Virtually the entire political leadership in Sacramento took without questioning the view that the overwhelming loss of the special election is somehow a mandate for "living within our means" and deep, drastic cuts to the budget. The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times (in multiple venues) and most other publications provided uncritical coverage of the Governor and even leading Democrats, parroting this theory that "the voters spoke" and the message was that only cuts would be allowable from this point forward.
Beware of any sentence that starts with the words "What the voters told us was..." Far too often in our politics, dishonest lawmakers decide that voters mandate their particular ideologies and preferred policy decisions regardless of the facts. Perhaps the only real message delivered from the voters to lawmakers was that the former doesn't particularly like or trust the latter. But there are other possibilities. A new polling memo by David Binder Research details why Prop. 1A in particular failed, and the results do not match the Governor's ramblings.
Contrary to what the Governor is saying after the defeat of his proposals, Prop 1A did not fail because voters delivered a message to "go all out" in cutting government spending. The all-time record low turnout for a statewide special election clearly demonstrates the lack of depth to that argument. Prop 1A did not
generate a spike in turnout and taxes were not cited as the main reason why voters overwhelmingly rejected Prop 1A. Support for a state budget that relies solely on spending cuts is very limited - even among those voting no on Prop 1a.
Voters in this election were more likely to be Republicans and less likely to be Independents, whereas Democratic voters came out in proportions consistent with past turnout. Of those that voted in this election, 43% were Democrats, 42% were Republicans and 15% were Independents or minor party voters. This past November, the electorate consisted of 46% Democrats, 32% Republicans and 22% Independents or minor party voters.
In November 2010, the electorate will be a group that is more supportive of the revenue options tested in the survey, and more strongly opposed to only using cuts to balance the state budget. While only 36% of voters that turned out for the May 19th election supported using entirely budget cuts to balance the budget, even fewer - only 24% -- of non-voters felt the same way [...]
Voters simply do not trust the leadership in Sacramento, and recognize that the failed special election was just another example of the inability to bring real solutions to voters. When given two choices, four out of five voters - even among those who voted 'Yes' on 1A - agreed that the special election was just another example of the failure of the Governor and Legislature, who should make the hard decisions necessary to really fix the budget. Only 20% agreed the special election was a sincere effort to fix the state's budget mess.
I would argue that the voters feel no trust in the legislature because they see time and again policy solutions that stick the average Californian with the bill that the wealthy and well-connected don't pay. The fact that the only permanent tax issue in the February budget was a $1 billion dollar tax cut for the largest corporations in America is a perfect example.
The polling memo also shows broad support for tax increases in a variety of areas, including wiping out this massive corporate tax cut:
75% support increasing taxes on alcoholic beverages (62% support among 'No' voters)
74% support increasing taxes on tobacco (62% support among 'No' voters)
73% support imposing an oil extraction tax on oil companies just like every other oil producing
state (60% support among 'No' voters)
63% support closing the loophole that allows corporations to avoid reassessment of the value of
new property they purchase (58% support among 'No' voters)
63% support increasing the top bracket of the state income tax from nine point three percent to
10 percent for families with taxable income over $272,000 a year and to eleven percent for
families with taxable incomes over $544,000 a year (51% support among 'No' voters)
59% support prohibiting corporations from using tax credits to offset more than fifty percent of the
taxes they owe (55% support among 'No' voters)
In addition, voters oppose the kind of spending cuts outlined by the Governor.
Now, I'm sure I'll hear "eat it, you pipe dream librul hippie" because of the structural issues that prohibit these kind of tax solutions. But the reason that the legislature has such desperately low esteem right now is that they fail to publicly even advocate for the solutions Californians plainly want, or the breakage of the structural barriers that would provide it. This failure caused the May 19 debacle and will cause further problems for the Democrats in the state if they are not careful. A political party seen as devoid of principle will not be a successful political party forever. What Californians desire, essentially, is leadership. And they will punish those who refuse to give it to them.
UPDATE by Brian: I've posted the slides for the Binder Research presentation over the flip.
I threw the rest below the fold. Here's the latest update with 65% reporting in CA-32:
JUDY CHU
DEM
11832
33.31
GIL CEDILLO
DEM
8800
24.78
EMANUEL PLEITEZ
DEM
5042
14.2
BETTY CHU
REP
3518
9.91
TERESA HERNANDEZ
REP
2684
7.56
DAVID A TRUAX
REP
1716
4.83
Though the lead continues to shrink, I don't think Cedillo can make up 3,000 votes with what's left out there. Judy just declared victory, I'm told.
UPDATE More votes in, and Chu upped her lead to 3,300 votes with 75% in. It's over. Congratulations to Judy Chu.
...In other races, Carmen Trutanich is going to win the City Attorney's race. He's up 54-46, by over 13,000 votes with 55% of the vote in, and he's been gaining with each update. What a terrible race run by Weiss.
