That wise Mr. Skelton intones that Prop. 1A is not "a sneaky trick to raise taxes." I agree. It's a sneaky trick to drown government in a bathtub.
We touched yesterday on this bigger concern about the lessons that may be learned from the special election battle. It is clear that those anti-tax forces on the right will take credit if the ballot measures, particularly 1A, are defeated, saying that this is proof that California has had enough and the vote signals the rise of the teabaggers. That actually would be a dangerous lesson, mainly because it's not true, and it's part and parcel of the vast disinformation around taxes that the cynical forces on the right spare no expense in delivering to the public.
Low-, not high-, income Californians pay the largest share of their income in state and local taxes. Here's an updated analysis of data we've blogged about before that takes into account the temporary tax increase included as part of the February budget agreement.
California is a moderate, not high, tax state when all state and local taxes and fees are taken into account. This results from the fact that California has moderately high state taxes, but low local property taxes due to the impact of Proposition 13 on local property tax collections.
High-income Californians aren't leaving the state due to higher taxes. In fact, the number of millionaire taxpayers is growing at a rate that far exceeds the increase in the number of personal income taxpayers as a whole.
Over the past 15 years, lawmakers have enacted tax cuts that will cost the state nearly $12 billion in 2008-09. That's a larger loss than the $11.0 billion 2009-10 temporary increase in state tax revenues included in the February budget agreement.
Moreover, while the tax increases included in the budget are all temporary, regardless of the outcome of the May election, the September 2008 and February 2009 budget agreements included massive corporate tax cuts that are permanent and that will reduce state revenues by approximately $2.5 billion per year when fully implemented.
Saying that tax policy is just plain wacky and inconsistent neglects these plain facts - that the past thirty years of the conservative veto have tilted tax policy, and most everything else, in a very rightward direction.
In actuality, we are seeing a grassroots/establishment divide, where the grassroots in the Democratic Party would like to see some leadership instead of another layer of failed solutions. Unfortunately, because the voices on the right are so loud in their opposition, and because advocates of the special elections would rather frame themselves in opposition to the right, the right is well-positioned to take credit for the defeat of these measures, should that happen. When that's simply not the lesson that ought to be learned.
The resultant fear is that the feckless Democratic leadership takes that lesson, and then cowers from going down the road of enacting the real structural reforms that represent the only solution possible to lift us from this perpetual disaster. That would be catastrophically wrong. Don't assume from a short-term setback that the Yacht Party mentality runs the state. People will pay for taxes in exchange for services; that was proven in 2005 and it's just as true today. Californians elect their leaders to function and yet the structure of government denies them. Dismantle that barrier, and restore democracy to the state.
CapAlert gets around to covering the issue we covered on Wednesday - how legislative vacancies on the Democratic side embolden the Yacht Party and make it more impossible to pass a decent budget. What amazes me is that they get a Yacht Party leader to go on the record about it:
To this day, Ridley-Thomas' seat remains unfilled. Democratic Assemblyman Curren Price of Inglewood finished first in the primary last week and is expected to take his place in the upper house after a May 19 runoff.
Of course, that will create a vacancy in the Assembly, which will likely last until early October by virtue of the state's election-scheduling laws.
"Every vote we pick up, it is exponential for the Republicans," said Assembly GOP leader Mike Villines. "It gives us a lot of ability to move the debate and navigate to issues that we care about."
This is Yacht Party logic - they actually think a vacancy is a PICK-UP for them. It's the logic of an extortionist. No sane person other than someone trying to exploit would agree that a less-than-full legislature for years on end makes sense from a public policy standpoint. That's why we could significantly reduce the time of the merry go-round AND save millions of dollars in special election costs by instituting Instant Runoff Voting for special election seats.
But the Yacht Party has no intention of fixing the policy. They want to laugh as they see legislators walk out the door.
In Northern California, Rep. Ellen Tauscher has accepted an Obama post in the state department, though still faces the confirmation process.
Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, has already declared for the seat, and Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, D-Alamo, is said to be considering a run.
"Joan Buchanan should run for Congress," said a laughing Villines, hoping for yet another vacancy in his house. "She'd be an excellent congresswoman."
"It creates a better dynamic than having the ability of the liberal-controlled Legislature to just steamroll its own desires," Villines said.
A better dynamic in the sense of being a fake dynamic, where the elected will of the voters is not reflected in the ability of the legislature. I can't think of a better argument to repeal two-thirds than these two quotes.
(Assembly Bill 23xxx, the employment benefits extension bill, passed the Assembly. I added the Speaker's video discussing it. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
There are two bills likely to come up for vote this week that would allow California to receive billions in stimulus funding, both of which have been subject to Yacht Party obstruction thus far of the Mark Sanford, Sarah Palin variety.
First up is the unemployment benefits extension bill which Republicans rejected last week. There are actually two separate measures, one which would extend benefits and one which would increase the pool of people eligible for those benefits, but the extension is the one that will be voted on as soon as today. Kudos to the SacBee for noting that the Governor has taken no position on these bills, despite the bromance rhetoric about the President and the stimulus.
