| I am working for the No on 1A Campaign, however, I am not working for any other No campaign. My opinions should not be construed to be those of the campaign, especially when it comes to the remaining measures.
As the California Democratic Party endorsements showed, progressives are struggling with the May 19 elections. On one side, you see some pretty progressive elected officials, like Bass and Steinberg, and organizations, like the California Teachers Association. Yet, it is clear that none of these fronts are really unified. Not all of the legislators are supporting the May 19 props. Asms. Sandre Swanson and Warren Furutani are opposing Prop 1A. And the education community is not unified either:
"It's not comfortable to be in the position of disagreeing with our state organization," said Betty Olson-Jones, president of the Oakland Education Association, which represents about 2,800 teachers, counselors, nurses and librarians in the city's public schools.
Still, Olson-Jones said, "We really cannot, in all good conscience, support any measure that would cap and cut vital social services, because they are needed by our students."(OakTrib 4/29/09)
In fact, Bay Area Progressives seem to be a major problem for the Yes on 1A-F campaign. The Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, a large and active bunch, went no on the whole lot, and the San Francisco Young Democrats went No on A, C, D, and E. And yesterday, the SF Bay Guardian, the progressive newspaper of the Bay Area, went no on all 6 measures. They make similar points to the Calitics endorsements, specifically that the measures will "lock the state in a fiscal straitjacket."
We've listened to both sides, researched the measures in depth, and concluded that the best choice for Californians is to reject Propositions 1A through 1F. The proposal may address (most of) this year's budget woes and keep the state running for a while, but it will create a fiscal straightjacket on the order of Proposition 13 that will damage California and undermine any progressive policy hopes for many, many years into the future. If the voters accept this deal today, they'll come to regret it. (SFBG 4/29/09)
The Guardian also acknowledged the growing progressive discontent with the measures. It was on full display at the CDP convention, and doesn't look to be quieting down. The Prop 1A spending cap just makes the package a difficult pill to swallow, and the Props D & E cuts to vital services don't endear themselves to progressives either.
UPDATE: This Field Poll (PDF) on the fact that Californians don't want more taxes but don't want cuts is quite relevant to the discussion. Of twelve subject areas that Field asked about, Californians only support cuts to prisons (59%...oh, me too!) and state parks (51%). Other spending programs are widely supported, with law enforcement cuts (23%) and education cuts (25%) being the least popular.
Somewhere along the line, Californians have come to believe that we can have our cake and eat it too. That we can have impossibly low taxes and yet still provide the services that our state needs. Where, oh where, could they have heard that. Oh, right, that's pretty much the Bush Administration in a nutshell, and how Arnold came to power in 2003 with his "car tax" rhetoric. The negative effects of the constant tax-cutting message of people like Arnold and those on his right flank has come home to roost. And we as Democrats have been shy about telling any other story. The poll bears this out by reporting that about 70% of Californians support the 2/3 majority for taxation.
California is in an impossible situation, the voters expect everything, and expect to pay nothing for it. I'm beginning to think that Treasurer Lockyer wasn't really that far off when he said that higher ed institutions might not open up next year. That might not even be the worst of our problems if Californians don't begin to conceptualize how government actually works. |