As for Council District 5, it's Paul Koretz 53-47 over David Vahedi, though the spread is just 1,200 votes with 40% in. That's not quite over.
That one was getting long. So here's the deal. 1A-1E are going down.
17.4% precincts reporting
1A: 36.6% Yes, 63.4% No
1B: 40.1% Yes, 59.9% No
1C: 38.6% Yes, 61.4% No
1D: 38.0% Yes, 62.0% No
1E: 37.5% Yes, 62.5% No
1F: 76.4% Yes, 24.6% No
Just to make a point, in the city of Palmdale, a mildly conservative city in LA County, they have Measure B, a transient occupancy tax (hotels), on the ballot. Right now it's passing with 67% of the vote.
Don't tell me this is a repudiation of taxes. It's a repudiation of bad governance.
...Update: 21.9% precincts reporting
1A: 36.7% Yes, 63.3% No
1B: 40.2% Yes, 59.8% No
1C: 38.6% Yes, 61.4% No
1D: 38.0% Yes, 62.0% No
1E: 37.6% Yes, 62.4% No
1F: 76.4% Yes, 24.6% No
Interesting that the measure giving money owed to schools is doing best, ay?
... Brian checks in from the war room with the news that the AP called 1F for the Yes side. Yay! Now the legislators will be REALLY motivated!
Just a matter of time before 1A-1E get called.
...I'm done updating the ballot measures, as it's obvious what's going to happen there. So far LA County has yet to update any totals for the local and federal elections, so we wait.
...Arnold concedes: "We have heard from the voters and I respect the will of the people." Whew, for a second there I thought he was going to institute the spending cap anyway!
You know what he's intimating here, of course. He'll pull out his budget #2 and try to implement it. The May 20th strategy is upon us.
UPDATE by Brian: Check the flip for the No on 1A Press release about the results. Arnold is flying back tonight to have a Big 5 meeting tomorrow. Would love to be a fly on the wall for that one.
...just to update, there have been, um, no updates from the LA Registrar of voters on these local races. Here, pulled up from the bottom, are the results for the top six finishers, I assume among absentees, in CA-32 thus far.
JUDY CHU DEM 6,388 41.98
GIL CEDILLO DEM 2,628 17.27
BETTY CHU REP 1,938 12.74
EMANUEL PLEITEZ DEM 1,233 8.1
TERESA HERNANDEZ REP 1,202 7.9
DAVID A TRUAX REP 1,036 6.81
...Todd Beeton tweets in from Judy Chu HQ to say that people there feel good.
...Finally starting to get some more numbers from LA County.
City Attorney: Trutanich 52%, Weiss 48%. The spread is about 3,200 votes with 12% in.
5th District City Council: Koretz 53%, Vahedi 47%. The spread is about 700 votes with 10% in.
OK. So we'll start with a results thread here. Just to recap, in addition to the statewide special election, here are the other key races today, at least in the LA area:
City Attorney: This is a runoff election between Jack Weiss and Carmen Trutanich. This election got extremely nasty in the final weeks, although they pulled all their attack ads last night and went soft and cuddly for the stretch run. The low turnout probably favors Trutanich. If Antonio Villaraigosa cannot drag his pal Weiss across the finish line, then it speaks volumes about his ability to draw voters in what's supposed to be his local base.
LA City Council 5th District: This is another runoff between former Assemblyman Paul Koretz and neighborhood council leader David Vahedi. This happens to be a very engaged, well-off, activist district, so I would actually expect turnout to be decent, relatively speaking. Progressives have mobilized for Koretz, and most of the competitors in the first round primary endorsed him.
SD-26: Curren Price will be a state Senator by the end of the night, replacing Mark Ridley-Thomas. His Republican opponent is a rabbi, which rules, but I think he was outspent 300:1.
CA-32: This should be a very interesting race tonight, with Judy Chu, Gil Cedillo and Emanuel Pleitez the main competitors. Will Cedillo's nasty, negative strategy pay off? Did the late endorsers to Chu's campaign recognize a trend? Can Pleitez use social media politics to a good showing? We'll see.
...CapWeekly has a pre-analysis of their own for you to all read while we wait out the results. Anthony York thinks Schwarzenegger will tack hard right as a result of this defeat. He has no guiding political principle, so any port in a storm, I guess. I think York's reading the right tea leaves, and success or failure will depend on where the Democrats elected to reflect the will of the people will go.
...18.6% turnout reported for LA County. Remember, there were actual other elections on the ballot out here. Wow, that's just terrible.
1A: 39% Yes, 61% No
1B: 42% Yes, 58% No
1C: 40% Yes, 60% No
1D: 39% Yes, 61% No
1E: 39% Yes, 61% No
1F: 77% Yes, 23% No
The totals are about 1 million votes, presumably absentees at this point. If you are charitable and say that there will be 30% turnout, there are maybe 4-5 million votes left. So I'd say that 20% of the totals or so are in at the very least.
