When I was with the East Bay Young Dems on Thursday night talking about my campaign and its potential to inspire more young working class folks to run for Congress in the 2010 mid-terms, one name came up a few times: Emanuel Pleitez.
The 26-year-old activist CA-32 candidate has been in the news this week as well, after coming under blistering attack from State Sen. Gil Cedillo. And what for? Because Pleitez has Facebook pictures that show him dancing, and with women. Calitics has done some great coverage on this hit mailer, which seems to be designed to destroy Pleitez in the Latino community as Cedillo faces a tough fight with Judy Chu.
I join Calitics in an unusual endorsement in this race: Any Democrat but Gil Cedillo.
Any Democrat but Gil Cedillo.
Assuming the polling holds true, the outcome of this election is going to be absurd. Despite a full-court press Prop 1A is in worse shape than it was back in March. Prop 1C, the only one of these that actually matters on May 20, is faring the worst of them all, abandoned by Arnold's Budget Reform Now coalition. Props 1D and 1E, which will have a negligible effect on the budget situation on May 20, are actually in the best shape, so voters might decimate children's and mental health programs without actually providing the reforms that the legislators claim they need.
As Mark Baldassare, PPIC president points out, all this election has accomplished is the energization of the most reactionary elements of the electorate:
"The voters who are really tuned in are really turned off," says Mark Baldassare, PPIC president, CEO, and survey director. "They see the state's budget situation as a big problem, but so far, they don't like the solution."
The voters most likely to be following news of the special election very closely are older than age 55, men, and those who disapprove of the governor and legislature.
I attribute this to the total failure of the Yes campaign, rooted in their "fear will keep them in line" strategy. Ignoring every lesson of the 2008 campaign, the Yes side has tried to scare people into voting for the initiatives. Instead they merely seem to have scared the most conservative part of the electorate into showing up to register their disdain.
Another significant aspect of the PPIC poll is the dramatic contrast between California's attitudes toward the federal government and the state government. Californians broadly support President Obama and the Democratic Congress and feel good about the country's track, but strongly disapprove of their own state's government and where California is headed.
Hence, this Fail Whale image. The Democratic legislative leadership has badly miscalculated by trying to scare their base into supporting the initiatives. The fearmongering has made folks less likely to want to show up on May 19 - why would anyone be motivated by a "hold your nose" argument? Why would anyone want to show up to vote for initiatives in the absence of an assertive and aggressive strategy to fight budget cuts? And finally, why would anyone want to vote for anti-progressive initiatives that will merely make our future budget deficits deeper and more intractable? Obama inspired and empowered, but the Yes on 1A coalition demotivated and disempowered.
When these initiatives fail, as Arnold rightly predicted, it will primarily be a repudiation of Arnold Schwarzenegger's failed governorship. It will also be a sign that progressive voters are not going to help defend a bad set of budget solutions. If progressive legislators and organizations want to mobilize their base to help produce a fairer budget, they need to make a stand in the Capitol to ensure that anything that goes to voters has at least passing resemblance to progressive policy.
The last two elections in California - November 2008 and May 2009 - will both offer important lessons to Democrats and progressives. They both prove that if you want public support for a program of change, you have to offer hope and a credibly progressive set of solutions. If you do, the public WILL turn out to support it. If you do not, the public WILL reject it.
The keys to California's future are waiting for anyone willing to embrace a progressive, empowering set of solutions. May 19 is a clarion call for that kind of leadership in our state.
In a report called "California's Cash Flow Crisis," the nonpartisan and independent analyst said state government could be faced with having to borrow a record $20 billion at the start of the fiscal year in order to pay its day-to-day bills.
The report said failure of budget-balancing measures before voters at the May 19 special election "would increase the state's cash flow pressures substantially - potentially increasing the short-term borrowing requirement to well over $20 billion."
The article seems to misstate the exact nature of the LAO's analysis, which actually makes an either/or statement:
Deterioration of the state's economic and revenue picture (such as the $8 billion revenue shortfall we forecasted in March) or failure of measures in the May 19 special election would increase the state's cash flow pressures substantially-potentially increasing the short-term borrowing requirement to well over $20 billion. California is likely to have difficulty borrowing anywhere close to the needed amounts from the short-term bond markets based on the state government's own credit.
The proponents of the May 19 initiatives will likely use this to say "omg you must vote yes or else we are DOOMED!" But that's not the LAO's point. What the LAO is saying is that the deterioration we're already witnessing, with or without the May 19 initiatives, is bad enough to damage our ability to borrow. So why should we cause future budget damage in order to provide a supposed fix in the short-term that won't actually meet our budget needs?
The LAO says there are really only two options before the state:
• Additional actions to increase revenues or decrease expenditures in order to return the 2009-10 budget to balance.
• Additional actions to delay or defer scheduled payments to schools, local governments, service providers, and others.
Bill Lockyer and Speaker Karen Bass are in DC lobbying Congress to help California by providing guarantees for the all-important Revenue Anticipation Notes that the state uses to generate cash flow. Unfortunately Barney Frank isn't willing to go down that road:
But Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has indicated a bill his committee is drafting will not give California officials what they want. Instead, the bill is expected to include a temporary federal "reinsurance" program for state and municipal bonds and notes, as well as requiring bond rating agencies to base ratings on the likelihood of the issuing agency paying off the bondholders. Frank's committee is slated to take up the bill May 21, two days after the special election here.
The LAO makes the same point I made a few days ago about California getting shock doctrined by the feds the way NYC did 30 years ago and the way nations like Argentina did in the more recent past:
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we advise the Legislature and other state policymakers to be cautious about accepting any strings that might be attached to federal assistance. Strings attached to recent corporate bailouts-as well as federal loan guarantees provided to New York City during its fiscal crisis three decades ago-have included measures to remove financial and operational autonomy from executives. We recommend that the Legislature agree to no substantial diminishment in the role of California's elected state leaders. In our opinion, the difficult decisions to balance the state's budget now are preferable to Californians losing some control over the state's finances and priorities to federal officials for years to come.
