[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

Shorter Bass And Steinberg: Booga Booga!

by: David Dayen

Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 16:21:45 PM PDT


I've obtained a copy of the email sent to every California Democratic Party member from the Assembly Speaker and the Senate President Pro Tem, trying to scare the membership into supporting the special election ballot measures.  It's really unconscionable for them to stretch the truth this much.  They conflate apples and oranges to make it seem like an immediate $31 billion dollar deficit is forthcoming if the measures fail, which is simply untrue.  They mostly discuss what failure would mean rather than what success would mean.  And they neglect the permanent damage that would be caused by the ballot measures in favor of the temporary tax increases.  I'll put the whole thing on the flip, but here is the excerpt that kills me.  

There seems to be a great deal of misinformation about Proposition 1A, the spending reform measure. This is NOT a spending cap, but rather a mechanism to force savings in good years to protect funding for services when our economy sours.  If California had a rainy-day fund like most other states, $9 billion in cuts could have been avoided this year. In the long-run, Proposition 1A will stabilize state spending for critical services.

Um, actually, folks, that's what a spending cap IS.  It caps spending and puts money into a rainy day fund.  Of course, the way this cap is structured, the rainy day fund would have to take money even in DOWN budget years, due to its stringent, restrictive nature.  The line about how $9 billion in cuts could have been avoided this year with rainy day fund money is offered without the knowledge that the money would have had to come FROM somewhere, and would have meant $9 billion in cuts in years prior.  Not to mention the fact that it would have had to be replenished almost immediately.  With this spending cap - yes, Madame Speaker and Mr. President pro Tem, sorry to burst your bubble but that's what it is - spending will be forced $16 billion dollars below the Governor's baseline budget next years.  That's the ENTIRE gain of the $16 billion in temporary tax increases in just one year.  And the cap goes on and on and on.

Pathetic.  About the only good thing here is the shout-out to eliminating 2/3 for budgets and taxes.  I appreciate that, but would appreciate some honesty about the spending cap even more.

UPDATE: Funny, Steinberg and Bass' pal Mike Villines, who has been going around the state with them promoting 1A, has some different thoughts about what the measure would do:

Proposition 1A represents a significant victory for taxpayers at a time when our state needs it most. Proposition 1A ties the hands of legislative liberals, and it forces our budget into a fixed formula and a hard spending cap. That means, for the first time in decades, that liberals will have to make tough spending choices and cut their pet projects.

It also means the taxpayers will no longer be treated like a giant ATM machine. Consider this fact: if we had Prop 1A in place today, our state would not be $31 billion in the red. Instead, our state would have a much more manageable $5.4 billion budget gap. That means that during the worst economic recession since the Great Depression, Proposition 1A would have ensured that our budget gap was manageable. That's the proof that Proposition 1A protects taxpayers.

Villines is wrong about this being a good idea, but he happens to be right on the numbers.  With a spending cap, approximately $27 billion MORE would have had to been cut in the years leading up to the current budget.  That's more than half of the entire education budget.

Did you guys think we wouldn't notice the diametrically opposed arguments, depending on the constituency?

David Dayen :: Shorter Bass And Steinberg: Booga Booga!
Dear Fellow California Democratic Party Member:

At this month's California Democratic Party Convention in Sacramento, you will be asked to take a position on Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E and 1F that will appear on a special statewide election May 19.  We strongly urge you to support this package to provide California the short-term revenues to get through these difficult economic times, as well as the long-term reforms to stabilize our budget process and protect funding for vital services.    After months of difficult negotiations, we made some of the toughest decisions elected officials could ever make.  We closed a $42 billion budget shortfall that threatened to send California into fiscal collapse - halting thousands of jobs, devastating critical education, health, children's and senior services, and plunging our economy into deeper meltdown.

The tough choices we made will begin the long process of getting California back on track and providing long-term stability to the programs and services we all value.

Make no mistake: the final budget agreement contains important victories that hold true to our shared Democratic principles.  In particular, we negotiated four years of desperately needed revenue increases, worth $12.5 billion this year alone.  We cannot overstate the significance of this achievement.  By doing so, we were able to protect education, health care and safety net services from even deeper cuts.

We were also able to stave off Republican demands to roll back hard-fought environmental and worker protections.  And, through Proposition 1B, we will ensure that schools are repaid over time for the painful cuts they have endured because of this budget crisis.

But the package and revenues we negotiated will all be for naught if we don't pass Propositions 1A-1F in May. Unless Prop. 1A is approved, California will lose $16 billion in revenues from the sales, vehicle license and income taxes beginning in Fiscal Years 2011-2013.  Prop. 1A also provides the mechanism to restore $9.3 billion in funds to schools.  And without Propositions 1C, 1D, and 1E, we will lose another $7 billion in funding.

