Dante noted earlier today the Yes on 1A mailer that found itself in the California's mailboxes today, and its sad-sack effort to take tepid statements made by Barack Obama and somehow spin them into rhetorical gold that would earn the support of Democrats.
Unnoted in that post, however, was another mailer that arrived simultaneously in support of 1C. Let's compare the two:
I'm no expert in direct mail, but I can tell you that as a Democrat, the one on the left endorsed by the California Democratic Party gets my attention. The one on the right? Not so much.
Ultimately, of course, this is all fairly academic: according to the current polling, neither 1A nor 1C have a bat's chance in hell of passing on May 19th.
Still, the inability of the 1A crowd to put out as unequivocal and clear a mailer as the 1C crowd was the difference of just 22 votes on the Convention floor. 22 votes. If the polling on the issue were any closer, that fact would make a big difference in the media war.
Let no one say that each individual activist doesn't make a difference.
When I got home last night I was intrigued to find waiting for me in my mailbox a piece from the Yes on 1A/1B campaign (hey Brian, where's my direct mail?). It's apparently directed to Democrats, because the mailer is attempting to make the case that Obama supports 1A and 1B, and you should too:
Apparently, Obama's not-quite-endorsement of the special election propositions came at a love-fest with Schwarzenegger a couple of months ago during the President's visit to Los Angeles, during which I barely got out of downtown before they shut down the streets.
The mail piece quotes a piece by San Francisco Chronicle political writer Carla Marinucci, which basically describes a love-in of sorts between Schwarzenegger and Obama regarding the state and federal budget crisis:
Obama praised Schwarzenegger as "one of the great innovators of state government, somebody who has been leading California through some very difficult times, somebody who has turned out to be an outstanding partner" in economic recovery.
Schwarzenegger, who has prominently broken with some of his fellow Republican governors who have criticized the federal stimulus package as an example of bloated overspending, went the full measure on Thursday, praising both the president and his stimulus plan.
"It's the greatest package," he said. "I'm so happy we are getting these kinds of benefits from the federal government and President Obama." He called the Democrat "a fantastic partner" and "our leader in economic recovery."
During the event, Obama added a nod to "the initiatives" on the ballot:
Obama, addressing a question from a member of the audience regarding cutbacks in education funding, stopped short of a formal endorsement of the governor's six ballot measures. But he told the audience at the Miguel Contreras Learning Center that he had discussed the issues with the governor.
"That's why it's so important for everybody to get engaged in the various initiatives that are going to be coming up, to make sure - that what you just articulated, to invest in our kids ... is reflected in the state budget," he said.
He warned that in the current economic situation, voters who want better schools, better roads and better infrastructure should know that "you can't have something for nothing ... you can't ask local elected officials to balance the budget" and cut taxes and improve roads. "Somebody's got to pay for it," he said.
The Yes on 1A campaign is trying to get you to vote their way because of a tepid nod by President Obama. But what's really telling is the last paragraph, not the middle one. I fully agree with President Obama on that. Now, if only we could get him to move past giving lukewarm nods to special election propositions that will have a bunch of negative consequences, what if we actually got him to support a sane constitution for this state instead?
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.
At the Torrance Democratic Club meeting held tonight, the club voted to endorse the No position on all of the ballot propositions. Attendees had the benefit of hearing from three speakers covering different views of the ballot propositions. Represented at the meeting were the California Teachers Association, the nonpartisan League of Women Voters of California, and the progressive netroots (in the person of David Dayen). Following an informative presentations by the speakers and a question and answer period, club members voted to oppose all the ballot propositions above the necessary 60% threshold to have the club endorse the No positions.
Most of the discussion focused on Proposition 1A and 1B - and despite broad agreement that education was definitely suffering, the votes against the propositions indicated that members didn't think this was the solution.
Say what you will about Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Zombie Death Cult - they learn from their mistakes.