The Assembly is expected to vote this week, probably today, on a bill that would pave the way for California to extend its lifeline for out-of-work residents by five months at federal expense.
The measure would ensure an extra $2.5 billion to $3 billion in federal funds for emergency benefits at a time when California is mired in recession, with an unemployment rate above 10 percent.
Passage would mean $6,140 in additional benefits for an out-of-work person receiving the state's average benefit of $307 per week. Benefits range from $65 to $475, based on previous income earned [...]
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger supports both concepts but has not taken a position on specific legislation, aides said.
Schwarzenegger has "no position" because the Chamber of Commerce doesn't like anything that could lead to higher corporate taxes, and they hold the puppet strings on our last action hero. The vote on this has yet to be recorded in the Assembly, so we shall see what the Yacht Party decides.
The second bill, currently in the State Senate, concerns Medi-Cal eligibility requirements that would open up even more federal funding.
Although California is slated to receive more than $31 billion in federal money, a change in eligibility rules for Medi-Cal made as part of this year's budget prevents California from qualifying for more than 25 percent of those federal funds.
In order to do so, the state must have the same Medi-Cal eligibility rules today as those in place July 1, 2008.
The problem was caused by an attempt to save $70 million by changing eligibility rules for children receiving care from Medi-Cal was contained in the 85-day record late budget signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last September.
Under the change, children must fill out a report every six months confirming their continuing eligibility along with their parents who were already required to fill out such a report prior to the change in law.
Critics of the requirement say that most of the children who lose eligibility do so because they forget to turn in the paperwork, not because they actually lose eligibility. Sorting out such issues increases Medi-Cal costs to counties, who administer the program locally.
To get the federal money, the state must change the law before July 1, 2009 so that kids don't need to fill out the report. The bill would do that.
Let's be entirely clear - the Administration was banking on oversights from poor families who qualify for Medi-Cal to save the state money. That's borderline immoral and it ought to be addressed. Elaine Alquist is carrying the bill in the Senate, and on this one, Schwarzenegger has seen the error of his ways and promises to sign it. Will the Yacht Party follow suit, or prefer budgeting by forcing bureaucratic red tape on the poor?
I read where Assembly Goopers by one vote blocked the extension of Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits, which would be paid for entirely by federal stimulus money. The extension would have added 20 weeks for the very long-term unemployed, increasing the possible benefit period from 59 weeks to 79 weeks.
Recall that UI benefits are some of the most stimulative of all programs, returning almost $2 in impact for every dollar spent. The Yacht Party membership is all about talking about helping the state, but when funds show up that can help people stay in their homes and keep food on the table, they turn a deaf ear.
Will we get some leadership from Governor Arnold. He famously derided some other Gooper governors for saying they would refuse stimulus funds for UI benefits, but he is SILENT now.
California is among the top two or three states in the number of unemployed. Our unemployment is over 10% and hundreds of thousands more are out of work but simply not included in those figures because they no longer receive UI benefits.
Many of the folks hardest hit by the downturn are those who lost their jobs early in the recession; a year or more ago. They will run out of UI benefits in the next few weeks.
AP reports on it here: http://www.dailynews.com/ci_11...
Voting for the budget and facing retirement has seemed to liberate Bakersfield-area Senator Roy Ashburn. He shared coffee with a couple local reporters and dished about the behind-the-scenes budget process, confirming a lot of expectations:
In the wee hours of the Thursday before the budget vote - which had to have been Thursday, the 12th - the Senate Republican caucus met.
One of the senators pointed to four others and basically outed them for coming to his office and asking him to vote for the budget- when they didn't have the guts to do it themselves.
Ashburn wouldn't name names.
Ashburn also said senators went to state Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria, and asked him to put pet projects into the budget. That as Republican senators railed against overspending. Maldonado wouldn't do it, Ashburn said.
What you have with the Yacht Party is a group of lawmakers afraid of their own base. They glorify the importance of simpletons like John & Ken* to almost mythic levels, so that if they dare to step out of their comfortable ideological shells and help move the state from the brink of financial collapse, they believe it would be the end of their careers. So like all sniveling creatures, they would rather have somebody else do the heavy lifting so they could maintain their pose of anti-tax purity. And at the same time, they have the gall to ask the same people to slip in tasty goodies for themselves and their districts, so they can have all the benefits of compromise with none of the costs.
I'm going to sound like a broken record, but this is again the fruit of a dysfunctional process that enables Yacht Party cowards to extract as much as possible and maintain maximum leverage over negotiations despite their small minority. The conservative veto must end, and democracy must be restored to California.
* - Just to add to the John & Ken stuff: James Rainey, the LA Times' media critic, slaps them around a bit:
It's all the fault of those no-good illegal immigrants. Yes, the price tag that comes with a huge influx of noncitizens is rightly part of the public discourse. So why muddy the waters with some confounding information?
John and Ken wouldn't make that mistake. They make sure to mention the taxes the newcomers don't pay and the bills they run up in public hospitals. Who needs to mention the taxes they do pay, or to waste time worrying about the lower prices and convenience we all derive from their low-wage labor?