...Another huge dump of absentees. And 13% of precincts reporting:
1A: 37% Yes, 63% No
1B: 40% Yes, 60% No
1C: 39% Yes, 61% No
1D: 38% Yes, 62% No
1E: 38% Yes, 62% No
1F: 75% Yes, 25% No
...First results from CA-32 are in over at LA County's website. Early, but it looks good for Judy Chu. 9% reporting:
JUDY CHU DEM 6,388 41.98
GIL CEDILLO DEM 2,628 17.27
BETTY CHU REP 1,938 12.74
EMANUEL PLEITEZ DEM 1,233 8.1
TERESA HERNANDEZ REP 1,202 7.9
DAVID A TRUAX REP 1,036 6.81
Probably would be in better shape without Betty Chu in the race.
...17% now reporting, and the numbers are basically the same as before.
1A: 37% Yes, 63% No
1B: 40% Yes, 60% No
1C: 39% Yes, 61% No
1D: 38% Yes, 62% No
1E: 38% Yes, 62% No
1F: 75% Yes, 25% No
...briefly on the other elections: with 10% in, Curren Price has 69% of the vote. Carmen Trutanich leads Jack Weiss 51-48 with about 10% of the vote in. And Paul Koretz leads 53-47 with 10% in. These last two will probably go all night.
...Debra Bowen tweets that these are all vote-by-mail ballots reporting right now. If, as expected, they are 40-50% of the final total, everyone can go to bed. Except for Jack Weiss, Carmen Trutanich, Paul Koretz and David Vahedi.
Well, this is it. After three months of argument, threats, projections, facts and figures, the special election on the budget has finally arrived. Voters now get to decide the fate of six ballot measures that will impact the near-term budget deficit and the long-term manner of budgeting in the state. Well, a FEW of the voters get to decide. I popped by my local polling place just to see the crowd size - I already voted absentee - and let's just say that the traffic was, er, light.
So here are a few lessons as we watch the results tonight:
• Money Isn't Everything - This race may finally put to rest that axiom of California politics about cash being king. The No side - and mind you, groups only raised money opposing for certain ballot measures - raised about $4.5 million dollars, all told. The Yes side raised over $26 million. Despite this 6.5:1 advantage, most polls show the first five measures on the ballot, the ones that actually affect the budget, going down to defeat. Prop. 1C, which had NO money against it and the state Democratic Party along with millions from G Tech (the makers of lottery machines) behind it, has consistently polled the worst among all measures. The No on 1A folks used a strategy that conserved dollars but did get out the message, in particular through Web and Google ads. But they were obliterated on the air and through mailers, and based on the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger skipped town and Budget Reform Now doesn't even have a headquarters tonight, it appeared not to matter.
• No Credible Messengers - The main reason these ballot measures are poised to fail is that, in general terms, absolutely no politician in this state has the trust of the people. Nobody could sell the message on the Yes side because nobody could even sell themselves. I've heard about internal polls with the legislature in single digits and the Governor below 30%. We have a crisis of confidence in California, and that stands to reason, considering the extent to which process has overwhelmed personality, making the state largely ungovernable without major revisions to that process.
• Take The Message You Want - The Yacht Party will certainly try to paint this as a victory for their anti-tax jihad, and it's highly likely that the dwindling state political media, and even possibly the Democratic leadership, will believe them. However, regardless of conservatives being "emboldened," the fact is that progressives opposed the special election for very specific reasons, and Democratic leaders must reconcile with that as well. The constraints on governance here in California are undeniable. And yet the time has come to stop finding ways around the mountain of structural problems and pick up the shovel and start digging through the mountain. It won't take overnight, and in the meantime there are solutions - some painful, some creative - that the leadership will have to take. But the message from the electorate, including those that sat this race out in anger or frustration, is that people don't want gimmicks and spending caps and service cuts. They want a functioning government and they don't see one, and they will continue to punish these people who call themselves leaders until they start acting like it.
• Musical Chairs - Curren Price will win election to SD-26 today, shrinking the need for Republican votes to reach the 2/3 threshold in the Senate to 2. At the same time, this will increase the need for Republican votes to reach the 2/3 threshold in the Assembly to 4. There are more targeted seats in the Assembly, so in the short term this is a slight net win. But it's obviously not optimal, and that Assembly seat may not get filled, if the SD-26 odyssey is any guide, until late fall.
Jackfolsum alludes to it, but I wanted to highlight it as well. Arnold got tripped up a little bit today in front of the Jesusita Fire, caught in between telling Californians what they wanted to hear, or telling them they're all going to die. It's pretty amusing:
One of Schwarzenegger's strengths has been to respond to emergencies and assure local residents he will provide all support necessary. But that message clashes with his statements earlier this week that fire services would be jeopardized if voters reject the ballot measures on May 19.