Losing $23 billion in revenues, on top of the $8 billion deficit projected by the Legislative Analyst, will result in renewed demands for catastrophically deep cuts to schools, hospitals, essential children's services and senior programs for the foreseeable future.

There seems to be a great deal of misinformation about Proposition 1A, the spending reform measure. This is NOT a spending cap, but rather a mechanism to force savings in good years to protect funding for services when our economy sours.  If California had a rainy-day fund like most other states, $9 billion in cuts could have been avoided this year. In the long-run, Proposition 1A will stabilize state spending for critical services.

Passing Propositions 1A-1F is the first step in restoring our state's fiscal health and voter confidence in state government.  This is essential for us to move forward with our shared priorities such as expanding healthcare to all Californians, further reforming the budget process to eliminate the destructive 2/3 requirement for budgets and taxes, protecting against climate change, and ensuring necessary education, health and social services for the people of California.

We hope you will join us in supporting Propositions 1A-1F.

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

I can't bring myself to read the rest of their (0.00 / 0)
statement right now.  Don't feel like getting upset right before going out to hopefully have an enjoyable time tonight.  

It strikes me that our best chance to enlighten people to the disaster that the spending cap would be is to listen closely to what Republicans in the know say to convince their stone-headed base why this fulfills conservative ideology and is a big win for them if it passes.  

I don't think the Pro 1A forces have given up on convincing the Republican base, and it would be great to take what they say to them and bring it to the larger population of non-Republicans to help defeat the measures.

...  Somewhat unrelated question:  When the Democrats passed their own budget, which the Governor promptly vetoed, they managed to get around the 2/3 tax increase rule by raising fees, but how did they manage to get around the 2/3 budget rule?  I should probably know the answer but can't figure it out..

Need a contact # for a CA Legislator? Check here


answer (0.00 / 0)
because it wasn't a budget deal, but just a mid-year revenue bill.  And the legislative counsel has endorsed it as legal.

[ Parent ]
Thanks. I guess the fee increase and the budget (0.00 / 0)
deal were so crammed together I didn't notice they were separate.  

It's legal, but will be outlawed by Prop 1A if it passes, correct?

Need a contact # for a CA Legislator? Check here


[ Parent ]
budget 2/3rds strategy (5.00 / 1)
  It should be obvious what the strategy to follow is:  

Props go down in May

Democrats pass majority rule fee increase

Reps refuse to vote for budget with "illegal" revenues

Dems in the meantime have qualified an initiative changing 2/3rds to majority (it's in the works, so qualify it)

Schwarz calls a special in September/October to pass the 2/3rds.  If it passes, the state functions.  If it doesn't,
Reps have their way and state guts health, education, etc.

 The important thing to note is even if this doesn't work we are where we are now--with the Reps calling the shots.
Why don't we at least try, for once, to stand up for the little guy?


What would interest Schwarzeneggar in calling (0.00 / 0)
for a special election on the 2/3 rule?  

Need a contact # for a CA Legislator? Check here

[ Parent ]
Schwartz's interest (5.00 / 1)
  The state will collapse, otherwise.  There is of course
one way to force a special, and that is qualify a recall--any initiative qualified would go on the same ballot.  But my feeling is that Scwartz won't want the
state to collapse.  And since the fee increase would give the state the money to pass the budget, and all that is
standing in the way of the budget is Republican "no", I
think he'll go for it.

[ Parent ]
He had the opportunity to do the right thing (8.00 / 1)
but he chose not to.  His biggest test was when he was given the budget bill the Democrats passed. The Democrats used program cuts to bridge nearly half of the budget gap - they definitely went halfway in the hopes that a compromise budget would be something Arnold would sign.  As we all know, he vetoed it without discussion.  

Arnold's just as interested in straitjacketing the state's budget as the rest of them.  It's just that he's playing the good cop role where he gets to be seen as bipartisan and/or reasonable next to the bad cops (the crazy Republican legislature and rightwing base).

If Arnold wasn't interested in playing along and extracting every bit as much out of the Republicans' 2/3 rule leverage as they could get, he would've made clear to the Republicans that he was going to sign the Democrats' budget.  He could have moderated the Republicans' behavior but he didn't.  

Need a contact # for a CA Legislator? Check here


[ Parent ]
If Schwartz won't play ball (0.00 / 0)
  Start a recall--that forces a special election. He'll cave
before then.

[ Parent ]
Steinberg (5.00 / 1)
This piece of work pushed through an additional $25 millon annually due out of the Los Angeles County budget.  He even got the legislative analyst to say that the bill did not create any new local obligation.