Then, please, protest the cost of state workers. It's beyond righteous to worry about the payroll growing, when everyone else is cutting back. But certainly don't remind your listeners (at least that I've heard) that the fastest-growing state job category is prison guard and that their support of tough sentencing helps explain why that part of the state budget keeps growing by leaps.
And certainly don't suggest that an economic downturn -- affecting virtually every government and business in the world -- played any role in ruining the state's finances. It's much more fun to pin it on that special someone. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger "had five years to fix the problem and it got to $42 billion," KenJohn said the other day. (Sorry, I'm name-lumping. But when the two get all worked up, I can't tell their voices apart.) [...]
It should be no surprise that "California Psychics" is a frequent advertiser on the program of late.
The business offers the services of tarot card readers, clairvoyants, astrologers and the like. "I think, most of all," one satisfied customer says in the ad, "I felt validated."
It seems to me that's what John & Ken are selling too. A bit of hocus-pocus and validation of their listeners' anger with a story that doesn't bother with all the messy details.
The Yacht Party wrapped up their convention in Sacramento yesterday, and while they didn't censure the members of the caucus who voted for tax hikes, they did deprive them of support in future elections. There's a problem with this, of course - only Dave Cogdill and Anthony Adams are running for their seats in the next election, as everyone else is termed out. In addition, what this really prevents is slate mailers, not really anything else. It doesn't prevent mailers that candidates can buy a spot on, or funding from individual members of the party, etc. This measure is good for the "heads on a stick" crowd but not for much else. You can already see the Yacht Party trying to run away from the insanity they've enabled for 30 years.
Shortly before the voice vote, a banner reading "The Six Losers" was unveiled listing lawmakers who voted for the budget. State Republican chairman Ron Nehring quickly closed curtains to cover the sign, which was displayed behind the table of party executive officers.
Hilarious.
I eagerly await seeing how the suicide cult reacts to a gubernatorial candidate who will try to buy the election. Meg Whitman is certainly an economic conservative but differs with the base on a few social issues. Unlike with an Assembly or Senate candidate, the state party delegates will have no chance of holding the purse strings over someone like Meg Whitman.
Ms. Whitman predicted that her campaign could cost $150 million, much of it coming from her own fortune. (Forbes most recently estimated it at $1.4 billion.)
This doesn't make her unbeatable, even in the primary - Ms. Whitman, say hello to Al Checchi. But it does mean that the base will have less leverage and less relevance.
I'm reading the accounts of delusional maniacs from across the state with not a little bit of bemusement. The lack of economic thought is matched only by the lack of recognition that Republicans got far more out of this budget than they deserved to get, thanks to the anti-democratic 2/3 requirement. Here's a sample of this Algonquin Roundtable:
"The Republicans should have stood their ground," fumed 70-year-old Tony Dragonetti. "Abel Maldonado is sick, and so are the other Republicans who voted for this. They give the you-owe-me crowd everything they need, but the poor slob who is working day after day paying taxes gets nothing." [...]
"I think they could have held out. There are a lot more cuts they could have made," said Steve Pyle, 61, who said he was so unhappy with the country's direction that he seriously was considering moving to Australia. "They could start by getting rid of all the illegal immigrants and the teachers unions." [...]
"I don't believe everything would have stopped if this budget wasn't passed," Sanders said. "I support what the Republicans did."
Local GOP activist Adele Harrison predicted new taxes would push the state and country into a depression [...]
Terry Carter, 65, just smiled behind the counter and kept pouring coffee. The boisterous regulars have helped keep him in business for 22 years. As for his own opinions, he keeps those to himself.
"Sometimes the smartest thing you can do is listen," he said.
Well, that depends on who you're listening to. For example, listening to talk radio is most definitely NOT the smartest thing you can do. I've been tuning in to a lot of this down in Southern California, and the ignorance abounds. A typical commenter is a well-off suburbanite bitching about $700 bucks in new taxes for their $126,000 salary (that was an actual conversation). Roger Niello, one of the Yacht Party's own who voted for the budget, got hammered on a Sacramento station.
John in Sacramento warned, "You're going to bankrupt the state with taxes."
And Dave in Cameron Park told Niello he was "outraged that you, as a Republican, caved in and voted with Democrats." [...]
"You should have let (California) fall off a cliff," John from Sacramento told him. "Then, we pick up the pieces and put this state together, the way it used to be." (emphasis mine)
But I'm not sure it's such a force anymore. The John and Ken show ended Thursday with the two musing that "somebody should do something about this" and asking listeners to find each other to fight against the turncoats. In other words, they're not going to lead it. Ultimately, these are lazy people shouting at the end of the bar. Independents have turned dramatically against them, and the leader of the party won't show up at their convention. I don't know that they're entirely coordinated, after years of mismanagement and an almost broke state party apparatus, to even pull off the enforcer role. If someone like Anthony Adams survives a primary challenge, that would be a powerful signal that the Yacht Party is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
"We are at the incredible gut check point for what happens next in American civilization," Sanford said in the introductory address for the state party's three-day Sacramento convention [...]
"Would you be willing to lose? Would you be willing to support folks who may likely lose," Sanford told the gathering at the Capitol Hyatt. He went on to say that it was paramount for party members to support the GOP "at a time when it may look like a losing cause" because their efforts will be "pushing the ball forward in the larger conservative movement."
Two months ago I wrote about how Mike Villines' threats on the budget were illegal under Section 86 of the California Penal Code:
86. Every Member of either house of the Legislature, or any member of the legislative body of a city, county, city and county, school district, or other special district, who asks, receives, or agrees to receive, any bribe, upon any understanding that his or her official vote, opinion, judgment, or action shall be influenced thereby, or shall give, in any particular manner, or upon any particular side of any question or matter upon which he or she may be required to act in his or her official capacity, or gives, or offers or promises to give, any official vote in consideration that another Member of the Legislature, or another member of the legislative body of a city, county, city and county, school district, or other special district shall give this vote either upon the same or another question, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years and, in cases in which no bribe has been actually received, by a restitution fine of not less than two thousand dollars ($2,000) or not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or, in cases in which a bribe was actually received, by a restitution fine of at least the actual amount of the bribe received or two thousand dollars ($2,000), whichever is greater, or any larger amount of not more than double the amount of any bribe received or ten thousand dollars ($10,000), whichever is greater.
It appears that the California Labor Federation includes some readers. Yesterday, they sent a letter to the Attorney General calling for an investigation into illegal vote-trading.
The charge by leaders of the California Labor Federation, State Building and Construction Trades Council, Sierra Club California and the Planning and Conservation League stems from reports that Republican legislative leadership are withholding their votes on a state budget as they attempt to extract votes on policy matters unrelated to the budget.
"Republicans are holding the state budget hostage in a shameful attempt to gut vital workplace and environmental standards that have absolutely nothing to do with the budget," said California Labor Federation Executive Secretary-Treasurer Art Pulaski. "These actions aren't just unconscionable, they may be criminal."
According to a release from the California Labor Federation and the Sierra club there are several examples of actions that may be in violation of California Penal Code.
"Specifically, (Republican leaders) have demanded that legislators vote for proposals to weaken labor and environmental standards as a condition for any 'aye' vote from Republican caucus members on the overall budget," the letter states.
According to the release, "This conduct appears to violate Penal Code Section 86, which prohibits any legislator from offering to give his or her vote in exchange for another legislator's vote on the same or a different matter."
Some would call this the criminalization of politics, but in this state, politics is too often a criminal enterprise, and it's high time somebody was taught a lesson. Like the Yacht Party.
AG Brown should do this. There's already a Facebook group set up; I urge you to join it. End the Blagojevich-ization of the California legislature.
Two nominations here. By the way, since it recently came up in comments, the reason we here at Calitics call the California Republican Party the "Yacht Party" can be best explained here and here.
Nominee #1: Sen. Roy Ashburn of Bakersfield, who introduced a bill that would eliminate IOUs for tax refunds.
State Sen. Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield, has introduced legislation requiring California's controller to issue state income tax refunds in cash.
Controller John Chiang has announced his office will have to delay refunds for 30 days starting Feb. 1 because of the state's cash-flow problems. He has threatened he may have to issue refunds in the form of IOUs if a budget addressing the $41 billion shortfall the state's projected to have by mid-2010 isn't passed.
Chiang has said refunds will resume when he's sure there's enough state cash on hand.
Ashburn has said tax refund money belongs to the taxpayers, not the government, and taxpayers should get it back in the form it was paid - "cold, hard cash." California's constantly taking in cash, he's said.
Hey Roy, I know a bill you could pass that would get cold hard cash back in the hands of your constituents. It's called the budget, and without it California is out of money, and fiduciary responsibilities (sorry for the $1 word) stipulate that other priorities must be paid first. It's called "how government works," and though you're a State Senator I'm not surprised at your ignorance.
Nominee #2: Faux-moderate Abel Maldonado, angry about the Controller's office "requesting new furniture" even though the current Controller, uh, didn't do that.
"I don't like the fact that hard working people in my district are getting IOUs and he's buying millions of dollars worth of furniture," Maldonado said in an interview. (For the record, taxpayers due refunds from the state and others missing payments aren't getting IOUs just yet. They're simply not receiving anything at all.) [...]
"Had he done any homework, the senator should have realized that the expansion project, including furniture,...began before Controller Chiang took office," his office said.
Further, Chiang's office argued, the controller "demanded that staff cut down the costs, and by changing financing, materials, design, and construction, reduced the overall expense of the project by more than 50 percent" - a $4 million savings.
Next for Maldonado, he'll lambaste Arnold Schwarzenegger for Prop. 187. Wanker.
Good ol' Jon Fleischman is at it again. It seems Jon is getting a bit worried that some of his fellow Republicans aren't willing to throw the state off the cliff. Yup, Jon wants to break the unions, break the state, and break the government for all but the wealthiest amongst us. Developing nation status here we come!
Fleischman, who publishes the conservative FlashReport Web site, said the resolution is meant as a "stick" to dissuade GOP legislators from agreeing to any budget plan with higher taxes crafted with majority Democrats and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
"I think it is fair to say that if you are a Republican and, between now and the February convention, you vote for tax increases, you are likely to be censured by your party and cast out among the unwanted," he said.
The resolution goes one step further than a censure. It calls for changes in party bylaws to allow the Republican Party "to campaign and contribute funds against these pro-tax Republican legislators in primaries, and in general elections." (CapAlert 2/2/09)
As a member of the resolutions committee on the Democratic side, my guess is that this will face substantial heat. But, as Nate Silver pointed out for the national GOP, the Yacht party is in a death spiral in California to an even greater extent. As it loses supporters, its base clamors for more attention. And, as you can see, the base is a rigidly ideological beast in search of a failed state. That in turn turns more voters off, and the spiral continues. This is a generally progressive state, with only one party that speaks to anything resembling a majority of the state.
So, who knows, maybe this will pass, and Fleischman will be touted as a hero as he seeks to become some sort of Chief Wingnut. But as he bloviates about bringing the state down, at least we get a peek at his real agenda:
"It makes no sense that in the private sector there is massive downsizing of companies and there is no right-sizing taking place in government," he said.
Or, as he wrote on his Web site on Monday, "State government needs to do less, with less,"(CapAlert 2/2/09)
Of course, the state should run counter to the economic times. Anybody with an introductory economic class knows that. The government is most needed when the state is in bad shape, and now is not the time to be slashing budgets, firing teachers, furloughing workers that are trying to process unemployment claims, and destroying workers' rights. No, this is the time to increase government spending, and doing it through the least economically painful method. Unfortunately, Republicans are barring every possible escape route. It's like Dwight Shrute is playing games with the fire drills or something.
On Sunday 11 of the Media News Group papers - including the San Jose Mercury News - published editorials on their front page criticizing the budget mess. Notably, these papers placed most of the blame where it actually belongs - on the Republicans. From the Mercury News editorial:
The governor and all 120 legislators share responsibility for this. But most of the blame for the immediate crisis falls on Republicans in the Legislature, who this past summer - to a person - signed a pledge to not raise taxes. That was before an already large deficit mushroomed, making the need for more revenue imperative. Since then, Democrats and the Republican governor have offered significant compromise, but GOP lawmakers cling to ideological purity - schools, health care and other essential responsibilities be damned.
These lawmakers constitute barely over one-third of the Legislature. But because the California Constitution requires a two-thirds vote on the budget, it enables the tyranny of a minority to trump majority rule.
This day didn't sneak up on anyone. It's the result of too much borrowing and too little political courage over too many years - lavish spending in good times and insufficient restraint in bad. For this, Democrats, who've controlled the Legislature, and the governor share responsibility. Compounding the problem are spending initiatives that bind the Legislature's hands. Voters have themselves to blame for these.
Obviously it's not a perfect editorial - California doesn't really have a spending problem - but it's good to see MNG papers, owned by a notorious right-wing union buster make such a strong case for Republican ideology being at the core of the crisis.
The Monterey Herald was even more direct in their version of the editorial:
The best hope is that the people will become angry enough to get the message across, especially to the Republicans, that they need to get the job done or get out of the way.
The stalemate is the result of the GOP's "no new taxes" pledge. It may have made for good headlines months ago, but sustaining it to the point of budgetary chaos is irresponsible....
A huge part of the problem is the state Constitution's requirement that budgets be approved by a two-thirds vote. It has not prevented past overspending, but it enables the minority party, Republicans for the moment, to play the spoiler role no matter the consequences.
It is time to join the majority of states without a super-majority provision. It is time to say goodbye to those who pretend to stand on principle. The no-tax pledge may have been sincere at the start, but it has become only a bargaining chip. Republicans are simply holding out for maximum impact.
Does this mean it's now conventional wisdom that Republican ideology and the 2/3 rule are to blame? I sure hope so. These editorials should bolster the case for an aggressive push by progressives and Democrats against the Republicans and the 2/3 rule in particular. If/when there is a special election this year, eliminating the 2/3 rule must be on there.
Let's hope these editorials will percolate around the state, especially to some of the bigger news outlets, and produce some accurate reporting on the crisis for a change - California is broke because Republicans wanted it to happen.
That someone is Peter Schrag in yesterday's LA Times, calling the Yacht Party California's Kamikazes - a party in terminal decline in the state but determined to take everyone else down with them:
In a state where whites have been just another minority for the better part of a decade, and where Latinos will in another generation be an absolute majority, it may not be surprising that that GOP narrowness leads to a gritty sense of besiegement and a kamikaze mentality that seems ready to take itself over the cliff, and the rest of the state with it....
But in the current crisis, the Democrats have in fact agreed to major cuts; the Republicans remain adamant on revenue. That resistance, as most people must know by now, is made possible by California's nearly unique constitutional provision requiring a two-thirds majority in the Legislature to enact a budget or increase taxes. If five Republicans -- two in the state Senate, three in the Assembly, both of which have Democratic majorities -- broke ranks, there'd be no gridlock.
But that's only part of the story. In a survey last year by the Public Policy Institute of California, 52% of the state's Democrats identified themselves as liberals, 31% as "middle of the road" and 17% as conservative.