Because he declared a state of emergency for the Santa Barbara fire, he said he was able to get the federal government to pay for 75 percent of the costs.
"This is very helpful for us because as you know, we have a financial crisis in California," Schwarzenegger said. "But I wanted to make sure you all know, even though we have this crisis, we will not be short of money when it comes to fighting these fires."
Oops! But Arnold's "strong leader/warrior/protector" shtick clashes with his "vote for my spending cap or you will BURN BURN BURN!!!" shtick. So he backpedaled.
"First of all, let me just make it clear, because there's always the question that comes up, what happens to the fire departments and to the budget if those initiatives don't pass," Schwarzenegger said. "The first thing you should know is, I will always fight and get every dollar I can for public safety, that is the important thing you should know."
"No. 2, it is very clear that when the initiatives fail there will be $6 billion less that will be available, so therefore there will have to be additional cuts made, if it is in law enforcement, fire, education," he added. "...But I will fight for every dollar, and will always make sure we have enough manpower and enough engines and helicopters ready to fight those fires."
Interesting use of "when the initiatives fail," not "if" there. Arnold reads the polls, I guess.
He really has no idea what he's doing. He wants to scare and please at the same time, so it comes out like mush.
Come to think of it, Arnold sounds a lot like the Californians seduced by the Two Santa Claus Theory, who want to cut services in general but protect services in particular. So maybe he's just giving the people what they want.
With the special election coming up shortly and the Green Party holding it's General Assembly on May 16,17 in Venice, CA, they also just completed polling County locals for a state wide position on initiatives 1A-1F. General opinion was No to all, though some counties found reason to want to endorse 1B... in case 1A passes.
Trying to arrange for someone to do live posts (twitter = @GPCA or facebook) from Venice as I won't be able to make it myself.
Efforts by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders to win voter approval of six budget measures on the May 19 ballot grew more difficult Sunday when a sharply split state Democratic Party declined to back three of them.
The mixed verdict by more than 1,200 delegates to a state party convention came after a nasty floor fight over the grim menu of proposed solutions to California's severe budget crisis.
"We've got all kinds of divisions," Art Pulaski, leader of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, said of the fractures among unions that drove the party's internal rift. "It's not unusual for us."
Republicans, too, are split on Propositions 1A through 1F. The state Republican Party has broken with Schwarzenegger, its standard-bearer, and begun fighting the measures.
Taken together, the muddled messages from California's two major parties threaten to fuel the sort of voter confusion that often spells doom for complicated ballot measures.
This is pretty on the money. There's a split within both parties, one that Democratic leaders aren't coming to terms with. Neither side has taken heed of its grassroots, at least in part. With the propositions in trouble, we must take an eye to the message that will come out in the aftermath. The truth is that Democrats have a principled policy difference here, and those legitimate concerns should not be discounted by the leadership in favor of a narrative that voters opposed the ballot because of 2 years' worth of certain tax increases. In fact, the word "taxes" was not used once on the floor of the convention by those opposed to 1A or any other measure. We oppose these measures because we find them deeply harmful to the future functioning of the state. We believe there's a better way in the short term, with the majority-vote fee increase, and the long-term, with the end of the conservative veto and a more sustainable course, based on broader-based taxation to pay for the services all Californians desire. We reject in whole the dumbed-down, simplistic framing that 1A would "reform the budget" and failure would court disaster.
As for the spin that delegates "supported" the measures on the "May 11 ballot" (Steve, you should probably get the date right if you're working for the Yes side), and a "supermajority quirk in party rules" was used by opponents, I really don't know what to even say to that. First of all, the quirk has been on the books for a long time, and it was actually progressives like Dante Atkins who have been working to reform the endorsement process, so welcome to the party. Next, with fully 1/3 of the delegates electeds and appointeds, most of whom negotiated and supported the deal, and another 1/3 elected by county committees, and another 1/3 grassroots delegates elected at caucuses, a 60% threshold, which again was never argued by these people when it worked for them, represents a fairly broad consensus of all three sectors. Finally, if you went state by state, I would imagine you would find such a threshold in many if not most state Democratic parties, whereas the 2/3 rule for the budget, to which some are making a false equivalence, only finds parallel in Arkansas and Rhode Island. I would be all too happy to completely reform the endorsement process and even question its use by the party outright, that would be a fine debate. But whining about known rules sounds like Hillary Clinton's staff bemoaning the fact of caucuses in the 2008 primary when they knew the facts for years. The grapes, they are sour.
Now that the endorsement battle is over and the election just weeks from being done, let's have a dialogue instead of a lecture, and let's take the concerns seriously of those who reject the false messiah of a spending cap and raiding important voter-approved initiatives and balancing the budget on the backs of gamblers. Let's actually advocate for something rather than being forced to accept something. Let's not worry about "what the Republicans will say" and let's not sniff that "pie in the sky solutions won't work." Let's reform the state and come out with a government that works.
At a press avail following her speech at the California Democratic Party convention, I asked Sen. Boxer about the Resolutions Committee passing support for a Congressional inquiry into the actions of torture judge Jay Bybee and the imposition of all possible penalties including impeachment. She said "I'm very open to that.... there is an ongoing investigation at the Justice Department into his work (at the Office of Professional Responsibility -ed), and we'll see how that goes. But I'm very open to that. And I'll remind everyone that I didn't vote for him when his nomination came up. I was one of 19 to do so."
Needless to say, the support from Sen. Boxer will be a great help in the Resolutions Committee, when they prioritize the top ten resolutions to send to the floor of the convention tomorrow.
The other interesting tidbit from the presser was that Sen. Boxer offered no indication of her endorsement on the ballot measures for the special election on May 19. She says she and Sen. Feinstein haven't studied the measures yet, and that they will get together in Washington and offer a joint statement once they make their decision. "I'll let you know when I go public. But let me say this - the budget process in California is dysfunctional, because of the super-majority needed to pass a budget and tax increases. And until we get to the root causes of changing that, it's very difficult to do anything." This pretty much tracks with what we've been saying for a long time. Until you pass #1, it won't matter if you pass #2-#10.
Other topics covered included torture investigations (Boxer supports the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that Sen. Leahy recommended), the fate of cram-down provisions in the Senate ("Sen. Durbin is doing a heroic job... the banks are still a major lobbying group."), potential opponents in her 2010 re-election (I hope nobody runs against me!"), and the news of a budget reconciliation deal on health care in the Senate (she didn't have much to say on that other than that reconciliation should always be on the table, as it was during the Reagan years, and that the situation is "in flux.") Boxer was at her most eloquent answering a question about the rule of law and the impression that those at the highest levels of power, be it the banksters or the torture regime, were above it. "The law must prevail... the people should feel that something's wrong, if nothing is done on torture. If we don't like a law, we repeal it, we don't ignore it."
In the Resolutions Committee meeting here in Sacramento, the committee approved a "Yes" vote for all the measures on the May 19 ballot. The discussion was fairly revealing and typical of what I've seen around the state. The committee members, almost to a man except for Calitics' own Brian Leubitz, argued that the ballot measures reflected the best that the legislature could do, and spun tales about the consequences of failure. Out in the audience, the crowd loudly cheered any time this official narrative was challenged by remarking on the consequences of success, for example the spending cap that would ratchet down state services permanently. My favorite part was when someone, arguing for 1D, said that "if we don't pass this, children will suffer painful cuts." Which of course is the POINT of 1D. "We have to think of the children when we cut programs for children!" was the basic message.
Once again, we see the grassroots/establishment divide, where the legislature and their compatriots in learned helplessness wail about tales of woe while urging a Yes vote on measures that would make things demonstrably worse in the state. We've gone through this over and over again, so the fact that the resolutions committee supported the measures doesn't surprise. However, the strength of the opposition in the room tells me that something may occur on the floor on Sunday.
I would guess that the establishment will try to push the entire package through, and since the only real institutional opposition is on 1A, there will be an effort to pull 1A from the consent calendar. I think it's genuinely up for question as to whether or not it was successful, which is interesting in and of itself.
UPDATE by Brian: Just wanted to remind everybody about two useful mobile tools for following our coverage of the CDP Convention. First there is the Calitics mobile site at http://wap.calitics.com. That allows you to read all front-paged diaries and comment in a mobile phone friendly website.
Headed out the door for a nice, leisurely six-hour drive through the Central Valley to Sacramento for another California Democratic Party Convention. Calitics will have full coverage, of course - many of our writers will be on hand, both as delegates and as plain old media. There's a lot to cover, from party elections to endorsements on the May 19 election to the resolution to impeach Jay Bybee from the 9th Circuit to the unofficial opening of the 2010 election.
The early pre-convention news is that Antonio Villaraigosa won't be making the trip with me (although there's still room in the car, so you never know). It's a confusing development, considering all the high-profile events other gubernatorial hopefuls Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown are holding (Jerry's got a kegger at the old Governor's Mansion, while Gavin is part of an outdoor block party featuring Wyclef Jean). But that may be the reason, as Villaraigosa wasn't able to compete.
Villaraigosa's press office sent out a release announcing: "Mayor Villaraigosa today announced that he will convene emergency weekend meetings with union leaders to tackle the city's budget crisis.
