

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Karen Schambach (530) 333-2545; Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337
Grasping to recoup a $10 million cut in the California Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) budget, off-road lobbyists are urging compensation via a takeover of state park units. The idea, seconded by some state officials, surfaced at an "emergency" March OHV Commission meeting but was not published until posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
One of the state parks specifically targeted is Henry Coe, the largest state park in Northern California. The 87,000-acre park in Morgan Hill (near San Jose) provides a major outlet for hiking, fishing and other outdoor activities. The park does not allow motorized recreation.
"We should not take these threats lightly. For some reason, the off-roaders seem to have a lot of traction with State Parks Director Ruth Coleman," warned California PEER Director Karen Schambach, noting that Coleman is a holdover Schwarzenegger appointee. "Look what she has allowed them to get away with in Red Rock Canyon State Park."
Another of the targeted parks, Red Rock Canyon, was given to State Parks by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in 1994 legislation which required "maximum protection" of its natural and cultural resources. Yet, under Director Coleman Red Rock Canyon has been ravaged by illegal off-road use.
The March 2011 meeting minutes quote state OHV Division Chief Phil Jenkins as saying:
"There are a couple of parks, most notably Red Rock State Park, where we have currently the state park system allowing Green Sticker (OHV) activity. It might take some of the burden off of State Parks if we were assuming more responsibilities there."
Several speakers suggested taking Henry Coe State Park the park "in trade" for the state using fuel tax revenue earmarked for support of OHV recreation to help close its yawning budget gap. Terry McHale, a lobbyist for the OHV industry, said:
"It is time for those moribund parks that are not being attended by people, that are sitting up there without being used, it's time to say either close them down or let's be so bold - we may not get Henry Coe State Park, but a lot of those parks are out there dying to be used. And you have a program where they can be used, and they can be used well."
The Off Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division of State Parks has benefited since the early 1970s by a generous allocation from fuel tax revenues. Transfers are based on estimates how much fuel is used off-road. A 2006 state survey found the program had been getting twice the amount of these revenues it should rightfully receive but legislation in 2008 allowed the program to continue to receive the excess funds provided they also support non-motorized recreation. The same survey found the majority of off-highway vehicle use was by hikers, campers, bird-watchers and other recreationists simply driving on dirt roads.
Despite findings of its own fuel tax survey, OHV Deputy Director Daphne Greene has yet to spend any money for projects not directly benefiting so-called "green sticker" vehicles, such as dirt bikes and all-terrain vehicles. In a 2009 opinion, the Legislative Counsel faulted this policy but Greene has not shared her program's surplus with its impoverished parent agency. As a result, the state's eight OHV parks soak up nearly $100 million a year while 270 state parks eke by on $99 million of General Fund revenue.
"California state parks are on the chopping block solely due to the failure to equitably share revenue," said Schambach. "Rather than allow the takeover and inevitable destruction of these beautiful lands by off-roaders, the OHV Division should be required to ante up the fuel tax revenues that come from non-OHV recreation, thereby helping keep these beleaguered parks open for the enjoyment of all Californians,"
###
Read the OHV Commission minutes
(See pages 62-5 and periodically thereafter)
See the plight of Red Rock Canyon
View the Legislative Counsel opinion
Examine Fuel Tax Survey finding of overestimation of OHV share
Trace how OHV surpluses develop
Review plan to shut 70 state parks
PEER protects public employees who protect our environment. We are a service organization for environmental and public health professionals, land managers, scientists, enforcement officers, and other civil servants dedicated to upholding environmental laws and values. We work with current and former federal, state, local, and tribal employees.
"Saying so privately to some big donors is very different than publicly calling for transparency from the DNC, which is badly needed," said Norman Solomon of RootsAction, which has led calls for the release.
Even former Vice President Kamala Harris reportedly "has no problem with a public airing" of the Democratic National Committee's internal "autopsy" report on her 2024 loss to Republican President Donald Trump—which the DNC has continued to conceal, despite mounting demands for transparency.
Harris' position was reported Thursday by NBC News, which noted that "while she indicated to donors that she had no issue with releasing it, Harris has not discussed the postmortem with DNC Chairman Ken Martin and did not know about his decision to keep it under wraps until it happened."
NBC cited "a person who has heard the conversations," one of multiple sources journalists Jonathan Allen and Natasha Korecki spoke with for their broader report exploring "turmoil over the Democratic Party’s future" and Harris' consideration of a 2028 run.
For months, Martin has resisted pressure to release the autopsy—which, as Axios revealed in February, found that the Biden administration's support for Israel's genocidal assault on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip contributed to Harris' defeat.
Citing a "person close to Harris," NBC also reported Thursday that the former VP "is signaling privately that she has more to say about the Middle East now that she is freed from the Biden White House policy," and "she is likely to do so after the midterm elections," either "from the perspective of a party elder or from the perspective of a candidate seeking votes."
While touring the country for the book she wrote after her loss, Harris has publicly acknowledged that she is weighing another White House run. Though the 2028 election is two and a half years away, she has led early polling. However, the party's potential primary field is incredibly crowded, featuring dozens of current or former governors and members of Congress.
Potential contenders include governors from the Trump 2.0 era—such as Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois, Andy Beshear of Kentucky, and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan—as well as leading progressive voices in Congress, such as Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
Norman Solomon, national director of RootsAction, which has spearheaded calls for publishing the full postmortem, wrote in a recent opinion piece for Common Dreams that "Martin's concealment of the autopsy report puts a thumb on the scale for one candidate: Kamala Harris."