Republicans were far more rigidly conservative: 67% called themselves conservative, 21% called themselves middle of the road and 8% said they were liberal.
So Democrats are not quite as hard-line as the folklore suggests.
One wonders if the LA Times editorial board read Schrag's column closely. Schrag is making many of the points we have been making here at Calitics, but he makes them especially effectively, and hopefully the rest of the state's media will listen and stop lying to their readers that the problem in Sacramento is that legislators won't negotiate - that instead the Yacht Party is determined to claw back some political relevance at the cost of the state's viability.
The Republicans in California are the equivalent of a failed state. The party hasn't been viable on a statewide basis since 1996. 2002 and 2003 saw some momentary gains but those faded, and the only Republican with meaningful statewide success - Arnold - has made distancing himself from his own party a key to his electoral victories. So they exploit the 2/3 rule to maintain a semblance of power and arrest their slide into irrelevance - the Libertarian Party with a few more votes and some actual seats.
Schrag recognizes that the only way this death cult's death grip on the state will be ended is by eliminating the 2/3 rule:
The fastest way to restore responsibility all around is to rejoin the rest of the democratic world and bring back straight majority votes to enact budgets and raise taxes. That would break up the GOP cult, make both parties more responsible to the voters as a whole, force them to make the tough choices and take the heat for the consequences, and -- most important -- get on with the business of governing.
This is an eminently sensible conclusion. It's a shame it's taken weeks, if not months, for the LA Times op-ed page to start making sense on this, but they couldn't hide from reality any longer. The Yacht Party are now the Kamikaze Party, determined to sink the ship of state out of spite and desperation.
Earlier today Brian wrote about Bill Bagley's take on the problems with California government - which were of the typical "oh gee why isn't there more bipartisanship?" sort. Bagley offered some specific points, but his commentary is part of a familiar refrain in this state that assumes the Legislature, the parties, and ideologues are all to blame, regardless of party.
This is simply not true, and those promoting that line of argument are doing the public a disservice by misinforming Californians about what is really going on.
Democratic legislators cannot be credibly described as unflinching ideologues who refuse to cut a deal. This statement was sent by Speaker Karen Bass yesterday before Arnold announced his budget veto. See if you can find the inflexible hard-left ideology that makes compromise impossible:
Additional changes will include:
*Even greater authority to enter into so-called "public-private-partnerships" and "design-build" arrangements for state construction projects;
*More modifications to environmental laws to speed up road construction;
*A tax incentive to keep film production in California;
*A moratorium on home foreclosures;
*Some additional budget cuts and modifications to the revenue package so that the package contains more in expenditure reductions than new revenues.
Bagley and those who embrace his "can't we all just get along" arguments are letting Republicans off the hook for their obstructionist tactics. New Democratic assemblymembers such as Nancy Skinner and Bill Monning have tried to reach out to their Republican colleagues, wanting to build the rapport Bagley says is missing. They were rejected in those outreach efforts.
Why? Because today's Republican Party is fundamentally different from that Bagley remembers, and not just because of structural reasons. Term limits plays a role in enabling Republicans to become more conservative, but that ideological shift away from the kind of Republicans who would cut a deal for the good of the state, like Pete Wilson, and toward ideologues like Mike Villines mirrors a national trend.
Since the early 1990s the Republican Party around the country has become dominated by the far right, especially financially. You can't win a Republican primary unless you swear fealty to Grover Norquist and his anti-tax agenda. If a Republican votes for a tax increase they'll get challenged in their next primary. You can't wine, dine, or jawbone away that reality.
When Bill Bagley and other Californians argue that the problem is a lack of bipartisanship, they wind up hiding this reality from the public. The budget crisis would have been resolved long ago if Republicans were willing to negotiate in good faith. Every time we ignore that fact, we let them get away with it, since the public gets outraged at "the legislature" or "the bums in Sacramento" rather than at the people actually responsible - the Yacht Party.
Unfortunately the "let's ignore Republican obstruction" movement continues apace. It led to Prop 11's passage, an unnecessary "reform" that will do nothing to change that internal dynamic within the Republican Party.
The new holy grail is open primaries. The US Supreme Court threw out California's earlier open primary, so the only way to achieve this is through a "top two" system. Which as Washington State discovered this year, merely produces two candidates from the same party for most legislative seats. That will do nothing to change the hard-right ideology within the Yacht Party.
Bill Bagley, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, and other reform groups that mislead the public into thinking everyone's at fault are merely letting the Republicans get away with the destruction of the state. If they really wanted better government, they would speak the truth - that California voters need to ask why a party that claims to follow Ronald Reagan won't embrace a tax increase as the Gipper himself did in 1967.
Until we confront the Elephant in the room, California will continue to head toward a cliff.