In the 2005 special election they made it easy for labor unions and progressives to unite to defeat his proposals. The attacks on unions were like red cloth to a bull, and that enabled a big and broad coalition to come together to deal Arnold a significant defeat.
Arnold never abandoned his goals of breaking the power of his Democratic and progressive enemies. This time he and his Republican allies in the Legislature decided on a different approach - offering unions a Faustian bargain designed to screw them no matter which option they choose, as today's Sacramento Bee explains:
Unions last month were attacking the budget deal for including a limit on future state spending growth and $15 billion in cuts to state programs. The spending limit must be approved by voters in Proposition 1A to take effect.
Fearing that unions could mount a successful opposition campaign, lawmakers and Schwarzenegger crafted the budget deal so that increased taxes on income, sales and vehicles would last up to an additional two years if Proposition 1A passes.
The strategy assumed that the additional state tax revenue, worth as much as $16 billion between 2011 and 2013, would provide enough incentive for unions to let Proposition 1A go unchallenged.
The deal even included a specific deal with the devil for the California Teachers Association - Proposition 1B, which would restore $9 billion in educational funding in 2011 and afterward, which is also predicated on the passage of the spending cap. CTA has taken an "interim support position" on Prop 1B but like SEIU has not taken a position yet on Prop 1A.
These tactics on the part of Arnold and the Republicans is part of a broader strategy to force progressives and Democrats to defend bad deals, and leave room for conservatives to score points by opposing them. The Howard Jarvis Association and Meg Whitman have both come out against Prop 1A and may spend some money to try and defeat it.
To me the answer for progressives seems clear - reject the deal with the devil and strongly oppose Prop 1A. (In fact, there is a strong case for opposing all the propositions on the May ballot but right now my focus is the spending cap.)
The tax increases would not immediately disappear, but would expire in mid-2010 along with the rest of the current budget deal. Since we're going to have to mount a big fight anyway at that time, why agree to a crippling spending cap that will at best provide just a few years of new revenues at a truly enormous long-term cost?
Keep in mind this chart from the California Budget Project on the likely effect of a spending cap on future budgets:
Those are enormous cuts that we'll face in the next decade. If Democrats, progressive activists, and labor unions don't oppose this thing, then we'll be letting the devil get our soul.
Among the few bright spots for California races tonight is the fact that tonight, voters said yes to more public transportation. It was close, but it seems likely.
With 86.4% reporting statewide, Proposition 1A appears headed for passage, with 52.3% in favor. While the vast bulk of the uncounted areas of the state are in the Inland Empire, which is currently opposing 1A, it just doesn't seem like there are enough votes out there to reverse the 400,000+ vote advantage that 1A currently enjoys. Congratulations, California, on taking the next big step toward a high-speed, high-tech transportation future.
Meanwhile, in Los Angeles County, voters seem to have barely approved Measure R, which would raise the sales tax in my county by .5% (one dollar out of every 200 spent) to fund transportation projects, including a subway to the sea and a whole host of other projects. With 97% reporting, Measure R has 67.35%. A two-thirds majority is required to pass any tax increase, so R has a cushion of less than one percent.
Eventually, I'll be able to get from my neighborhood to downtown San Francisco using just two trains: the Purple Line to Union Station, and the HSR. That's what I would call pretty cool.
The Field Poll finally got around to polling Prop 1A and the results are about what I'd expected after six weeks of the Reason Foundation and the Howard Jarvis Association flooding the state's media with lies. We have a 47-42 lead with 11% undecided. The common rule of thumb in California politics is that a proposition under 50% before election day is in serious trouble, but I'm not convinced that conventional wisdom will hold true this year. There are a number of propositions - such as 4 and 8 - that are also very closely split, and voters are showing a better understanding of the issues, with a reduced inclination to vote no as a knee-jerk reaction.
Still, the poll shows that we have a LOT of work to do between now and Tuesday. Especially when you look at the crosstabs.
