legacy as a trailblazer and true public servant. We have seen these same qualities of integrity and determination in other members of the California delegation, and it is my hope that amongst our future Speakers of the House will be Latino pioneers, like Representative Xavier Becerra, who reflect the changing face and values of our country."

If you'd like to help Eloise, Tom and Nick win seats in the next Congress, you can do that on this ActBlue page.