The latest Field Poll is out (SF Chronicle here and Field PDF here) and it shows the favorability ratings of various leading contenders for 2010 gubernatorial race in both parties. And while the Chronicle wants to make this an "omg DiFi is the favorite" and "ha ha - Newsom sucks" story, the two most important things the poll actually tells us are:
1. DiFi has very high unfavorability ratings among Democratic contenders, and
2. Nobody - and I mean nobody - knows a thing about the Yacht Party potentials, except that they don't like them.
Let's take this in order. First, the Dems:
Name
Favorable
Unfavorable
No opinion
Dianne Feinstein
50%
39%
11%
Jerry Brown
34
34
32
Antonio Villaraigosa
28
33
39
John Garamendi
27
20
53
Gavin Newsom
25
41
34
Jack O'Connell
10
16
74
Among Dems only Gavin Newsom has higher unfavorables, but not by much, and since this poll was taken right before the election - when Newsom was getting pounded in the press and on the airwaves by the Yes on 8 campaign - this may be a low point for Newsom.
That makes the 39% unfavorable figure for Feinstein rather significant. Sure, she has the highest favorable rating - 50% - of anyone in the field regardless of party, but that's not a great figure for such an established politician. As we've noted before, her numbers among Dems aren't so hot either. I don't see much basis for a DiFi inevitability argument, which the Chronicle is trying to get started.
Jerry Brown has a lot of room to grow, since much of that 32% "no opinion" are probably younger Californians who (like me) were born late in or after his previous terms as governor.
Antonio Villaraigosa has to be considered a sleeper here. At 39% "no opinion" that gives him room to grow as well. He has been building a solidly progressive reputation over the last year, coming out strong against Prop 8 and leading the fight for mass transit in LA (seriously, getting to 2/3 with a sales tax for rail in LA County is a major achievement). As Brian noted a few weeks ago, his endorsements were the closest match to our own. He is also making a high profile link with Barack Obama, serving on his economic advisory team. If you want to run for governor, it is a damn smart move to link yourself to a popular president who won CA by 24 points.
And what of the Yacht Party contenders? They have Bill Simon written all over them:
Name
Favorable
Unfavorable
No opinion
Meg Whitman
17%
16%
67%
Tom Campbell
14
13
73
Steve Poizner
10
14
76
Even with enormous unknown ratings, none of them have a net favorability rating outside the margin of error, and Steve Poizner already has a significant unfavorability rating that will only grow once his links to voter registration fraud get a wider airing. The Chronicle article promotes Meg Whitman as a breakout star, but I'm not seeing it here. All California voters will need to hear is that she's a Republican and that she was an advisor to the McCain campaign and that may be enough to torpedo her.
The only Republican who might have a snowball's chance is Tom Campbell, the moderate Republican, but he didn't fare well in a statewide race in 2000 (losing to DiFi). Of course it's highly unlikely that the "down with the ship" Yacht Party primary voters will vote for a moderate like Campbell.
This goes to show that the 2010 governor's race may well be decided in the June primary, which should be one of the most interesting primary fights we've seen in this state in a long, long, LONG time.
David Sirota, Andrea Batista Schlesinger, the Executive Director of the Drum Major Institute and David Goldstein, of Horse's Ass will also be on it. The panel will be moderated by Elana Levin, the Assistant Director of Communications for UNITE HERE.
Here is the description.
We know that populism wins elections, but once a politician wins how do we make sure that pro-middle class policies are actually implemented? Blue Dogs and the media conflate being pro-middle class with being "centrist".
The debt stricken, under-insured public's realization that their personal economic struggles are really political struggles presents an opportunity for lasting progressive change. Barack Obama's agenda includes healthcare and transportation among other investments in our country that the middle class needs-- but these aren't free. How can the netroots mobilize to make it politically possible to pass Obama's domestic agenda in a Grover Norquist-shaped world?
For my part, I plan on focusing on the California budget fight and using the Yacht Party campaign as an example of how we can attack the right to help advance progressive policies that help the middle class. California is very much a lab for progressive politics and we have a unique opportunity here to actually advocate for higher taxes to pay for programs. The public is amenable to increasing revenue and there is no better time to promote our agenda than now when we are at a crisis stage and the other side is advancing proposals that the public does not support. Flip it.
Earlier this week we told you about Arnold's planned visit to the St. Francis Yacht Club for a party hosted by a European yacht manufacturer. This seemed pretty ironic given the successful Yacht Party ad campaign launched by the Courage Campaign (who I work for) this week, attacking the Republicans as a party favoring yacht owners over everyone else in California.
I waited, and waited, and waited, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger didn't show today at the St. Francis Yacht Club in San Francisco's Marina District for an event unveiling a hybrid pleasure-boat engine.
Two of his cabinet secretaries - California Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Linda Adams and California Resources Agency Secretary Mike Chrisman - were there to sign a memorandum of understanding with Austrian Consul General Martin Weiss to have the state cooperate with the governor's native nation on environmental protection initiatives. Adams said the governor "could not be more proud that we are taking this action today;" Chrisman said the governor "certainly recognizes the importance of this relationship."
Then the three officials joined Michael Frauscher, managing director of Austrian boatmaker Frauscher, and Steyr Motors CEO Rudolph Mandorfer for a cruise beneath the Golden Gate Bridge on a 25-foot Frauscher 757 St. Tropez motoryacht powered by the world's first electric-diesel hybrid marine engine - California Chris-Craft will be the world's first distributor to offer the new Frauscher hybrids - before returning to the dock for sips of chilled sparkling wine. A gloriously beautiful day on the bay, to be sure.