Obviously it depends on whether federal mandates are progressive or regressive - given the neoliberal-friendly nature of this Congress and this White House I am inclined to agree with the LAO that this would not be a desirable outcome.
And yet it shows that until California's leaders come up with a serious long-term solution, the state will continue to teeter on the edge of the abyss. Only a credible and serious May 20 plan would offer that kind of permanent solution. As I argued before, it should include at a minimum:
• Majority vote budget
• Wealth and corporate taxes
• Reverse corporate tax cuts
• Push repeal of the 2/3rds rule
• Immediate and meaningful prison reform
• Legalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana
In recent days we've seen several of these get serious discussion in Sacramento, which is a hopeful sign. But we need to collect them together as a coherent plan and sell them to the voters - instead of selling fear.
As the 2008 election should have proved, fear doesn't sell. Hope, change, and a plan to put those in action do.
Not content to threaten to burn down the state if voters reject Prop 1A, Arnold Schwarzenegger is now threatening to raid local government funding. That Arnold would even contemplate this step shows just how much of a failure he is at governing, and how fundamentally reckless and destructive his administration has been.
As David Dayen explained it yesterday:
Under yet another Prop. 1A from 2004, the state can borrow 8% of property tax revenues (about $2 billion), which would have to be repaid with interest in three years. The credit cards are open for business again! While this measure represents 10-15% of the total projected budget gap, it would decimate services at the city and county level, services that - voila! - the state would need to step in to provide. Also the Governor cannot pull this off unilaterally: it would require a 2/3 vote of the legislature.
Fire agencies at every level in Orange County are already under pressure, with sales tax revenue dropping by double digits and declining revenue from every other source of taxes. Agency by agency, rolling hiring freezes are turning into actual layoffs.
And if you understand what happens when wildfires rage in California, you should be frightened. When wild fires burn in Yorba Linda or Orange, every fire agency, large and small, contributes men and equipment to strike forces that go where they are needed, while working cooperatively through mutual aid agreements to make sure that local needs are still met. They put every piece of equipment into the field, and every firefighter works overtime.
The city of Los Angeles stands to lose more than $67 million, according to the two-page draft proposal. The county, meanwhile, could be particularly hard hit, by some estimates potentially seeing $250 million or more drained away to help the state balance its books.
Cities and counties would probably have to increase layoffs of police, fire, public heath, recreation and other workers, according to the draft.
Dan Walters did an especially good job of calling bullshit on Arnold's scare tactics. But we can and should go further. Why aren't Democrats denouncing these proposals?
A raid on local government funds will push numerous cities, already reeling from the loss of sales tax revenue in a consumption-led downturn, into bankruptcy. Mass layoffs and permanent scaling back of core services will be the result. Additionally, raiding local government will cause public confidence in Democratic legislators to decline even further, and make it difficult for them to add to their seat totals in 2010 or to push through the kind of major reforms we need to fix this mess.
Dems should resist the temptation to go along with Arnold's scare tactics. Those tactics merely anger voters and make them more likely to vote no on all the propositions. Dems need to be projecting an attitude of competence and of determination to protect vital services. They'll need to do that no matter the outcome of May 19.
Raiding local government would push California deeper into recession, and would create further long-term budget problems, especially in 2011 or 2012 when the raided funds would have to be repaid with interest. Dems ought to make it clear that they will never give their votes to this kind of screwy plan, and need to push back hard against Arnold's reckless threats.
That's the verdict according to a J. Moore Methods poll that dropped over the weekend and that found its way into my hands this afternoon. Remember that this is an open primary - if someone gets more than 50% they win; if not then the top candidates from each party go to a runoff. According to the poll, Lt. Gov. John Garamendi leads among likely voters (36% have no opinion):
Garamendi
Rupf
DeSaulnier
Buchanan
Support:
24
17
13
10
Known:
80
20
39
45
Favorable:
35
9
16
17
Unfavorable:
12
9
13
12
(Rupf is Republican Warren Rupf, Sheriff of CoCo County)
The personal ratings are included, which show that Garamendi also has a big name ID and favorability advantage over all his challengers. Voter turnout is projected to be 30%, with 55% Dem, 33% Rep, and 12% DTS.
Of course, Garamendi doesn't have a 50% lead here, and the election hasn't even been scheduled yet. There's time for either DeSaulnier or Buchanan to try and catch up, but it's going to be a difficult climb. Garamendi's high public profile and ability to raise money for this campaign will be significant advantages. DeSaulnier, a solid progressive who would also make an excellent member of Congress, can counter with strong on-the-ground support, but it's unclear if that can trump Garamendi's built-in advantages.
This leads me to wonder if Buchanan plans to stick around in the race - I can't see her getting very far against this kind of opposition. Or perhaps DeSaulnier might step back and let Garamendi take it. So far as I can tell, however, both fully intend to continue their run.
Neither Anthony Woods nor Adriel Hampton were included in this poll, but I can't imagine either one would meaningfully impact the outcome.
So as far as I can tell this is Garamendi's to lose. We'll see if this poll shifts the landscape at all.
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.
Building off of Dave's post earlier today, and Robert's from yesterday, it is clear that the Yes on 1A campaign is doing its best to marginalize any opposition as "hyper-left." From our friend, Yes on Prop 1A consultant Steven Maviglio:
"The public screams, 'Do your job! Govern!' Steinberg calmly replies, 'We are governing; we have made difficult choices.'"
Which apparently the hyper-left, along with the hyper-right, doesn't seem to get. Neither side wants to compromise. With (sic) is what Steinberg and Bass have done, and is what leadership is all about, particularly when there's a 2/3 budget requirement handcuffing their ability to push progressive values. (CMR)
Look, I understand what it means to compromise. I'm all for reasonable compromise where it makes sense. But compromise for compromise sake, well let's say it's hardly guaranteed to ensure a winner. (Two words: Missouri Compromise.) But if we are going to complain about the constraints that 2/3 has shackled upon us, as Steve does, how are we going to add yet another constraint on top of the ones we have now? We are trading additional long-term dysfunction for the right to kick the can a few years down the road.
Furthermore, the "rainy day fund" won't even be there to help us in our next bust cycle. Prop 1A's requirement that money taken from the slush rainy day fund go only to one-time expenditures. What made the San Francisco rainy day fund so successful was the flexibility to protect vital services, as in the case of the city granting SFUSD $11 million to save 130 teaching jobs. But Prop 1A offers none of that protection for Californians and the services that we want to remain viable.
Despite everything else that has been or will be said, the fact is that Prop 1A still does not impact the budget for the next two fiscal years. Nothing, nada, zip, zero. While the Yes campaign is trying to make this all one big package, perhaps they should take Robert's advice and focus on Prop 1C. That's where the real money is, without quite the same level of dysfunction. While the Republicans wanted to slash through Prop 63 mental health funds (1E) and Prop 10 first five funds (1D), the real prize for them is the "spending cap" (Mike Villines words, not mine) contained in Prop 1A. That's why they tied the additional out year taxes to the passage of 1A.
Compromise isn't itself a governing principle, and the support of generally progressive legislative leaders doesn't ipso facto make it "progressive." As former Sup. of Pub. Instr. Delaine Easton pointed out, Prop 1A will leave us in a hole that we will not be able to dig out of. That's hardly a compromise that progressives are clamoring for.
UPDATE: One more thing that I missed in Steve's post, that we see in the latest Yes on Prop 1A ad, and that we see in Arnold's rhetoric, the doomsday scenario. At least they've taken off Arnold's phony $50 Billion number, but the message is still the same. Vote for this or your children will be out on the streets, which will be falling apart and full of busted water mains because we can't fix them, and they will be harassed by arsonists who can run free because we have no police or firefighters. Boogah-Boogah!
Dave pointed out the sheer ridiculousness of this fear mongering, but as it appears to be a central aspect of the campaign, it's worth mentioning again. And as I mentioned above, Prop 1A, the gooey center of dysfunction in this tootsie pop, contributes not one dime in the next two years.
Play doomsday all you want, but what does it have to do with Prop 1A? If they were so concerned about doomsday why didn't their latest ad even mention the measures that actually bring in cash this year? Prop 1A has nothing to do with whether your teacher of firefighter has a job next week, or next month or next year. But the doomsday theme is an attempt to tie the lot of the propositions together, despite the fact that Prop 1A would do nothing to avert layoffs in the short-term, and over the long-term threatens to throw a wrench in how we provide services in California for decades.
Of course, it's sheer cynicism, as Prop 1A has absolutely nothing to do with Props 1C, 1D, and 1E. Like the Governor calling George Skelton and asking him to dumb down the propositions for the people of California, this doomsday line demands that Californians cast an unquestioning eye upon these measures and take the Governor at his word. But given his track record, why should the people of California trust him or his fuzzy math?
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.
One of the reasons that I oppose Prop 1A, and to a lesser extent the other measures, is the sense that it is one more thing that we'll have to fix. It is one more layer of dysfunction on our staked seven layer dip of dysfunction. But as a practical matter, it is critical that Californians understand the structural dysfunction that is at the heart of the mess:
A defeat of six of the seven measures on the May 19 special election ballot - a good possibility, according to recent polls - could mean a return to the Capitol's pattern of futile negotiations between Democrats, who hold large legislative majorities but little sway, and minority Republicans, who hold the last word on budgets.
If nothing else, political observers say, such a scenario could present an opening for Democrats to unmask what they believe to be the heart of the Legislature's dysfunction: the two-thirds vote in both houses to pass a budget, as required by the state constitution since 1937.
* * *
California is one of only three states - alongside Rhode Island and Arkansas - to require a two-thirds vote on budgets. Only five states, including California, have a two-thirds requirement for taxes. (CoCo Times/MediaNews 5/3/09)
You know that, I know that, but at least according to the variety of polls we have seen since the marathon budget session, people forget quite quickly just exactly why we have this level of dysfunction. They forget that the majority of California is getting mugged by an increasingly small minority that is doing its darndest just to maintain control of a third of the legislature. Back in February we had majorities for overturning the budget 2/3 rule, and a close call for the tax rule. Now we're looking at uphill slogs in both.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to get both out of our Constitution. It was quite the subject at the CDP convention
Lowering that threshold to a simple majority is "the next big fight we need to win," Treasurer Bill Lockyer said at the recent state Democratic Party convention, where delegates identified the two-thirds requirement as the most pressing issue among 117 they considered.
* * *
Strategists and party officials say that they expect to put the issue before voters on the November 2010 ballot, perhaps lending it extra profile during the gubernatorial campaign. (CoCo Times/MediaNews 5/3/09)
I think the 117 number comes from the number of resolutions, which was actually 119. (Trust me, I was there for the marathon meeting.) As for the most pressing, I'm guessing that came from the prioritization from the resolutions committee, but that should be taken as the consensus of the convention. It is merely that all 20 voting members of the resolutions committee recognized that it should be prioritized. But the point is still well taken, it truly is the most pressing issue.
