LACDP Doesn't Bow To Fear

In my not so humble opinion... (1.50 / 2)

....Both parties are brain-dead.

If business does not get better for me soon I am going to enter politics. You can be a bloviating dinosaur who knows nothing about anything and go straight to the top.

---

by: A.Citizen @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 22:31:02 PM UTC

One of the things that concerns me most about this election (3.00 / 1)

is how a defeat will be spun to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.

As I see it right now, I can't vote for these measures. Maybe they stave off trouble for the next year, but they make things far worse 3, 5, 10 years down the line. It's not because of the taxes, but because of the anti-tax anti-spending elements that they want to codify.

What can we do to ensure that if these measures are defeated that the legislature actually does find ways to put us back on the right track, instead of playing in the weeds again?

Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

---

by: elfling @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 22:31:28 PM UTC

I agree that this is a problem (5.00 / 1)

I think we have to make our legislators aware of why we're opposing this.  The convention next week should be very interesting.

---

by: David Dayen @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 22:43:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ads (0.00 / 0)

And the media needs to know it too.  Which means we need to run tv ads opposing this that make our arguments.

Opposition this as "not real structural reform (2/3rds, etc)", would certainly also be a two-fer, I would think.

---

by: tilthouse @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 23:48:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, the post-election spin (4.00 / 1)

is problematic, but I think it's yet another way that the 2/3 rule enabled the Republicans to roll the Democrats -- tying the extension of the tax increases to 1A allows the Republicans to campaign against the whole package based on anti-tax dogma, while neatly splitting the Democratic base by forcing the Dem leadership to try to sell a set of bad ideas in order to maybe stave off some short term pain.  

---

by: jsw @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 22:45:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stop whining about a gun being pointed at your head... (0.00 / 0)

...and ask the fellow denizens in the town square to do something about this creep might be a starter.

Interact with the public, affect discourse, and stop being confused when decisions made in a Gang of 5 are not reflective of the sentiment and creativity of the populace at large, let alone your base.

---

by: SPD @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 23:07:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Budget (0.00 / 0)

The problem with tying this into the 2/3rds requirement is that every day a budget doesn't pass, California's bond ratings are hurt and the state loses millions of dollars more and programs have to be cut.  If these measures don't pass, then there will have to be some dramatic new cuts to get to 2/3rd's because the damage done by waiting will be even worse than the cuts.   One economist has already estimated that money going back to local government will have to be cut by an additional 20% if these measures fail and in a lot of places, especially poorer areas, that will bring devastation.  It's nice to think voters will blame one ideology for that, but I think that's still an open question and in the meantime a lot of people will be hurt in a big way.

---

by: doughnut70 @ Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 01:04:50 AM UTC

the entire budget would have to be cut by 20% if 1A passes (4.00 / 1)

these "pass 1A or we'll shoot this dog" arguments neatly elide the fact that a spending cap would demand a 20% cut in the baseline budget by year 3, and a 15% or so cut by year 1.  That's what would happen IF THESE MEASURES PASS.  And then who do you think will be "blamed"?

I'm very sorry to inform that the only way to save vital services in this case is to dramatically reform the system.

---

by: David Dayen @ Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 01:33:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just out of curiousity (0.00 / 0)

Because I really do believe in where you are trying to go, but don't think you can get there for at least another three years, what would your stance be if the system cannot be changed in the near future (on top of everything else, there will be dozens of legal challenges even if something is passed at the ballot box).  

I think it's a fair question to ask progressives because virtually no prominent progressive that I am aware of has stated that he believes the system is likely to be changed before then and the idea of government is still to help make the world a better place.

---

by: doughnut70 @ Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:44:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And I think it's fair (0.00 / 0)

to acknowledge a few things:

1) the world with Prop. 1A in place would, as I've said repeatedly, be more damaging to state services in both the short term and the long term, particularly because it would be just one more thing we'd eventually have to repeal.

2) If the system, as you say, cannot be changed for a few years, we have a legislative counsel ruling that the majority-vote fee increase with revenue-neutral shifts in taxes is perfectly legal and far better as a stopgap while we push for fundamental reform than a spending cap which would almost overnight take 20% out of the budget.  I still would not support any of these measures.

3) If everyone is constantly told by their betters that change can't happen and we have to do what's necessary to just survive, then, you know, we constantly delay the only actual solution and we never get where we need to go.  Someone has to be out there advocating for change.  The failure of the budget system and the failure of Democratic leadership in this state are inextricably linked.  

---

by: David Dayen @ Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:40:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wealth taxes (4.00 / 1)

There's a reason I've been writing about this more frequently. Regardless of what happens on May 19 we're going to have a huge budget deficit and a Zombie Death Cult determined to make good on its threats to push the state over a cliff.

The way we break that is by pushing for wealth taxes. It's popular with the public, it'll bring in enough money to ameliorate some of the cuts, and will back the Republicans up against a wall - either they support the wealth taxes, or vote against them and prove to the world that they really are about protecting the rich, and that the 2/3 rule enables them.

If the May 19 initiatives were the difference between a balanced budget on May 20, then that might make more progressives pause. But we know those initiatives won't fill that gap, so better to go into the fight for our future without one hand tied behind our back with Prop 1A in place.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 06:10:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let Me Ask a Question (0.00 / 0)

I keep hearing this presented as an all-or-nothing debate.  Why shouldn't we vote yes on 1C,1D, & 1E, and no on 1A?  We will have adopted the budget moves to get us to June 2010, while refusing the permanent spending cuts.  Yes I understand we lose the tax increases then, but does anyone seriously doubt that the budget will again be out of balance in 2010 regardless of whether 1A passes?

---

by: SolanoVoter @ Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 06:47:53 AM UTC

You can make those decisions on your own (0.00 / 0)

In our endorsements, we looked at the ballot measures on their merits, and wound up opposing all of them.  Our arguments can be viewed here - we have fairly specific reasons for opposing 1C, 1D and 1E.  For my part, I will say robbing from voter-approved funds that shortchange the mentally ill and poor kids doesn't make enough sense to justify it, and the lottery thing looks to me like a gimmick that will just cost us more money in debt servicing down the road, as well as being unlikely to actually bring in the money expected (I really want to know who's going to buy our future lottery earnings).  But that's me - SEIU, which has opposed 1A, endorsed and gave money to 1C.  So read our arguments, read the ballot language, and make up your own mind.

Of course, those budget moves will NOT get us to June 2010; we're already $8 billion out of balance, even if they pass.

---

by: David Dayen @ Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 01:55:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]