But although Frauscher's public relations firm had insisted Wednesday, Thursday and through much of this morning that Schwarzenegger had been confirmed to attend - and that the event had been moved from Thursday to Friday to accommodate his schedule - there was no governor. He was in San Francisco, apparently meeting with a certain newspaper's editorial board, but he didn't make the yacht event (though many reporters did, with most splitting as soon as it appeared he wouldn't show).
So - no questions about the "yacht tax" hubbub, just eco-friendly yachts.
Richman updates his post saying that while Arnold's press officials claiming "we never were committed to doing this, we were never planning to do this," neither did they respond to Richman's queries about the event earlier in the week. It sounds as if they couldn't get out of this Yacht party quickly enough.
So let's get this straight - Arnold avoided a public appearance because the Courage Campaign, along with the California Nurses Association and Assemblymember Anthony Portantino, helped put an ad on the airwaves calling attention to the Republicans' Yacht Party nature?
David was right - Arnold IS a coward. And the California netroots, along with progressive groups and politicians like CNA and Portantino, have the power to shame Arnold away from a good party.
I swear, I did not make this up. Josh Richman, who writes for some of the Bay Area newspapers, has this sweet little post at his political blog:
A public relations consultant for Frauscher, a European yacht manufacturer, says Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will attend the unveiling of the world's first hybrid yacht engine this Friday morning, May 16, at San Francisco's St. Francis Yacht Club...
It's just too easy, I can't do it. So, feel free to insert your own funny comment here.
Dick Ackerman, man of the people? Mmmmm not so much. Today more than 100 members of the California Partnership, a statewide coalition of community based organizations that fights poverty in California, flooded the offices of Republican leaders in California’s state Assembly and Senate to demand meetings and real solutions to California’s budget through fair tax policy.
Here's a shot of CHP's security officer telling everyone to buzz off.
Today's SacBee is reporting that Republicans are planning to demand gutting of business and environmental regulation as a price of their support for any budget. Among their list of demands is an end to mandatory overtime pay (because you want workers to be paid less as we enter a recession), a one-year delay in the implementation of the AB 32 goals, state assessment of the effects of regulation on business, and a yacht and safe passage to Costa Rica. (Hmm, not sure about that last one.)
Speaker Fabian Núñez provided the proper response:
"It's unfortunate Senate Republicans are once again trying to use their budget leverage to push unrelated proposals that would dirty our air and hurt working families," Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles, said in a statement. "They tried unsuccessfully to do that last year, and their efforts will fail again this year."
Whereas Don Perata provided the wrong response:
"We are in such dire trouble fiscally, I am glad for anybody who wants to get into the game," Perata said. "We have not yet come to grips with how difficult this year will be. Everything must be on the table."
Don, the Republican proposals have absolutely nothing to do with the state's fiscal situation and would in fact make it much worse by destroying our economy and thereby lowering collection of taxes.
In any case Democrats may have been given a gift with this. They can go to Californians and say "we have a balanced plan to balance the budget, a plan that balances public services and public taxes. The Republicans prefer to hold the state hostage so they can implement a far-right agenda." Show voters who is really interested in solving our budget problems and who just wants to use it to ram more disaster capitalism down our throats.
Of course this all just shows the need to get rid of the 2/3 rule. Too bad nobody thought to spend some money on that one this year...
The city of Vallejo has been flirting with bankruptcy for for a few months now, but it looks like it will probably happen soon. While the Mayor and other leaders continue to point the finger at public safety workers, the city looks set to pass its own deadline this week for some other resolution. The Chronicle:
Vallejo will inch closer to financial ruin Tuesday when the City Council lets pass its do-or-die date to avert bankruptcy.
City staff members have been unable to come up with a detailed, long-term financial plan because negotiations with the police and fire unions are still ongoing. The city is asking for steep concessions from the unions, whose members are among the highest paid in the Bay Area and whose salaries comprise about 74 percent of the city's budget.
"We had hoped to have an agreement by April 22 to give to the council," said Mayor Osby Davis, who has sat in on the negotiations. "But I'm optimistic. There's always room for a resolution if people are willing to give and take."
Davis, if you'll remember, is the Mayor who lost the election, and then won the election on a recount. In the end, I'm not sure there's a winner at all here. The unions allege that there's some accounting tricks being used, while the City contends that the salaries are just killing them. The salaries are quite high due to mandatory overtime required by the city's low staffing.
The Mayor and others want a "long-term solution", but one will be increasingly difficult to find for Vallejo and cities across California as the budget continues to bleed. There is no solution - none at all - until California's leaders and the Yacht Party obstructionists choose to look at the budget sheets from towns and cities across the state. Small, large, whatever. They are all feeling the pain of the last 30 years. Prop 13, the VLF cuts, everything is costing the cities money at a time when more and more is expected of them.
We can dally no longer. The governor needs to step up and admit that he was wrong on the VLF. Vallejo is just the first large city to tumble towards bankruptcy. It will certainly not be the last.
Nominee #1: 
Nominee #2: 