The bill was SB2x 11.  It requires LA County to supplement the salary of every Superior Court judge in the County, in addition to their $179,000 per year salary.  Now LA County judges make more than the California Chief Justice.

Steinberg lied to his membership about the bill, telling them it merely preserved the status quo.  It did not.

I wrote to my Senator (Fran Pavley), who voted yes, telling her that it was her job to know what was in bills, not to rely on the lies told by the party leadership.


Political capital (0.00 / 0)
Here's the easiest prediction of the year: All the Propositions will be defeated.  The leaders of the GOP (Schwarzenegger and Villines) have no credibility with their rank and file on this.  Bass and Steinberg have more credibility, but not enough to get the job done.

We have no real leadership in Sacramento because no one is interested in taking on the special interests.  Its just a pit of snakes up there.


Karen Bass is a pathetic disgrace (4.00 / 1)
For a self proclaimed "progressive" she sure has adopted all the tactics and rhetoric of the Republicans.  

Frankly, she is a massive failure as a Speaker and when these props lose, should have the good grace to resign her position and allow a real leader to step in.  But she won't, because as we all have learned through her spekership it's not about the Dem Caucus, or principle, or the average citizen she claims to speak for.  Nope, it's all about her.  Her image, ego, ambitions.

Worst Speaker ever.  


I don't think this is the case (0.00 / 0)
she is in a very difficult position, and it's hard to see how she's somehow worse than the thirty years of Speakers before her who failed to deal with the obvious structural problems in a meaningful way.

The bill came due on her watch, and she's doing the best she can.  Doesn't make her a bad Speaker.



[ Parent ]
Repectfully, she's not doing her best... (0.00 / 0)
Where were the statewide roadshows into GOP districts to pressure GOPers regarding the budget?  She put he kibosh on them, because she practices "a different kind of politics.".  Would it have worked?  I don't know, but at least try.

A Speaker is not only judged on passing a budget.  She's accomplished nothing other than putting on a spending cap on the ballot, and is cynically fearmongering to get it passed.

I respect your view that she inherited a major problem.  I agree, but her solution is a recipe for turning this state into a shell of its former self.


[ Parent ]
That's a big burden to bear (0.00 / 0)
for both Steinberg and Bass. They have each been in office for only a few months, and they are supposed to immediately transform all the dysfunctional governmental structures into something that works? Should they also create peace in the Middle East and cold fusion?

I agree with jsw that this was just an enormous mess that she inherited. Both the Speaker and Sen. Steinberg are good people that are truly trying to do what they think is for the best for the state. We disagree on this particular measure, but I know too many people who are saying yes to think that there is something dishonest or disastrous about it.

Prop 1A is shortsighted, but given that Bass is termed out in less than 18 months, that has been the pattern in Sac for a while now. Bass hasn't been transformational, and perhaps that is what we need right now, but we can't expect everybody to be Obama.

They are both good people stuck in a very bad position trying to do whatever they can do to resolve it. Let's not make this personal.


[ Parent ]
Karen Bass (0.00 / 0)
What was Karen Bass talking about when she told a Liberty Hill luncheon in March that, "We need to change a tax structure in which 144,000 taxpayers pay 50 percent of taxes"?  Change how?  By making taxes more regressive?  If so, does that explains how she can support 1A, which signifcantly reduces the progressive scale of state income taxes?


Shorter Bass and Steinberg ... (8.00 / 2)
If the California Democratic Party had invested in grassroots candidates, in party-building, and voter registration in Republican districts during the last 10-15 years, it would have been poised to win seats in 2004, 2006 and 2008 to render the 2/3 requirement moot.  2008 was better by far than 2006 for Democrats in the Assembly.  The Speaker's Fund and other funding mechanisms did kick in, but the CDP was very late to figure out what was going on the the foothill and valley districts.  Take Back Red California knew what was needed in 2005, and activists before that laid the groundwork in a number of counties.  It has been impossible to work with the CDP and, as a small organization, we have gone around them to contribute to some fine winners.  So, that's how Prop 1 could have been avoided.  

yo mama! (0.00 / 0)
good 2 c u here mayme!!
democratin'in the mornin'!

[ Parent ]
The 2/3 rule (0.00 / 0)
The 2/3 rule would eliminate Sacramento from attempting to pass on these propositions. Why isn't it on the ballet?  

I'm pretty sure Republicans aren't in favor of letting it be (0.00 / 0)
which means that it has to go through the initiative signature gathering process to get on the ballot.  That costs big money to do, and nobody's stepped forward to make it happen yet.

Need a contact # for a CA Legislator? Check here

[ Parent ]
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox