Last week, John Burton (the new Chair of the California Democratic Party) sent an update to members of the CDP's Executive Board about what the organization has been doing since he took the helm in late April.
Please see the message below in its entirety (edited slightly to make it easier to read).
Congratulations on your election to the California Democratic Party Executive Board! Our first meeting will take place in Burlingame on the weekend of July 17th through the 19th. I am looking forward to seeing you there.
And I also wanted to thank you for making the April 09 CDP Convention such a positive and high-energy event. Our team has hit the ground running. (See the update below)
During this transition time, we are looking for the best ways to address the needs activists expressed to us during the campaign, and putting the programs in place to answer the call.
During my campaign, I promised I would focus on the basics: getting Democrats elected - from local races all the way up the ticket: Push to move red areas to blue, in all 58 counties; Increase Democratic voter registration; give activists the tools and assistance they need to be successful; support our young Democrats; and re-energize the state party.
While we have officially opposed Prop 1C for a while now, we focused more on the bad public policy of borrowing for ongoing expenses. But anti-gambling advocates point out something else about where this money comes from:
The Rev. James Butler, executive director of the California Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, said expanding gambling, even in the form of a lottery, will invite social and economic ills.
Asking people to bet more of their money could lead to increased bankruptcies, homelessness, crime and unemployment, he said.
"It's built on the premise that Californians do not spend enough money on the lottery," Butler said. "It is a mistake." (SF Chronicle 5/7/2009)
Part of the problem with this argument lies with the fact that we already have Indian gaming across the state, where people can go and get a much more immediate gambling fix. If people want to ruin their lives, there are plenty of ways to do it. That being said, it is somewhat distressing for California to stake its future on what is essentially a tax on hope, or if you are more cynical, a tax on the failure to understand the concept of expected value.
While Prop 1C looks more important with every day to the "package" that the Legislature approved in February, as it by far provides the most immediate cash, by no means it is a sure bet. If our lottery revenues do not increase, we'll have to dig deeper into the general fund for education dollars going forward. And if they do increase, well, we've just increased the hope tax on players who are disproportionately poor.
UPDATE: The Riverside P-E has an article about who the lottery players are in the county. Lottery officials point out that there is no hard data to indicate that lottery players are disproportionately poor, and the P-E's investigation in the Inland Empire seems to tacitly agree with that statement. Still, the CA Lottery hasn't allowed data to be released. But in Texas, the state ordered a demographic study. It showed that lottery spending was generally skewed poor and undereducated:
Players making under $12,000 a year spent three times as much as those pulling in over $100,000 and nearly double those making between $75,000 and $100,000. ($19 a month for the under $12,000 respondents, vs. $6 a month for those over $100,000; and $10 for those earning between $75,000 and $100,000.
***
Here's the education breakdown:
Less than high school diploma: 16 median dollars spent per month
High school degree 15 median dollars spent per month
Some college 16.5 median dollars spent per month
College dgree 8.50 median dollars spent per month
Graduate degree 6 median dollars spent per month (Houston Chronicle 12/12/2008)
UPDATE 2: I missed data from the CA Budget Project's Report on 1C and a report out of UCLA that shows that California lottery players are both disproportionately poor and non-white.
(A quick notice of an opportunity to have a conversation with Jean Ross of the California Budget Project at 11 AM today. We will be focusing on Prop 1A and its impact on the general budget mess. The call will be recorded and aired as the next Calitics Podcast as well. It's something of an experiment with the podcast. If you are interested in hopping on the call, shoot me an email (brian A T calitics dotcom) and I'll get you the call-in info. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
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.
Sen. Sheila Kuehl knows a thing or two about the legislative process. The long-time legislator and persistent advocate of single-payer health care has published an essay on the California Progress Report opposing Props 1A, 1D, & 1E. The first essay covers only the first half of the props, with the remaining coming soon. She minces no words on Prop 1A, and the guarantee of money for schools in Prop 1B is not enough to change her mind:
I don't like the idea of a spending cap [in Prop 1A], even calculated on the regression model. I would prefer the ability of the Legislature to spend one-time money on one-time expenditures and calculate ongoing expenditures separately, without an automatic cap, and a growing rainy day fund. With such a cap, there will never be enough monies for the schools, even with a small portion of the monies over the spending cap going into an education fund. In my experience, all programs get short-changed when a robo-cap like this is enacted.
***
I don't think the education funding is a sufficient reason to enact the permanent spending cap proposed by Prop 1A in the state Constitution. Other teachers' organizations oppose Prop 1A and have indicated, since they believe the state already owes the 9.3 billion, they will simply sue the state for it. Which would, of course, create even more of a hole in the budget. There needs to be a sure hand with authority to pass an adequate budget without gimmicks, which is why I support an end to the 2/3 requirement.
She's a little more mixed on Prop 1C:
This is the one proposition I'm tempted to support. Of the six billion current dollars estimated to come from all the propositions combined (not counting increased tax revenue three and four years out), more than five billion is estimated to come from the sale of the lottery receipts. Although I do not support increased encouragement for gambling, this income could be the least damaging.
It's also interesting that the casino-operating tribes made sure that the measure avoids any new games that could threaten their operations.
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.
For more information about Calitics and the editorial board, see our About Calitics page.
During the budget week from hell, we mildly cheered on the progress of the budget process. We were concerned about the short-term budget issues, but were also dismayed by the rapid rightward shift of the negotiations. Unfortunately, as an Editorial Board we simply cannot support the measures as they have been brought to the May 19 Special Elections Ballot. We share the concerns of the League of Women Voters that this package was poorly designed and poorly executed, resulting in a plan that will ultimately create more harm than good. And since none of these measures address the structural revenue gap, adding another layer to an already suffocating fiscal straightjacket makes no sense whatsoever.
We do not appreciate the fearmongering message from supporters of the initiatives, who obviously can't find anything to recommend in these solutions and thusly must warn of impending doom in order to get them passed. We remind voters the words of Bill Clinton: "If one candidate's trying to scare you, and the other one's trying to get you to think... if one candidate's appealing to your fears, and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you'd better vote for the one who wants you to think and hope."
Prop 1A - State Spending Cap. NO
Beginning with Prop 1A, the heart of this package, we cannot do better than the LWV in briefly describing the flaws:
[Prop 1A] would actually make it more difficult for future governors and legislatures to enact budgets that meet California's needs and address state priorities. It would amend the state Constitution to dictate restrictions on the use of funds put into the reserve and limit how "unanticipated" revenues can be used in good years. It could lock in a reduced level of public services by not taking proper account of the state's changing demographics and actual growth in costs. Prop 1A would also give future governors new power to make budget cuts without legislative oversight. Like the other propositions opposed by the League on this ballot, Prop 1A came from a deeply flawed process that resulted in measures written in haste and without public input or analysis. The League would support real budget reform, but we regretfully conclude that this measure would only make things worse. (League of Women Voters)
And there's actually much more. We don't have to guess about the impact of spending caps. In 1992, Colorado instituted a spending cap as part of TABOR, and within a few years spending on education, health care, and practically all other measures of government dropped from the middle of the pack relative to other states to almost dead last in every category. Considering that California ALREADY ranks near the bottom in these categories, the result would be even more disastrous. The California Budget Project estimates that the cap would force the state to reduce expenditures $16 billion dollars below the Governor's baseline spending projections by 2010, $17 billion by 2011 and $21 billion by 2012. That's a FAR BIGGER gap than the two years of tax revenues that would be lost by voting down 1A. These revenues are highly unlikely to ever be recovered, because of the faulty indexing of the cap and the fact that it's based on a level of revenues made during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. And Democrats claiming that there's an ingenious "out" of the spending cap because it could be raised if taxes are raised neglect to mention that this doesn't apply to fees, which would essentially end any efforts to work around the conservative veto by raising revenues through fees to fill a budget gap. In fact, the way the spending cap is structured, it would force contributions into the rainy day fund EVEN IN DOWN BUDGET YEARS.
Failure of Prop 1A would indeed reduce funding to our government in 2011-2013. Yet this assumes that legislators could never deal with revenues in the intervening two years. Further, the increased revenues we would receive from Prop 1A are simply not worth the long-term damage to our government that this measure would create. That's why the CTA and the Democratic establishment worked so hard to defeat a similar spending cap plan in 2005.
Prop 1B - Education Funding. Payment Plan. NO
Prop 1B isn't really inherently bad. It is simply made irrelevant by our position on Prop 1A through a clause that takes 1B down if Prop 1A fails. It provides a workaround to a disputed technical question in Proposition 98 by setting up a one-time $9.3 Billion fund for education. If this didn't come with the baggage of Prop 1A, it would be worth considering. But as it stands, we simply cannot accept the pair. That being said, if Prop 1A passes, it is important that Prop 1B passes. If we were to vote strategically, we would vote No on 1A and Yes on 1B, but we leave that decision to you.
It is worth noting that Prop 1B would not provide a solution to the catastrophic financial crisis facing public education in this state, and would do little if anything to help the 26,000+ teachers who received a layoff notice last month keep their jobs in the fall. Since Prop 1B's effects are not permanent, it would not exempt public education from the likelihood of funding shortfalls that Prop 1A would produce. Education has already suffered enough from one-time short-term budget deals that produced long-term problems.
Proposition 1C - Securitization of the lottery. NO
Prop 1C would allow the Treasurer to sell bonds backed by the lottery revenues. The budget deal assumes that we will get $5 billion for this deal, but that number remains highly speculative. However, our opposition does not stem chiefly from any quibble with the amount of money it would bring in, but rather from our overall sense of failed governance that emanates from the entire package and this proposition specifically. George Skelton calls this proposition a "payday loan" and no better words could describe this.
The fact is that we have done this before and it failed. Back in 2004 after Arnold wiped out the dreaded "car tax" he came to the voters of this state complaining about how we are going to fix this budget. So, he told us that if we just passed props 57 and 58 to sell some bonds and tweak the budget process, he'd handle it from there. Needless to say, the problem was exacerbated rather than ameliorated, in particular because the state NEVER SOLD THE BONDS. If this package represented real reform that would allow the state to move forward with an honest and democratic budget process, this would be more palatable. If we knew that we wouldn't just be back in the exact same situation 18 months from now, this might even be a reasonable idea to dig ourselves out of a very deep hole.
As it is, we'd prefer to wait for something real.
Prop 1D - Diverts $600 Million from Prop 10 First Five funds to other childhood programs. - NO
The First Five Program was created in 1998 by the passage of Proposition 10. By raising the cigarette tax by 50 cents per pack, California was able to create a sustainable program with its own source of revenue. But that has always been a thorn in the craw of the right-wing Republicans. It is spending they cannot touch for programs they would rather not fund. But the First 5 commission has been successful in providing funding for innovative and successful programs. And the commission's own prudence has led it to the chopping block. They planned for the inevitable decrease in cigarette taxes by building up a cash reserve, and that money has grown too tempting for the Legislature. It is a pot of money, and they cannot resist.
Rather than raiding First 5, we should have provided a sustainable revenue for the state. We should not abide by these budget gimmicks and ploys, and First 5 should not be their victim.
Prop 1E - Diverting Mental Health Services Funding - NO
This initiative would cut into the Prop 63 (2005) money for mental health services from the 1% surcharge on income over a million dollars. Although this slash job wasn't as bad as what was suffered by First 5, as it has a prominent defender, it is still unacceptable. Mental health services are financially prudent spending. It saves money that will end up being spent elsewhere, whether for homeless services or prisons. Diverting this revenue is penny wise and pound foolish. Both Prop 1D and 1E come from the "rob Peter to pay Paul" school of budgeting, although in this case "Peter" is young children and Californians with mental health needs who have few defenders or other resources to fall back on.
Prop 1F - Wasting Your Time. An Initiative. - NO
Prop 1F would block any pay raise for legislators when the budget is showing a deficit. It is an infinitesimally small amount of money in the grand scheme of things and accomplishes remarkably little for something on a statewide ballot. First, not getting a raise in deficit years is not a sufficient incentive for anyone to actually do anything, nor is it really meaningful shared suffering. The implicit assumption that the trivial penalty of Proposition 1F could be a meaningful incentive to not run a deficit treats elected officers as greedy sociopathic children who need petty personal financial incentives to deal with the state's budget. Building this assumption into the California Constitution is unnecessary and further entrenches in the state constitution far-right market fundamentalism and contempt for the role of government.