Prop 1A will be decided on election day. Those who have already voted oppose it 39-51. That is very close to the number of McCain voters opposing Prop 1A, 35-56. Here in California absentee voters have traditionally leaned Republican and conservative. Those groups oppose Prop 1A - Republicans by a margin of 35-58 and conservatives by a margin of 30-64. Voters over age 65, those most likely to cast an absentee ballot, oppose it 38-53.
However, if California gets an Obama surge on election day, the outcome may be much different (preferences are listed in order of yes, no, and undecided):
Democrats: 53-30-17
Independents: 54-40-6
Moderates: 49-40-11
Liberals: 61-25-14
Obama: 56-33-11
Age 18-34: 50-38-12
If young voters in particular hit the polls in large numbers than we can win this on election day.
The latest canard that high speed rail opponents are trying to use to defeat Prop 1A is that the Authority failed to deliver a legislatively-mandated, updated business plan. Dan Walters made this the centerpiece of his HSR denial column today.
On the surface it sounds bad. But as the facts demonstrate this is a case where Republicans - and Democratic Senator Alan Lowenthal, who oughta know better - have set up high speed rail and Prop 1A to fail.
On August 26th AB 3034, after a weeks-long delay, was finally signed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. That bill directed the California High Speed Rail Authority to create a new business plan...by September 1. Giving the Authority merely five days to come up with the new plan.
Why the delay? The bill was passed out of the Assembly on May 29. From there it languished in the State Senate. Alan Lowenthal put out a nonsense study trying to cast doubt on the plan, but it was Sen. Roy Ashburn who played the central role in delaying AB 3034 into early August. By the time the Senate passed AB 3034, however, Arnold Schwarzenegger had started in on his temper tantrum, refusing to sign any new bills until we got a new budget. Arnold relented on AB 3034 - but had the bill bent sent to Arnold sooner, it would not have been subject to Arnold's tantrum, and there would have been time to produce it.
But it gets worse. As you know, the state budget delay this year was the worst on record - three months long. The state Constitution mandates that a budget be approved by June 15 and implemented on July 1 - the beginning of the new fiscal year.
The Authority's staff consists of 6.5 employees. Not a huge amount of staff to put together a business plan, actually, especially when you give them five days and then withhold a budget from them.
HSR deniers have now tried to use the delayed business plan to claim that Prop 1A and HSR are flawed. Today the State Senate held a hearing about the business plan, likely designed and timed to hurt Prop 1A's chances. You can see the complete video here and the YouTube of the key exchange above. At the hearing Quentin Kopp explained that the plan will be ready around November 8, after proper work goes into its production and review by Goldman Sachs.
Roy Ashburn tried to attack Kopp over the delay, asking "You and your Authority are in violation of California law as we sit here today. If you were in my chair, what would you say?"
Kopp's reply:
If I were sitting in your chair I would use temperate language. Did you ever read the state Constitution? Did you ever read Article 4, Section 12? Do you know what it says? It says...the Legislature shall pass the budget bill by midnight on June 15 of each year. You're in violation of the law. Consider the outcome should a taxpayer bring a suit to recover the money that you eventually drew between June 15 and September 23 of this year. Consider the fact that people don't work without being paid. Consider the fact that my executive director hasn't been paid since January of this year. Consider the fact that when you finally appropriated the money the contractors who expect to be paid can finally begin work on the business plan. I'll tell you why people should believe me. Because I have an impeccable reputation for honesty, integrity, and independence.
Ashburn could not reply to that point. He avoided it and tried to repeat his same points. But the smackdown was delivered, and Ashburn is exposed as a fraud. The state legislature, led by Republicans like Ashburn who held this state hostage for three months, refusing to do their Constitutional duty to pass a budget because they were demanding unspecified cuts, have absolutely NO place to be criticizing ANYONE else in the state government for not following the law. Ashburn is full of it and kudos to Kopp for calling him out on it.
Kopp drank Roy Ashburn's milkshake. I think we're done with this whole "business plan" nonsense, aren't we?