We've heard rumors of propositions to change the 2/3 majorities, but the only props on the Secretary of State's website don't appear to be from any institutional player and don't go back to the simpler to explain majority vote, opting rather for the arbitrary 55% figure. I don't know who exactly will lead the charge against 2/3, but it needs to be a cohesive effort from the grassroots all the way to the top.
We simply cannot let this dysfunction continue. And right along with that, we can't add on to the dysfunction with Prop 1A. I understand the need to grab the $16 Billion that will come in two years from tax increases, however, make no mistake that the spending cap formulas contained in Prop 1A will haunt us for years, and will be with us far beyond the two years of the extended regressive taxes.
We need to repeal 2/3, and on May 19, we need to be careful that we don't add one more item to our list of things we have to change.
When John Burton took the podium at the California Democratic Convention last weekend he reminded the delegates that no matter their positions on the May 19 propositions, we all needed to remember our shared party and political identity and not let the May 19 election unnecessarily divide us.
That's the attitude I've tried to take in my writing on the election. No matter what happens on May 19, on May 20 progressives and Democrats are going to have to unite to save California from a Zombie Death Cult salivating at the prospect of privatizing public education, destroying unions, and eviscerating environmental protections.
Unfortunately, some in the dying print media see fit to try and marginalize progressives in order to make the May 19 propositions seem inevitable and necessary. (Steve Maviglio has been pursuing this strategy as well, to little apparent effect.)
Take the San Francisco Chronicle's opinion page, which today apparently is filled with exhortations to vote for the initiatives. (I say "apparently" because the Chronicle is no longer delivering to the Central Coast). Here's Debra Saunders' view of the progressive attitude toward May 19:
Likewise, hard-core Democrats seem to think that if the five measures fail, there will be a golden age as Democratic leaders go after the requirement that two-thirds of the Assembly and Senate raise taxes. Folks, that is not going to happen - not when the latest Field Poll showed 58 percent of Democrats supporting the two-thirds mandate. Democrats may send big spenders to Sacramento and complain about spending reductions, but they still don't want to pay for all that stuff. They want someone else to pay - and there aren't enough smokers and millionaires to get there.
I don't know where she's getting this idea that we who oppose the propositions think it will create some magically positive outcome - sounds like a strawman to me. We are well aware of the difficulties involved with eliminating the 2/3 rule and in pursuing wealth taxes (which the Field Poll showed are massively popular with all voters). But we don't believe the difficult tasks ahead will be eased by straitjacketing the budget through Props 1A and 1C.
John Diaz, also in the Chronicle Opinion section, makes much the same argument as the right-wing Saunders:
The passions against the state budget measures in the May 19 special election are running hottest among the ideologues of the far left and far right.
Both extremes are determined especially to defeat Proposition 1A - the creation of a "rainy-day fund" - yet for reasons that are polar opposites.
Liberals warn that the measure would force the state to keep pouring money into that new fund, instead of resuscitating government programs, even when the economy is booming. Conservatives regard the spending restraints in Prop. 1A as far too squishy - plus, its passage would extend $16 billion in temporary increases in the state's sales tax, car-license fee and income tax.
Each side seems convinced that an election-day crash of Prop. 1A would send a shudder through Sacramento that would magically produce a groundswell for (the left's dream) the end of the constitutional requirement for a two-thirds vote to pass a budget, along with a surge in support for new taxes; or (the right's dream) a mandate to slash spending and not even think about raising taxes.
"Always beware when the far right and the far left go to bed together," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who crafted the propositions with legislative leaders, said in a telephone interview last week.
Ah, if Arnold said it, then it must be true! Diaz builds the same strawman as Saunders, that the "left" wants to kill the propositions out of some misguided belief that doing so will magically bring about the progressive millennium.
Instead we are well aware that we already are at the point of fighting with the right over whether we will raise revenues or destroy government. That fight will happen regardless of the outcome of the May 19 initiatives, since we're looking at a $9 billion deficit no matter what happens on May 19. We know that the public isn't yet where they need to be on the issue of supporting government programs for economic growth and collective security, but that's because nobody is willing to actually and openly make that argument.
Instead we recognize that the first step forward is to kill Prop 1A in particular. Delaine Eastin, who has forgotten more about public education in this state than most of us will ever know, put it well:
"It leaves us in the hole forever," warned Delaine Eastin, former state superintendent of public instruction, who predicted the public would defeat all propositions in a wave of "righteous wrath" against legislators who didn't have "the backbone" to raise taxes.
Diaz, Saunders, the Chronicle editorial board - none of them really grapple with this issue. And that's why they don't understand progressive opposition to the May 19 measures. Instead they choose to read it according to their usual script of "centrism is always good, especially when it's actually conservatism".
Californians are going to reject these measures. And progressives will be ready on May 20 to offer an alternative. Will the Chronicle?
Ok, shocking might not be the best word for it, perhaps "completely expected" would work better. The latest bit of data to come out from the good folks at the Field poll is approval data (PDF) on our elected officials. And let's just say it ain't all that pretty. The Legislature is sitting at a sparkling 14% approval rating and the Governator is at 33%.
I included a couple of the breakouts here by region. Interestingly, the San Francisco Bay region seems to be a bit more sympathetic to the elected officials. For both the Governor and the Legislature, approval numbers were highest by the Bay. On the other hand, the LA area pretty much hates Arnold, and the Central Valley feels the same way about the Legislature.
I think one question that wasn't answered here was how Californians feel about their own Legislator. Typically those numbers are far higher, after all it's harder to hate somebody you've met and voted for several times than the nebulous "Legislature." Nobody votes for the "legislature" so there is no ownership of that body by the voters. On the other hand, over 50% of the state voted to re-elect the Governator.
Also interesting, but unsurprising, was that Arnold is now officially more popular with Democrats than Republicans. Congratulations on that Arnold. Your party officially hates you.
It's clear that the elected leaders will not be featured prominently in any commercials in the next three weeks. Well, not if the Yes campaigns want to win. Although, if there was an ad about Prop 1C (lottery), perhaps a wonkish politician might help. I was thinking John Chiang, but I don't know his official position on the issue, and I doubt that he would want to be associated with this stinker of a special election.
April is the state's big revenue month, as personal income taxes flow into the Franchise Tax Board and refund checks flow out (leaving me a whopping $200 richer). Unsurprisingly, this April's receipts were significantly below expectations:
April, by far the largest tax collection month for California, ended in a whimper, coming up more than $1.8 billion short in personal income and corporate taxes.
California was about $750 million short of projected tax collection after March, and April's shortfall puts it $2.5 billion behind for the fiscal year ending June 30.
So we're already $9 billion in the hole. If Propositions 1C, 1D and 1E fail, as it looks like they will, then the deficit could grow to $16 billion.
The size of the May 20 deficit suggests the need for Democratic legislators - the same people who constantly ask "what's YOUR plan?" of progressive opponents of the flawed May 19 propositions - to answer that question themselves. A $9 billion deficit doesn't seem like a good time to straitjacket ourselves further with a spending cap and a "rainy day fund on steroids" via Prop 1A, or blow a $2 billion hole in the budget by selling more lottery bonds than there are lottery revenues.
More taxes? Rejection of Proposition 1A, the linchpin measure, would not only short-circuit the taxes enacted in February but probably make any additional levies politically impossible. Democratic leaders could try again to enact taxes without Republican votes but would face a legal challenge and political fallout. A massive bailout from Washington? Unlikely.
This is an immense mess, partly caused by the recession, partly caused by years of fiscal irresponsibility. And it may be the day of reckoning that Capitol politicians had long avoided, compounded by the obvious anger of voters....
Wholesale slaughter of state spending may be their only option. This is a pivotal point in California political history, a fiscal Armageddon.
This is where the absence of a coordinated progressive and Democratic pushback against the demand to cut spending and the ideologies that underlay it is so vital. Instead Democratic legislators have cast the post-May 19 spending cuts as somehow inevitable, instead of rallying the base to fight those cuts. Had that rallying effort been done I am convinced that there would be greater support from Democrats and progressives for the May 19 propositions.
Walters also implies that there actually is a Plan B, which we at Calitics have been pushing for some time. The May 20 strategy, as I see it, involves at least these pieces:
Majority vote budget
Wealth taxes
Reverse corporate tax cuts
Push repeal of the 2/3rds rule
Immediate and meaningful prison reform
Legalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana
Walters speculates that with record low approval ratings the legislature isn't in any position to lead these kind of changes. Here I disagree. I think their low ratings are precisely because they haven't yet offered these kinds of solutions.
The other argument is of course that none of the above are possible because of Republican obstruction. But that's begging the question. It is long past time to challenge Republican obstructionists. This is a party that has hardly any public support any longer. They are vulnerable to attack.
The best place to start is higher income taxes on the wealthy. 75% of voters support those taxes, according to the recent Field Poll. Democrats should pick a big fight on that starting on May 20. Force Republicans to use the 2/3 rule to kill those taxes - and you've got yourself on hell of a winning issue for 2010. Or you actually force Republicans to climb down and back those taxes.
The point is that no matter what happens on May 19 we're going to have a massive deficit and therefore a fight on our hands on May 20. Let's come together as progressives and Democrats, no matter our views on the propositions, to prepare to win that battle.
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.
Note: I'm hosting the KRXA 540 morning show from 8-10 today to discuss this and other issues. Special guest at 9 - Cleve Jones!
Prop
Yes
No
Undec.
1A
40
49
11
1B
40
49
11
1C
32
59
9
1D
40
49
11
1E
40
51
9
1F
71
24
5
In a poll result that should surprise no one, The Field Poll reports that Propositions 1A through 1E are all in negative territory with voters, although Prop 1F is (unfortunately) going to pass by a wide margin. Likely voter numbers to the right
What is really interesting are the partisan breakdowns on this. Generally speaking Democrats and independents are backing the initiatives more strongly than Republicans. For example, on Prop 1A, Dems support it 52-37-11, whereas Republicans oppose, 24-65-11, and independents are supportive, 47-40-13. Dems are evenly split on Prop 1E and opposed to Prop 1C (by a margin of 37-49-14). Republicans appear to be making the strongest "no on everything" argument, and independents tend to track the Democrats on this.
However, the overall numbers suggest that Republicans may be more likely to vote in this election, hence the seemingly likely failure of the first five. Democrats more strongly oppose Prop 1C, which as you know is the only one that makes any difference on May 20. That's not a stance borne of ignorance - 58% of all voters believe that it is unlikely that Prop 1C would significantly increase lottery revenues.
The poll also suggests that the legislature's lying ballot descriptions of Props 1D and 1E are having an impact. The wording in the sample ballot makes it sound like the money in those props is being shifted from one kind of children's and mental health programs to another, when in fact that money is just being dumped into the general fund with no guarantee at all that the money would help kids or the mentally ill. Those who plan to vote yes on 1D and 1E don't know this or don't believe it's true.
So what conclusions can we draw from all this?
• Democrats are more willing to give their leaders a chance. With Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, the CTA and nearly every elected Democratic official stumping for the whole package, likely Democratic voters - presumably those more inclined to pay close attention to legislators and CTA's ads - it's not surprising that most of the props hold a narrow lead among Dems (no proposition has higher than 53% support of Dems, aside from 1F). Of course, 1C does not, which gives fuel to the fire of my own "they should focus on 1C" argument - and in any case Democratic voter support for these things is tenuous, not of a large margin, and in the case of 1D and 1E, based on incorrect information.
• The Republican base is even wingnuttier than their elected leaders. The poll confirms what we already knew, that Arnold Schwarzenegger has zero influence whatsoever over his party, where the real power lies with the Howard Jarvis Association and Grover Norquist.
• We can expect Steve Maviglio and others to repeat the "progressives who oppose this are allied with Republicans" argument, which neatly avoids the fact that the Yes on 1A coalition is getting a lot of funding from Chevron and is of course headed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. But that would ignore many weak points for the Yes side, including their inability to drive more Dems to the polls and the generally weak levels of support for these props from Dems (only Props 1A and 1D have higher than 50% support from Democratic voters) and the fact that Props 1D and 1E are only supported by Dems based on false information. In short, the leadership and CTA are having some impact making their case to the core Democratic voter bloc, but not in sufficient numbers among that group and certainly not among the broader Democratic voter universe.
The best case scenario for the Yes side is a pyrrhic victory, where Props 1A and 1B pass but 1C fails, meaning we now have a spending cap but a $13 billion deficit on May 20. And that's where the poll's most troubling finding of all comes in - that more and more Democrats support the concept of limiting government spending. If the outcome of this election is that leading Democrats and progressives have convinced the rank and file to back Republican policies, I'm not sure there'll be anything to celebrate here at all.
Note: I am the Public Policy Director for the Courage Campaign
Last fall the Courage Campaign began picking up where our friends at SpeakOut California left off, producing a new version of the progressive voter guide that SpeakOut pioneered. The guide was a big hit last fall, getting downloaded thousands of times and passed around by California progressives as a handy method to help navigate the 12 propositions on the ballot.
Now the Courage Campaign Issues Committee has produced its May 2009 Progressive Voter Guide. One one side it includes a handy chart of how the Courage Campaign and eight other progressive organizations have endorsed on the six ballot propositions - including, of course, the Calitics endorsements. On the other side it includes a description of the initiatives and a list of who supports which position.
This guide is especially valuable, I think, given that California Democratic and progressive voters and organizations are not unified on their approach to this election. Our guide includes the recommendations of the California Democratic Party, Calitics, the California Nurses Association, SEIU California State Council, the League of Women Voters, the California Federation of Teachers, California League of Conservation Voters, and the California Teachers Association.
It includes the endorsements of the Courage Campaign, as decided by our members in an online vote that was begun on Thursday. Our staff recommendation was No on 1A, 1C, 1D, 1E and 1F - we made no recommendation at all on Prop 1B. Our members, however, decided to endorse a No vote on all six initiatives, and as a result that is now the Courage Campaign's official position on the May 19 initiatives.
The guide can be downloaded directly as a PDF - be sure to pass it around to your friends and family. I already have my ballot sitting somewhere in the pile of mail on my kitchen table, so this is particularly well timed for those of us who already have our ballots, and valuable to anyone interested in casting a vote on these important measures.
As we enter the final weeks before the May 19 special election, the often blurry picture of the six initiatives and the broader politics surrounding them is coming into focus. Yesterday's rejection of Propositions 1A, 1D and 1E by the California Democratic Party convention should not be surprising for two reasons:
Despite the rhetoric, none of these propositions will have a meaningful impact on the immediate budget mess. Prop 1A of course has no effect at all on revenues until 2011. Props 1D and 1E are drops in the bucket, especially considering that at minimum there is an $8 billion budget hole no matter what happens on May 19
Those three propositions were the most objectionable and obviously ridiculous proposals of the six. A spending cap is a huge price to pay, and Prop 1A doesn't really offer much in return. As several folks eloquently explained on the convention floor, including Paul Hogarth, Props 1D and 1E are an indefensible attack on the most vulnerable and needy Californians. Democrats showed that they still had souls by rejecting those two measures.
With the likely rejection by voters of Prop 1A, Prop 1B is rendered moot even if it is approved (CTA looks like it will lose its multi-billion dollar gamble) and the irrelevancy of Abel Maldonado's Prop 1F, that leaves Proposition 1C as the only thing about the May 19 election that has any suspense left to it. The February budget deal assumed $5 billion would be brought in from Prop 1C - which is optimistic at best but does mean that of all six propositions, only Prop 1C really matters over the near term.
Along with the rest of the Calitics Editorial Board I oppose Prop 1C - it's a payday loan that is likely to leave the state on the hook for at least $2 billion out of the general fund when it becomes clear that people aren't about to reverse the trend of buying fewer lottery tickets.
But if I can offer some free advice to the Democratic legislative leadership, they need to stop digging their hole any deeper, stop pushing for Prop 1A and start focusing solely on Prop 1C.
It's possible that the legislative leadership could convince Californians that throwing shrinking lottery revenues to a bond market that hasn't shown much interest in the proposal is something we have to do to prevent even worse cuts than those that are already likely to come down in June.
It would certainly help their cause if they stopped speaking as if those cuts were inevitable. Democratic legislators have tired to scare Democratic voters into backing the propositions and it hasn't worked for Prop 1A in particular - all that fear does is reinforce the base's anger at what appears to be capitulation to Republicans.
By now it has to be clear that the Democratic legislative leadership has badly miscalculated on these proposals. Aside from the flawed nature of the proposals and how they came onto the ballot, selling them as a single package was a disastrous move. If they want to salvage anything from this sinking ship, they could tell Californians why we should take a chance on borrowing against the lottery via Prop 1C, and how it will help our Democratic leaders more strongly resist Republican demands for massive cuts, instead of assume those cuts are a foregone conclusions. They could embrace demands for a majority vote budget, instead of dismissing it out of hand.
