The presidential primary campaigns are finally in California (and a few other states at the same time) but most of us won’t get to see the candidates up close and personal as did the Iowans and New Hampshirites.

A friend in Iowa told me she got to see every candidate there and talk to several of them. She ended up being assigned precinct captain for Chris Dodd at her caucus. There was only one other Dodd supporter at the event, foretelling perhaps Dodd’s quick exit from the hustings the next day.

One issue has been largely absent from the campaigns until now and that’s the war in Iraq. When you’re talking to a potential voter practically (or actually) face to face, they seem to be more interested in Social Security, health care and lost jobs than in international affairs.

That’s beginning to change and will, I feel, become the predominant issue as soon as the nominees become evident. It will be made so by the Republicans. Their theme will be that they are best suited to fight terrorism — especially if the Dems nominate a woman.

Expect blood to flow.

=====================

As we mentioned earlier, the poor incumbents in legislative seats won’t know until Feb. 6, and maybe not for weeks after that, what seats to run for in the June 3 primary election. Only one of the six representing portions of Contra Costa — Assemblyman Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, — is not being termed out this year, but he, along with the rest, is caught in the squeeze created by Prop. 93 on the February ballot.

Prop. 93 would extend term limits by two years and give terming-out incumbents the right to run for re-election, and almost certain victory, in their present seats. There’s little doubt that they would all do just that.

But if it doesn’t pass, DeSaulnier will pass up certain re-election to the final two years he is currently allotted in the Assembly and go for the State Senate seat held by terming-out Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch, who would turn around and run for DeSaulnier’s Assembly seat since he qualifies for two more years there.

In other districts, which share territory with other counties, the termed out Assembly members are weighing whether to try to step up the Senate.

Assemblyman Guy Houston, R-San Ramon, has a slightly different problem. He’s beng termed out of his Assembly seat. Alameda County portions of the nearest Senate District include most of the voters, giving anyone from the eastern portions little chance of winning. He eyed the state Board of Equalization seat being vacated by term limits but the Republican Party has already selected former legislator Dean Andal of Stockton as its candidate.

That means he’ll be out of politics or he can step down, and he’s chosen to do the latter, running against fellow Republican Mary Nejedly Piepho for the non-partisan 3rd Supervisorial District seat. If Prop. 93 passes, he would undoubtedly seek re-election to the Assembly instead.

Meanwhile, assuming his 15th District Assembly seat will be vacant, 11 candidates have taken one or more official steps towards the June ballot, including three Republicans nine Democrats and one Libertarian.

The standout is former San Ramon Mayor H. Abram Wilson, a banker highly regarded in the community. It’s probable that a number of candidates will drop out before the filing deadline. If Prop. 93 passes, giving Houston another chance, most of them would drop out.

Prop. 93, by the way, is trailing badly in the polls.

============================================

For a full list of primary election filings for local seats see the rest of Pat Keeble’s most recent article at the Contra Costa Insider

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association (www.hjta.org) has released its Legislative Report Card for 2007: state lawmakers from our area were rated as follows:

- Senator Tom Torlakson = F
- Assemblyman Mark DeSaulnier = F
- Assemblywoman Loni Hancock = F
- Assemblyman Guy Houston = A

The California Taxpayers Association (www.caltax.org), which has been around since 1926, recently issued its annual Cal-Tax Voting Record on the bills they considered most important. State lawmakers from our area took the same position advocation by CalTax in the following percentages:

- Senator Tom Torlakson = 0%
- Assemblyman Mark DeSaulnier = 17%
- Assemblywoman Loni Hancock = 13%
- Assemblyman Guy Houston = 100%

The California Chamber ranked how these member voted for Chamber backed legislation

- Senator Tom Torlakson = 1 of 14
- Assemblyman Mark DeSaulnier = 1 of 14
- Assemblywoman Loni Hancock = 3 of 14
- Assemblyman Guy Houston = 14 of 14

The debate will take place at the Orinda Community Church, 10 Irwin Way, and starts at 8:00 p.m. after a half-hour business meeting of the Club. Admission is $5; bring a dessert to share. For more information call 925-210-7337 or visit www.lamorindademoclub.com for more information.

For more information, call Martha Parsons at (925) 890-2665. To RSVP, you can e-mail Martha at martha@tomtorlakson.com. You can also download a pdf of the event flyer.

Their proposal was first outlined in a year 2000 Public Policy Institute of California assessment of financing entitled: Building California’s Future: Current Conditions in Infrastructure Planning, Budgeting and Financing. This report declared that there was too much public input into the budget process. Therefore, to make it easier to raise taxes required removal of the 2/3rds vote requirement for approval. But even the Public Policy Report added nothing new to the debate on circumventing the tax paying citizen, it merely spelled it out in fairly clear terms.

Part of the so-called confusing budgetary debate derives, so the Report goes, from the fact that some parts of the budget are not held to the close scrutiny of either the legislature or the taxpayer. These departments are: water, transportation and the UC educational system. (perhaps by now more departments have been added). They function in an entirely different manner using a systems approach to determining projects and setting 5, 10 or up to 20 years of future goal setting while the other departments are on a yearly fiscal plan setting priorities and goals as they have the money.

The Water, Transit and UC systems approach evaluates infrastructure needs and sets goals using social and political evaluators to assist in achieving goals. Infrastructure no longer just means pipes, road conditions or sewer systems. The reform way of evaluating government projects includes manipulation of the human element to achieve social goals first and foremost; reduce crime, train and retrain more workers, create diverse neighborhoods, expand public transit, initiate global warming reduction programs, make communities sustainable by setting population goals, etc.

We’ve all heard of “Outcome based education” meaning that future goals for social conduct and training have been set and the education is designed to produce the desired outcome. Well, that’s what Torlakson and company’s budget reform plans want the entire budget of the state of California to do, set social and economic goals, create plans to achieve that, budget people and services to reflect that, such as housing, transportation, environment and fitness. All that stands in the way is the alert citizen and the 2/3rds requirement on tax issues.

What Torlakson et al are trying to do is manipulate voter attitudes to obtain the desired outcome based vote come election time. He, as much as any of the other legislators, was responsible for the delay in passing the budget. These “reformers” want you to think that the budget process is too difficult. Well, it should be difficult and it should have citizen input and a lot of debate. It’s our money, it’s our right to keep as much of it as we can and it’s our obligation to see that that right is not lost.