Not content with denying to Californians the numerous tangible benefits of high speed rail, Prop 1A opponents have retreated into a revival of Herbert Hoover's economic policy in order to try and defeat the most important project Californians have considered in nearly 50 years. Their argument is that in an economic crisis, we should turn to austerity instead of following the tried and true path of deficit spending on infrastructure that provides short-term job relief and long-term economic value.
Today we have numerous articles and media outlets starting to push back against the New Hoovers. From newspaper editorial pages to leading economists there is a growing consensus that we must use deficit spending - in our case, bonds - to spur economic growth through infrastructure projects.
Conservative Financial Times columnist Samuel Brittan said the fears that short-term stimulus spending by governments will raise deficits miss the point. Even the $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan approved by the U.S. government - part of a more than $2 trillion international bailout of banks by governments around the world - does not change the equation.
"Maxims about debt that might be prudent for families can be the height of folly for government," he wrote.
British economist John Maynard Keynes is credited with the basic insight, arguing that the Great Depression was prolonged because Western governments insisted on balancing budgets, raising taxes and cutting spending at a time when private economic activity had ground to a halt.
Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan research group, said both candidates must put together a credible long-term plan to deal with the exploding deficit, but that the government should be priming the pump in the short term.
And to provide that help, we're going to have to put some prejudices aside. It's politically fashionable to rant against government spending and demand fiscal responsibility. But right now, increased government spending is just what the doctor ordered, and concerns about the budget deficit should be put on hold....
All signs point to an economic slump that will be nasty, brutish - and long....
And this is also a good time to engage in some serious infrastructure spending, which the country badly needs in any case. The usual argument against public works as economic stimulus is that they take too long: by the time you get around to repairing that bridge and upgrading that rail line, the slump is over and the stimulus isn't needed. Well, that argument has no force now, since the chances that this slump will be over anytime soon are virtually nil. So let's get those projects rolling.
The growing unanimity of opinion on the need for deficit spending for infrastructure projects is striking. Krugman, MacGuineas and Brittan join leading economic figures like Nouriel Roubini and Lawrence Summers in calling for bold action to mitigate the deepening economic crisis.
All the way back in March I opined that the biggest threat to the passage of the high speed rail bonds was the state budget. If the budget was still in deficit, folks might vote against HSR bonds even though the two are unrelated.
That may well be happening. We haven't seen new polls on Prop 1A in some time, but when we do I expect it to show a very close race.
The problem is that this thinking is deeply flawed. The state budget's problems do not - at all - mean that Prop 1A is a bad idea. Prop 1A is not the reason why the state is in deficit. It will not worsen that deficit. Instead Prop 1A is absolutely necessary to getting us OUT of deficit. Anyone telling you otherwise is simply demonstrating their ignorance of economics.
Let's look at this more closely. First, the state budget deficit. Deficits are NOT a product of natural forces but instead of bad decisions. California's current deficit stems from two major sources:
$12 billion in tax giveaways since 1993. This includes a $6 billion hole Arnold blew in the budget when he unilaterally cut the vehicle license fee upon coming to office in 2003. That is an annual cost of $6 billion, by the way, since Arnold has since been backfilling the revenues. Restoring that $6 billion would alone close the projected deficit. Prop 1A will create 160,000 infrastructure jobs that will pump income and sales tax revenue into the state's general fund. We badly need that revenue. We cannot afford to leave that money on the table.
(Note: California has also cut nearly $10 billion in spending since early 2007. Those who claim that this is a spending problem clearly have no knowledge of the details of the state budget.)
The weakening economy. As I have been arguing almost every day this month, that is an argument FOR Prop 1A. Infrastructure projects are a tried and true part of stabilizing and growing the economy during rough times. The Golden Gate Bridge, Shasta Dam, and the California Aqueduct were all built with voter-approved bonds during a recession, the first two during the deepest part of the Great Depression. Prop 1A will do the same today. We need jobs. Now. California would be crazy to turn down 160,000 jobs right now.
Further, as a recent PBS documentary explained, it was high gas prices that burst the housing bubble. Yes, gas prices have been falling - but that is only because of demand destruction. In other words, people drive less, so the price falls. The ONLY way that can be sustained over the long-term is by building alternatives to oil. If we don't, demand WILL rise - and so will gas prices.
Those who claim otherwise - that the state budget deficit means we must reject Prop 1A - are lying to you. They're trying to prevent a revival of the New Deal. These groups, like the oil company funded, far-right Reason Foundation, or the anti-government Howard Jarvis Association, are primarily interested in drowning government in a bathtub. Their opposition to HSR is part of a broader ideological agenda designed to prevent California from addressing its economic crisis by providing sustainable, non-oil based transportation that we badly need.
If you want to help ease our budget deficit and grow the economy, vote for Prop 1A. If you want to prolong the pain and do nothing to resolve the deficit, vote against Prop 1A. A no vote on Prop 1A is like punching the wall to cure starvation. It's only going to leave you in more pain and do nothing to solve the immediate problem.
Or, why the Sac Bee and Modesto Bee are wrong to oppose Prop 1A.
California is staring into the abyss. 30 years of conservative economic policy, including tax cuts, have brought the national and the state economy to the worst economic crisis we have faced since 1933. The state budget is in perennial deficit - caused by those same conservative policies. Since Prop 13 in 1978 the state's revenue levels have been set artificially and deliberately too low to maintain our core services. The purpose was to force crises like this and tell Californians "either we raise your taxes or we destroy government."
The budget deficit is a difficult problem. But it can be closed fairly easily by returning to the income tax levels on the wealthy that Ronald Reagan supported, that were in place from 1991 to 1998. It is a question of political will - our budget deficit is not a force of nature but a deliberate creation of man. What we make, we can unmake.
More importantly, how exactly are we going to close that budget deficit, provide short-term relief and long-term economic growth without infrastructure projects? Many economists argue that government spending on infrastructure must be part of not just an economic stimulus right now but also of any financial rescue plan. These economists understand what we at this blog have understood - that we need stimulus to revive our economy.
Banks aren't lending just because of the bad assets on their books - they're not lending because the economy is sliding into recession. To stop that we need government spending on new stimulus. That was conventional wisdom during the Depression and it eventually brought us out of the depths - while also setting up the prosperity of the postwar era.
Unfortunately California newspaper editorial boards remain trapped in the failed conventional wisdom that brought us to this point of crisis. Instead of returning to tried-and-true economic principles of infrastructure stimulus, they argue we should sacrifice the future to the failure of the present. That because we are in crisis now, we cannot act to rescue ourselves from that crisis, and cannot act to provide a more stable future.
Such is the position of the Modesto Bee in its editorial against Prop 1A and of the Sac Bee. They both claim it is "too costly for the state." In doing so they merely demonstrate their lack of knowledge about high speed rail and their unwillingness to act to reverse the slide into severe recession.
The passage of Prop. 1A would generate an estimated 160,000 construction-related jobs at a time when the state could use an economic stimulus. But its even greater long-term value to the state will be the economic and environmental benefits of connecting urban centers with growing inland cities that don't have major airports - and providing an alternative to the cattle-call flights between the Bay Area and Southern California.
They're absolutely right - and even understating the case. The long-term value isn't just in providing alternatives to cattle-call flights, nice though that will be. The long-term value comes in providing an alternative to oil, period. Our state's dependence on oil is causing financial and economic havoc. Those who make baseless criticisms of Prop 1A's financing are ignoring the far more risky and damaging impacts of "staying the course" and doing nothing in the face of a climate and energy crisis that is strangling our economy.
The editors had a good response to those fiscal critics:
Opponents have seized on the understandable anxiety about a venture of this magnitude and have questioned everything from its cost projections to ridership estimates to its environmental benefits. In a meeting with our editorial board this week, they suggested the money would be better spent on relieving gridlock on regional roadways.