I still wouldn't vote for Prop 1C. But if they want other Democrats, progressives, and the people of California to vote for it, following something like the above plan would assure those voters that the legislative leadership is willing to be realistic, and that they actually do have some sort of May 20 strategy that they can plug Prop 1C into. In the absence of such a strategy, Prop 1C is going down, and the leadership has nobody to blame but themselves.
I'm still sitting in the Resolutions Committee meeting. I've been here for almost five hours, but most of the drama was compressed into the first hour or so. Dave described the situation of the hearings on the resolution committee for the props, and all that sounds about right.
I'm used to being outgunned, but there was a deafening silence after I spoke against Prop 1A. Nobody else on the resolutions committee spoke out against the proposition. I, alone, was running the opposition against what will be the most profound change to our budgeting system since the notorious Proposition 13 in 1978. It was a heady responsibility to be the lone voice against a sitting Assembly member that I normally agree with, Kevin De Leon. Along with California Faculty Association Presiden Lillian Taiz, I was challenging the Leader of the State Senate, Darrell Steinberg.
And thus I became David to a Goliath I never expected to challenge. I have such enormous respect for Sen. Steinberg, and nearly always agree with his politics. But, Proposition 1A is simply wrong for the state of California. The extra $16 Billion in revenues in the out years is simply not worth the additional dysfunction that the spending cap will impart on the state.
But this David lives to fight another day, as the endorsement must proceed through the floor session on Sunday. I know that the grassroots of the state party will have something else to say about the matter. And together, a lot of Davids can be a pretty formidable challenge for ol' Mr. Goliath.
The Yes on Prop 1A campaign has a daunting task in trying to get the voters of California to support the Frankensteinian creation that is Prop 1A. After all, support is hovering around 29% now. So, like I did with Squirrel in her Darth Vader costume, the Prop 1A campaign is trying to do with their dog.
Let's start at the top: Arnold Schwarzenegger, in a meeting with the Bay Area Council, yesterday said this:
"We are one of the only state's that don't have a rainy day fund... so Prop 1A [will be a historic reform if it passes.]"
WILL require general funds to be put in a "Rainy Day" fund to build a RESERVE to protect California from future economic downturns. The Budget Stabilization Account will also be used to pay off the California Economic Recovery Bond early;
Wow, how quickly Arnold forgets his own propositions. It's easy, I suppose, when they have been spectacularly unsuccessful.
And then there's the ads. The Budget Reform Now Committee, that would be the Yes on 1A-F campaign in campaign-speak, released an ad for the teevee. I enjoy that on their web page (and in any YouTube embed), the ad is up there with a one star rating. As for the content of the ad, it is, shall we say, only honest in a way that a political consultant could love. You can peep the whole ad, in all its widescreen glory, over the flip.
The ad is just about as confusing as the measure itself, which is saying quite a bit. For example, the actor in the ad says that "Prop 1A will give us budget stability." Beyond the fact that we've heard that one before, oh, about four years ago with Props 57 & 58, there is the troubling matter of the huge structural budget deficit that Prop 1A leaves in its wake.
According to the California Budget Project's report on Prop 1A (PDF), the projected revenue cap will be $16 billion lower than the Governor's "baseline" spending in 2010-2011, followed by $17 and $21 billion in the next two years. Thus, we'll have to either raise taxes or decrease spending. That's hardly the stability we need.
Or how about the somewhat audacious claim that Prop 1A will "help hold the line on higher taxes." While I'm not one to concern myself with that particular issue, the claim is deceptive at best. Ignoring the extended sales tax for the out years, if Prop 1A does anything, it encourages taxes. The most efficient way of resetting the cap is to, drumroll please, raise taxes.
This ad does its best to dress up a dog, but Californians are saying that this dog just won't hunt.
There have been a few voices suggesting California Lt. Governor John Garamendi abandon his bid to replace Liebermanesque Ellen Tauscher and instead run in California's third congressional district against Dan Lungren.
And if you are a Democrat - especially a Progressive Democrat - that is good news. Strategically, such a move would be counterproductive for Democrats.
It Makes No Sense for California Democrats
The biggest problem in California is the Republican Veto. This means that Democrats may have a majority in the legislature, but not a functioning majority. With the artificial budget control by Republicans, it actually hurts Democrats if a legislator ascends to congress in a Special Election. With state Senator Mark DeSaulnier and Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan both running for Tauscher's seat, in all likelihood a Democratic legislator will win unless Garamendi runs.
When the time came to make a decision on the propositions, it was with a heavy heart that I chose to oppose Prop 1A. I understand the difficult position that the legislators face. Republicans in the Legislature are amusing themselves with death-talk of the California state government. It really is quite scary stuff. Yet despite the loaded gun pointing to our head, it is imperative that California has a government moving towards a more functioning structure, not in the other direction.
And that is the problem with Prop 1A. It moves us in the wrong direction. It moves us towards more hurdles, not less. Whether it is or isn't a spending cap (depending on who you talk to) isn't as important when it is considered in the context that this is one additional layer of dysfunction on top of an already dysfunctional system. During my appearance on KALW's Your Call Radio (podcast here), I had a chance to discuss the problems with Prop 1A, and truly this is the one that would really leave a welt on our governance going forward.
It is because of this dysfunction that I will be working with the No on Prop 1A campaign for the next month leading up to the election trying to get the message out about why this proposition is wrong for California. This is a progressive campaign, funded and led by progressive organizations like the SEIU state council, the California Federation of Teachers, and the California Faculty Association. It is imperative that there be a progressive voice explaining why Prop 1A is wrong for California rather than just leaving the opposition to be defined by the ravings of the Howard Jarvis Tax Association and their fellow anti-government winger friends. And that is all the more important with the polling now showing disastrous numbers for Prop 1A. In a CBS 5/SurveyUSA poll 42% of voters said they certain to vote 'No', while 29% were certain to vote 'Yes.' All of the demos for this are horrible, with none exceeding 36% support. There are a lot of reasons for that, but it is critical that California's leaders understand that HJTA doesn't speak for us, but that Californians really want a well-functioning government for the long-term.