"Talks will focus on ways to close a $530 million budget deficit through shared sacrifice and shared responsibility. The Mayor will begin meetings in City Hall with labor leaders on Friday evening and will continue through the weekend." [...]
Calbuzz asked Tony V spokesman Sean Clegg if the emergency budget session was "just a lame, bullshit excuse" to skip the convention. "It's exactly the opposite of that," Clegg said. "The city of Los Angeles and most cities across California are facing an unprecedented economic crisis and jobs come first."
Clegg said Villaraigosa is putting the needs of his city before his personal political fortunes by trying to pull together an agreement that would require labor unions to give back some hard-earned gains in order to save jobs and services in Los Angeles.
"This is a leadership moment. Antonio Villaraigosa is not going to Twitter while Rome burns," Clegg said -- a clear shot at the other mayor who would be governor: San Francisco's Gavin Newsom.
At the same time, a Tulchin Research/Acosta|Salazar pre-convention poll (which is three weeks out, but released on convention eve) shows Villaraigosa slipping. The poll had Garamendi in the race at the time.
Obviously, that top-line support is soft, with 1 in 5 undecided. But I'm frankly surprised how quickly this is turning into a two-horse race, which could actually open the door for a progressive movement candidate, if one existed. But alas...
Anyway, those are just a couple of the issues we'll see unfold. Stay with us throughout the weekend.
(I've teed up a few posts while I'm on the ride, but it'll be a light post day until late afternoon)
I'm a but surprised that they rejected everything on the ballot, but I think the bare fact of tax increases in the budget has colored their opinion on all the measures (which is fine with me, if they want to look a gift horse in the mouth).
SACRAMENTO - The California Republican Party on Saturday voted to oppose all six ballot proposals in next month's special election, saying voters must reject higher taxes.
The vote by the party's executive committee followed a lively, hour-long debate that focused on Proposition 1A. The measure would create a state spending cap and bolster California's rainy day fund, two concepts Republicans have long promoted.
But those provisions were overshadowed by triggers in the measure that would extend the sales and income taxes adopted by the state Legislature.
Party chairman Ron Nehring said the vote symbolized his members' dissatisfaction with the entire budget deal struck by the governor and lawmakers in February to close the state's budget deficit, then projected to be nearly $42 billion.
There's a serious divide and a lack of trust between the electeds and the grassroots on both sides of the aisle. And the urgent pleas to pass the initiatives just makes things worse, in my opinion, because defending them inevitably sends you down some blind alleys. Check out Speaker Bass' attempt, which includes one glaring dichotomy.
"If we don't pass these measures, when we begin to negotiate next year's budget, we will have a $14 billion hole instead of an $8 billion hole," Bass said.
People have become confused, she said, over critics' statements that measures 1D and 1E will take money from children and mental health programs funded through Props. 10 and 63. Bass said the new measures will tap into the prior propositions' reserve funds and divert the money into very same programs that the propositions were intended to serve: core children and mental health programs.
"If these measure fail, we will have to cut children and mental health programs," Bass said. "We are not using all the reserves but some of that money, which will otherwise just sit in the reserves."
Really, Madame Speaker? Wouldn't Prop. 1A divert billions to "just sit in the reserves"? Are you not in favor of that now, because I get confused. How can you coherently argue against the value of cash reserves in programs with stable revenue sources and for the value of cash reserves in the unstable revenue-sourced overall budget? The more the leadership talks about these ballot measures, the more they trip themselves up.
The establishment in both parties continue to close ranks around the May 19 special election, even as the grassroots continues to reject it. Today Antonio Villaraigosa endorsed all six ballot measures, asserting that they will "bring stability back to California's budget system," like any artificial spending cap that forces spending $16-$20 billion dollars below initial baseline estimates during an economic crisis where state spending is needed urgently tends to do. Without question, Villaraigosa, a potential candidate for Governor, sees that giant pot of CTA money being tossed around in support of the measures and figures one of the candidates could draft off of that nicely in the primaries.
At the local level, more and more Democratic clubs are opposing the ballot measures, because unlike the establishment, they have read them and calculated that they would put the state in an objectively worse situation, and they are unmoved by the idle threats of Armageddon casually tossed out by the Governor and his minions. The dichotomy is both interesting and revealing.
Meanwhile, in maybe the lamest online initiative effort since the invention of Compuserve, Abel Maldonado's tears have created "Reform For Change," a site dedicated to the petty, self-righteous, useless Prop. 1F measure that would eliminate raises for lawmakers and staff during an economic downturn. In the silly video accompanying the site, Maldonado's tears tell us that "we can fundamentally reform California and change it forever," through apparently passing a .0001% change in funding for state lawmakers that is dealt with through an independent commission and not "the legislators themselves" (one of many lies on this site).
Sigh.
UPDATE: Apparently Antonio said this today - "If we don't pass these initiatives CA will go into bankruptcy." That's just ignorant fearmongering. These people should be ashamed of themselves.