Second, if we're going to constitutionally impose shared suffering or financial penalties on elected officials, why is it a balanced budget that's the trigger? Why not base it on the number of California's children in poverty, the condition of our infrastructure, the state of our parks, the number of homeless, the funding levels of our schools? Instead, Proposition 1F privileges a morally blind view of the world -- balanced budgets are the only measure of legislative accomplishment for which elected officers can be penalized financially. Why this needs to be on the ballot can be answered only by Abel Maldonado, but it's a nothing more than an ill-conceived placebo designed to placate angry voters -- and so will no doubt pass. However, we don't need to countenance Abel's temper tantrums.
This morning, New York Times columnist David Brooks criticized his GOP allies on Capitol Hill for pushing a federal spending cap, calling it "insane." But here in California, the discredited theory of Reaganomics lives on ...
I've been on record supporting a special election to get the budget reform California desperately needs - such as scrapping the "two-thirds rule" in the legislature, or helping local governments raise revenue. But now that a statewide election is set for May 19th, no such measures will be on the ballot. Instead, the six propositions we will get to vote on are Schwarzenegger gimmicks that would cripple the state's ability to function, throw us further into debt, and roll back a small handful of fiscal victories. A campaign must start now to urge a "no on everything" vote, repeating the success that progressives had in 2005 by defeating Arnold's special election. The Governor, however, is a lot savvier this time. Prop 1B (which deals with school funding) is a naked ploy to keep teachers from opposing Prop 1A (an awful spending cap), and there's a dangerous possibility that organized labor will sit out this whole election. Democrats are not unified in their opposition, as State Senate President Darrell Steinberg even gave Schwarzenegger cover last week at a press conference when he promoted the "budget reform" package. Only by exposing this election as another Arnold scam can the state come out winning, helping to map a sane fiscal future for California.
WHAT'S THE BEST REASON to not cut our state education funding? In the future we'll need sharp minds to get us out of these budget messes.
I've been hunkered down for the past few days looking over documents and trying to make some sense of the budget package the governor just signed and how it will affect the bottom line of our schools. It's a precarious hodgepodge of $8.4 billion in cuts offset by reforms and accounting tricks. And all of this hinges on a package of ballot measures up in May, some designed to reshuffle prior ballot measures.
This labyrinthine budget reduces Prop. 98 guaranteed school funding from now through 2010 and then adds in another ballot measure to help to help restore the lost funds in 2011. Yet another tinkers with Prop. 98 formulas because the state now needs to borrow from future lottery earnings that would've gone to our schools.
Several of the seven ballot measures coming up on May 19 are so complicated that one could safely predict most voters probably won't do anything but vote no in protest, if they bother to cast a ballot at all.
The Field Poll released their survey on the infrastructure bonds propositions. With the exception of the affordable housing bond, the Yes's lead No's for all of the bonds. However, only the Transportation Package (1B) currently has more than 50%. So, in theory it's touch and go on all of the propositions. It's rather funny that Arnold can't get his own party behind these
Of course, the housing bond package was really more of a Dem proposition, and Arnold included it to encourage Democratic participation. But to be truthful the man primarily responsible for the bonds is not Schwarzenegger, it's Don Perata, who proposed a very similar bond package a year before Arnold. I guess Arnold's bully pulpit was just a lot bigger than Perata's.
One thing that should also be pointed out here is the complete reluctance of Republicans in the state to spend money on anything. They favor the transportation bonds, but that's within the margin, and that benefits Republican voters immensely. Other than that, GOP voters are against all of the bonds. A majority of the roads that would get built would be within "red" areas of the state because of the tremendous growth in regions like the Central Valley. The infrastucture of cities like Fresno and Bakersfield is just not even close to being acceptable for cities of their respective sizes. Yet the average GOP voter refuses to pay.
I'm not really sure what the Republicans want. They don't want to finance debt to pay for infrastructure and they don't want to raise taxes to pay for it, yet they have no problems wailing on the state government for the way it throws around money. No, I think what this poll shows is the absolute intractability of the GOP. They want it all, but want to not pay for it. Listen, if that's the way it worked, we'd all be running around throwing away gold and platinum like garbage. But we're not, are we? The bills have to be paid somehow, and the GOP needs to figure out the rules of basic finance. You pay for what you get, and righ now, it looks like what the GOP wants is some sort of third world infrastructure. (I know, I know, I'm not supposed to use "third world" anymore...)
On the flip you will see (shortly) the beginnings of a Poll HQ for the Bond Package Props.