As always, I'll disclose my affiliation when discussing Prop 1A. However, as a point of transparency, I was neither a part of the campaign nor in discussions with the campaign before we released the Calitics Ed Board endorsements on the special election.
Now that that is out of the way, I look forward to working to defeat this measure. If you have any questions for the campaign, please email me. I'll do my best to answer them or direct you to somebody who can. If you'd like more information about Prop 1A, you can check out our *brand spanking new website, follow us on Twitter and join our group on Facebook.
I will be on KRXA 540 AM at 8 this morning to discuss this and other topics in California politics
Conservatives would have Californians believe that Prop 1A is in trouble with the voters because it would extend some temporary taxes for a couple more years. That may well be true for some voters. But it isn't the full story.
In order to get the February budget deal done, Democrats agreed to put a spending cap on the ballot. But they knew that progressives would never support a hard spending cap along the lines of what Arnold wanted in Prop 76. So staffers from the Legislature and the Governor's office got together to write what became Prop 1A - designed to accomplish all the effects of a spending cap, but with enough sleight-of-hand and possible loopholes to hopefully convince skeptical Democrats and progressives to back it.
And when that didn't seem to be enough, they linked it to Prop 1B, a $9 billion carrot to CTA to back the budget package, despite the very real possibility that Prop 1A (whose effects will last indefinitely, whereas Prop 1B will run out around 2014).
"We see 1A imposing a spending cap that assures that California schools remain among the most poorly funded in the country," says CFT political director Kenneth Burt.
And he adds, echoing what other public employee unions have complained about: "CTA went behind closed doors and cut a secret deal with the governor without talking to anybody."
Another opponent is the California Faculty Assn. Education already "is in a hole," says President Lillian Taiz. "Now they're dropping a manhole cover on us" with 1A. "This is madness."
The California School Boards Assn. also opposes 1A. Executive Director Scott P. Plotkin says a rainy day reserve would prevent schools from obtaining "adequate funding."
What about the $9.3 billion the props would provide to schools? "That's money we're entitled to anyway under Proposition 98," Plotkin says. Go to court and get it, he asserts.
Democratic supporters of Prop 1A, including legislators and their staff, have been working overtime trying to convince progressives, including yours truly, to support Prop 1A. Their argument has been that Prop 1A isn't like Prop 76 (and they are correct), and that with a Democratic governor and a large Democratic majority in the legislature, its effects will either be blunted or simply irrelevant.
But that is asking voters to take an enormous risk with the government services they need to prosper and even to survive. Prop 1A DOES create a kind of spending cap, let's be clear. It's not at all certain that we'll have a Democrat in the governor's office in 2011 (and even if we did they may not want to raise new revenues anyway). Prop 1A immediately gives the governor the authority to make mid-year cuts, meaning Arnold could slash UC and CSU spending during an academic year, or a Republican governor elected in 2010 could do deeper damage.
Further, we have no idea yet how the idiotic redistricting plan set up in Prop 11 will affect the composition of the legislature in 2013 and afterward. Although I don't see how California Republicans can make a significant comeback even with Prop 11's gerrymandering, they might well be able to reduce Democratic numbers so that a 2/3 vote is not within reach even by cutting further deals.
Skelton argues that the problem with Prop 1A is its complexity, which confuses and therefore turns off voters:
The lesson: When writing a ballot measure, keep it simple. Make sure it can be easily grasped by voters.
Fast forward 36 years. The core measure on the May 19 special election ballot, Proposition 1A, suffers from a similar affliction: lack of simplicity. That's because it has been burdened with so much Byzantine baggage that there's no consensus interpretation of what the measure is all about....
But the product was not a prime-time package ready for the voters. The trade-offs that click inside a legislative chamber aren't always easy to explain outside the Capitol. Voters tend to become confused or enraged.
And that may well explain how some voters approach the issue. But for many others, the concept of a spending cap that nobody really understands, and that progressives and Democrats are supposed to support on the faith that Democratic legislators will always be there in sufficient numbers to ensure this doesn't destroy government, is just not something we can swallow.
Especially when you consider that the California Budget Project estimates that Prop 1A will lead to immediate budget shortfalls between at least now and 2012-13 (and could be as high as $21 billion that year), there really seems to be no case whatsoever for Prop 1A. Voting no on this one is an easy move for progressives to make.
Ultimately I have to wonder about the political wisdom of Democratic legislators campaigning on a "Yes on everything" platform. Schools will get their money, either via Prop 1B or via the courts. The only propositions that might affect the size of the existing deficit are Props 1C-1E, and though they have their considerable problems as well, they might fare better if they were decoupled from Prop 1A.
But that's now what the leadership has chosen to do, and as a result, it seems likely the entire package will be shot down by voters. That wouldn't be because of voter ignorance or confusion, either. It'd be because voters understand a bad idea when they see it.
Hence, this Fail Whale image. The Democratic legislative leadership has badly miscalculated by trying to scare their base into supporting the initiatives. The fearmongering has made folks less likely to want to show up on May 19 - why would anyone be motivated by a "hold your nose" argument? Why would anyone want to show up to vote for initiatives in the absence of an assertive and aggressive strategy to fight budget cuts? And finally, why would anyone want to vote for anti-progressive initiatives that will merely make our future budget deficits deeper and more intractable? Obama inspired and empowered, but the Yes on 1A coalition demotivated and disempowered.
I'm quite proud to be working for the