Despite the recent PPIC poll on the May 19 ballot initiatives, nobody should be confident in which direction this election will go. Though the polling position for the "Yes" side is increasingly untenable, it's clear that they will have far more resources to draw from leading up to the election, and will bombard the airwaves with their message (probably a message of fear). Just yesterday, another $1.5 million dropped into the Yes campaign's coffers.
A. Jerrold "Jerry" Perenchio, former chair of the largest Spanish-language media company in the United States, has donated $1.5 million to back two May special election measures.
Perenchio's donated the money to the Budget Reform Now committee, which calls for "yes" votes on Propositions 1A and 1C.
Proposition 1A would impose state spending restrictions, establish a "rainy day" fund for budget shortages and extend tax increases for two years. Proposition 1C allows the state to borrow $5 billion against future profits of a revamped state lottery.
I should note that Perenchio spent $1.5 million to back Arnold's 2005 special election, too. So he doesn't have the greatest track record. And it is not the case that the side with the most bucks wins the election. See T. Boone Pickens' Prop. 10 last year. While special interests can spend lots of money and get their way in the California legislature*, that's not always the case at the ballot. But this disparity could be great, and that will move numbers a little.
Calitics will be offering endorsements on the May 19 election within the next couple weeks.
* - Please read that report by the Sacramento Bee, and this sidebar about the top 10 spenders in Sacramento and how well they did with their bills. The money goes in and the favors go out, on a truly epic scale. We have to take our state back with major structural reform.
In an op-ed in today's LA Times, former LA Mayor Richard Riordan doesn't hold back against what he calls California's May ballot scam. Being a Republican, some of the arguments are of the familiar anti-tax stripe. But being a liberal Republican who endorsed Barack Obama for President, he makes some arguments from the Democratic side of things.
Then there's Proposition 1D, with its clunky and dishonest title: "Protects Children's Services Funding. Helps Balance State Budget." How does it "protect" children's services funding? By taking $1.6 billion currently committed to children's health services and preschool and throwing it into the budget maw.
Proposition 1E, "Mental Health Services Funding. Temporary Reallocation," is another travesty. It simply grabs $450 million that voters specifically directed to mental health services.
The May ballot leaves me with some questions for my fellow Californians.
First, to my liberal friends: Can you really support propositions that will drastically cut services to the state's neediest -- especially after legislators increased the state sales tax, a regressive tax that places a larger burden on the poor?
He then makes the discredited argument that rich people will move elsewhere if their taxes become too high. And then he goes on about "restructuring state government," echoing the rhetoric of Mr. Blow Up The Boxes, the guy who, uh, didn't. So it's a mixed bag.
However, there's no question that many of the ballot propositions, particularly 1A, would drastically cut services to the state's neediest. In a new report, The California Budget Project shows that 1A would not impact the continuing revenue shortfall in the state budget, and would in fact exacerbate it:
Proposition 1A would not address California's existing structural shortfall - the gap between revenues and expenditures - that exists in all but the best budget years. The state's two long-term budget forecasts, issued by the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) and the Department of Finance, both identify an ongoing gap between revenues and expenditures. Moreover, the Department of Finance's forecast projects a significant ongoing gap even taking into account the continuation of the spending reductions outlined by the Governor in his proposed 2009-10 budget.
The revenue forecast amount established by Proposition 1A, which limits spending from the state's existing tax base, would be significantly below the Governor's "baseline" spending forecast, a forecast that assumes that the cuts proposed by the Governor in his New Year's Eve budget release continue. For example, in 2010-11, the first year when the Director of Finance would be required to calculate whether the state has received "unanticipated revenues," the revenue cap would be an estimated $16 billion lower than the Governor's "baseline" spending estimate for the same year. The gap would widen in 2011-12 and 2012-13 to $17 billion and $21 billion, respectively.
By basing the new cap on a level of revenues that is insufficient to pay for the current level of programs and services, Proposition 1A would limit the state's ability to restore reductions made during the current downturn out of existing revenues. Had Proposition 1A been in effect during the late 1990s, for example, it would have diverted "unanticipated" revenues from the General Fund in 1995-96 and 1996-97, years when the "expenditure forecast" amount, the test used to trigger the shift of monies out of the General Fund, was below the LAO's 1995 "current services" forecast for the same fiscal year.
Even in years with budget shortfalls, the so-called "rainy day" fund would need to be enhanced. Considering that we have an aging population in California, with the age group 65 and older projected to grow the fastest over the next decade, anything that dramatically lowers state spending, and nullifies the ability to restore that spending even in a good budget year, will slash services which will only grow more needed in the years to come.
Then there are the other goodies in 1A, like the ability for the Governor to make unilateral mid-year spending cuts. And the fact that the spending formulas are based on estimated and not actual revenues (you've seen this year how they fluctuate wildly). Bet you won't see that on the ballot language.