However, the fiscal safeguards on Prop. 1A were toughened substantially with the Legislature's recent passage of AB3034. It limited the amount of money that could be spent on administration or other items unrelated to construction. Also, construction could not begin on any segment of the project until it was certified that the funding for it had been secured. State funding would account for about half of the project; the balance would come from the federal government and private sources.
HSR deniers want Californians to believe that if this passes that we're going to be DOOMED, doomed I tell ya, especially in our state budget. But the Chronicle points out this is nonsense. If the feds and private enterprise come through as they have consistently indicated they will then we build it and everyone's happy. If they don't come through, we don't build it, no money spent, no harm done.
They close well:
Prop. 1A presents an ambitious vision that is well tailored to the state's transportation and environmental needs. We recommend its passage.
California newspapers, the LA Times excepted, have been using their editorial pages to try to convince Californians that somehow, an economic downturn caused by overdependence on oil should not be addressed by job-creating projects that would provide renewably powered transportation and enable economic growth over the long term. Most recently it's the Redding Record-Searchlight making the argument that somehow Prop 1A would hurt California's budget and economy, when in fact it is a necessary part of the solution.
It remains a key part not just of the state of California's overall water storage and provision system, but was crucial to the Redding economy during the 1930s and in the years since.
It was also a Depression-era project. Built at a time when California barely had enough money to balance its own budget. In 1933 California passed a bond measure allowing money to be spent on the dam - $170 million, a significant sum in those days. By 1935 California had secured federal funds to help begin construction on the dam. The jobs created by the dam project and the long-term value of the Central Valley Project were considerable. Redding got badly needed jobs as well as flood control. California got jobs and a base for long-term agriculture, an industry that remains significant to this day in Redding.
Had California rejected the 1933 Shasta Dam bond, chances are the dam would not have been built for a decade or two. Redding would have lost out on those crucial jobs in the depths of the Depression and California agriculture might not have had the stable water source it needed to be productive for these last 70 years.
We can go on. The Golden Gate Bridge funding fell through after the 1929 stock market crash - so voters in the North Coast counties that comprise the Golden Gate Bridge District had to approve bonds, which they did in November 1930. Similar bonds had to be sold for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, also in the depths of the Depression. The two bridge projects not only provided jobs when they were desperately needed but enabled massive economic growth in the Bay Area after World War II.
The argument that we cannot build high speed rail because of the economic crisis or credit crunch simply doesn't hold water. The economic downturn is an argument FOR high speed rail. Worse, the Redding Record-Searchlight's reasons for not supporting Prop 1A make little sense:
An alluring investment in 21st-century transportation for a growing state? Yes. It's also $10 billion that California doesn't have.
Of course California doesn't have $10 billion - which is why we're going to borrow it. The state's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst has determined we actually can afford Prop 1A. Repayment lasts over a 40-year term. The jobs, tax revenue and economic activity created by high speed rail combined with the savings on oil consumption and carbon emissions are likely to outweigh the annual debt service cost.
If it were up to HSR deniers like the Redding Record-Searchlight we'd still be in the Depression. We wouldn't have the dams and bridges that made our late 20th century prosperity possible. And if we follow their advice we will have a hard time getting out of whatever we're going to call this economic crisis.
Debra Bowen was in the Big Tent a while ago and I got the chance to talk to her about the Prop 1/1A ballot printing fiasco. The word from the Secretary is that the voter guides containing Proposition 1 have already been printed, but that Proposition 1 will not be on the ballot.
Proposition 1A will be on the ballot, but since the voter guides have already been printed, there will be a supplemental voter guide containing all the requisite information on Proposition 1A.
The approximate cost of all of this extra printing and mailing will be about $4 million, paid by the taxpayers.
Thanks for stamping your feet and holding your breath, Governor.