Solomon highlighted the DNC's reported conclusion about the role of the Gaza genocide in the election result, and suggested that "renewed attention to the Harris 2024 finances would also be unwelcome."
In response to Harris' reported remarks to donors, Solomon said Thursday that "more than four months have passed since Martin announced he was reneging on his promise to release the autopsy.
"But Harris still hasn't made any public statement that she believes it should be released," he added. "Saying so privately to some big donors is very different than publicly calling for transparency from the DNC, which is badly needed."
"Although the FCC has the authority to ensure broadcasters operate in the public interest, it cannot serve as President Trump’s roving censor."
A group of Senate Democrats on Thursday told Federal Communications Chairman Brendan Carr to back off his threats to strip Disney-owned TV network ABC of its broadcast licenses.
In a letter addressed to Carr, the Democrats took Carr to task for ordering Disney to file early license renewals for eight ABC stations shortly after President Donald Trump demanded that the network fire late-night host Jimmy Kimmel.
Kimmel earned Trump's ire when he jokingly likened first lady Melania Trump to an "expectant widow" days before a gunman stormed into the White House Correspondents' Dinner in an alleged attempt to assassinate the president.
The senators called Carr's order an "extraordinary abuse of power" and "the latest and most extreme step in your use of the FCC’s licensing authority as a cudgel against broadcasters whose editorial choices displease the president."
The Democrats charged that the order "appears to penalize Disney for refusing to capitulate to Trump’s demands to fire Kimmel and to send a message to other broadcasters: Modify your speech to favor Trump or face the FCC’s wrath," while noting that the order was the first time in over 50 years that the commission had called on a broadcaster to apply for early renewal.
The day before the order to Disney, the FCC sent a similar order to a small station license holder called Bridge News.
Carr's order to Disney was also part of a broad pattern of Trump administration assaults on the free press, including calls to fire Kimmel last year after the comedian said Trump and his political allies were trying “to score political points" after the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
"Although the FCC has the authority to ensure broadcasters operate in the public interest," they wrote, "it cannot serve as President Trump’s roving censor, threatening to revoke licenses against broadcasters whose editorial content—including a comedian’s jokes—displeases the president."
The Democrats concluded their letter by asking Carr to provide information about the timing and process by which the FCC decided to send Disney its early renewal order, including whether any FCC staff had communicated with the White House about the order before it was issued.
The letter was signed by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Maria Cantwell (D-NM), Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Elizabethe Warren (D-Mass.).
"Performative dipshittery, wrapped in fictional jingoism, delivered by an incompetent drunk wearing the clothes of an adolescent boy," said one critic of Hegseth's video.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth drew instant ridicule on Thursday after he released a video touting President Donald Trump's proposed $1.5 trillion military budget as a fiscally responsible plan that is "putting the American taxpayer first."
At the start of the video, Hegseth accuses defense contractors of bilking the Pentagon for expenses such as factory construction, while also constantly charging more for cost overruns.
Hegseth then claims that Trump has brought together a group of private-sector negotiators whom he's labeled "Deal Team Six" to lay down the law on the defense industry and save the US taxpayer money.
Thanks to President Trump’s $1.5 trillion defense budget, this War Department has moved from bureaucracy to business.
This is a FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT in our Arsenal of Freedom—ensuring our military remains the most lethal fighting force in the world. pic.twitter.com/ykIfMw3kuU
— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) May 7, 2026
Hegseth never explains how it is possible that the president and his "Deal Team Six" are saving US taxpayers money while at the same time asking US taxpayers to fund a $1.5 trillion military budget that would be over 50% more than the 2025 US defense budget and more than four times the money spent on defense by China, the world's second biggest defense spender.
Regardless, Hegseth wrote in a social media post that the $1.5 trillion budget would be "a FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT in our Arsenal of Freedom—ensuring our military remains the most lethal fighting force in the world."
Critics of the Trump administration erupted in mockery after seeing the Hegseth video.
"Spread this lame ass video everywhere," wrote Pod Save America co-host Tommy Vietor, a former National Security Council staffer under President Barack Obama. "I want every voter to know that Trump has requested a $1.5 TRILLION Pentagon budget. Shut up if you want better healthcare or for Social Security to remain solvent. All you get is more bombs to drop on Iranian schools."
Indigo Olivier, a reporter for The New Republic, said Democrats could make the proposed Trump budget a winning issue given how many other problems—including the rising costs of gasoline, groceries, and healthcare—that the Trump administration seemingly has no interest in addressing.
"I would love to hear Democrats talk about Pentagon price gouging with even half the energy they devote to Hasan Piker," she wrote. "The administration pushing a $1.5 trillion defense budget somehow becoming the face of anti-waste messaging is political malpractice."
Former Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) described Trump's proposed Pentagon budget as "hundreds of billions more in waste and fraud—at taxpayer expense."
"Remember when this administration pretended it was going to bring down the national debt?" Amash asked.
Former Republican political strategist Jeff Timmer delivered an even harsher assessment of Hegseth's video, which he labeled "performative dipshittery, wrapped in fictional jingoism, delivered by an incompetent drunk wearing the clothes of an adolescent boy."
Journalist Patrick Henningsen ripped Hegseth for delivering a "desperate, dumbed-down message" that he predicted would "go down in history as one of the biggest own-goals yet—and the worst pieces of war propaganda we’ve ever seen."
Steven Kosiak, nonresident fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote an analysis last month of Trump's proposed $1.5 trillion military budget in which he said, "It is difficult to overstate just how massive an increase in defense spending this would represent, or how unhinged it seems to be from reality and sober policymaking."