The May 19 ballot will feature a tiny universe of the state's voters. If this small a subset of the population can make these kind of drastic changes to California's future, we should all be ashamed.
I think the state legislature and the Governor might want to try the tactic of opposing the May 19 ballot initiatives, because apparently, anything they support, the public does the opposite.
When read the full text of the ballot measures, likely voters express these preferences:
Proposition 1A: About four in 10 support the measure (39% yes, 46% no, 15% undecided) to change the
budget process by increasing the state "rainy day" fund. Less than half say the measure would be very (7%)
or somewhat (38%) effective in helping California avoid future state budget deficits.
Proposition 1B: They are divided (44% yes, 41% no, 15% undecided) on the initiative that would require future
supplemental payments to local school districts and community colleges to address recent budget cuts.
Proposition 1C: Half oppose (37% yes, 50% no, 11% undecided) the measure to modernize the lottery and
allow for $5 billion in borrowing from future lottery profits to help balance next year's state budget.
Proposition 1D: Nearly half support (48% yes, 36% no, 16% undecided) the proposition to temporarily transfer
funds from early childhood education to help balance the state budget.
Proposition 1E: Nearly half favor (47% yes, 37% no, 16% undecided) the measure to transfer money from
mental health services to the general fund to help balance the state budget.
Proposition 1F: An overwhelming majority (81% yes, 13% no, 6% undecided) support the initiative that would
block pay increases to state elected officials in years of budget deficit.
Keep in mind that the first poll, taken about a month ago, showed all six measures passing by a fairly decent margin. And there has been no coordinated opposition. So what changed? I'd gather the confidence in the legislature and the Governor has completely collapsed:
Eight weeks before the special election-called as part of the 2009-2010 budget agreement between the governor and legislature-those Californians most likely to go to the polls are feeling grim about the state of their state: The vast majority (77%) say it is headed in the wrong direction and see its fiscal situation as a big problem (85%). They give record low ratings to the legislature (11%) and to their own legislators (29%). Their approval rating for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (33%) has dropped to a new low among likely voters. For the first time, a majority of Republican likely voters (54%) disapprove of the job performance of the Republican governor.
The results are striking when compared to rising approval ratings for Congress and California's senators and to
a strongly positive view of President Obama-despite a challenging economic climate.
"Californians are clear that the budget situation is serious, but most disapprove of the leadership in
Sacramento-the people who are providing the solutions," says Mark Baldassare, PPIC president, CEO, and
survey director. "These leaders have their work cut out for them if they want to persuade voters that the ballot
measures are necessary to address the problem."
If you want to know why the Governor had to explain that he's not running for future office, that would be because nobody likes him. And the legislature, obviously, is even worse - the 29% rating for people's local legislator is absurdly low and quite dangerous. In a normal world, that would spell lots of primary challenges.
Let me stress that this election is not over - the opposition still isn't well-funded, and the CTA just put $2 million into Prop. 1B. The Governor has already started funding the other measures. With an unbalanced funding war, these measures could bounce back. But the rule of thumb is that measures in this position right now lose. I see 1A in particular in the situation of the mountain climber from The Price Is Right, with just a little opposition sufficient to send him over the cliff.
Several weeks back, during the deepest throes of the budget crisis, I wrote that the problems of the state are not a matter of personality but process, and you can reason that out to understand that a change in the personalities without a concurrent change in process will accomplish absolutely nothing on reforming the state and getting a functional government again in California. This thought occurred to me again last night, as I sat in the press section during Gavin Newsom's "conversation with California" as part of his tour of the southern part of the state. Newsom's description of the challenges the state faces - and his solutions - gear more to the idea that a different person, dedicated to solving the same problems in a new way, can overcome any obstacle, rather than the reality that no individual under the current system of rules could possibly thrive. And while the San Francisco Mayor shows a recognition of the structural impossibility of California, his relative nonchalance about how to reform it shows he believes for more in himself to overcome the rules than the demonstrable history of the rules overcoming everyone in their path.
First, let's be clear that Newsom is running with someone else's platform. The first policy mentioned last night as a reflection of his record is the Healthy San Francisco effort toward universal care for the uninsured in his city. That is not his plan to tout, and the simultaneous description of it as a savior for the state's residents while cutting $100 million dollars from the city's Department of Public Health and programs aimed at the needy is nothing short of troubling.
"It's not that Healthy San Francisco is wrong its the mayor's obvious ..." (Tom Ammiano) pauses. "Look, he's running for governor and taking full credit for it. It's not true. The labor community, my office, community activists, health people -- some of the same people who are unhappy with him now -- worked with him on this. When he goes out there and claims full credit, that pisses people off, especially people who are dealing with [health care in the city] every day. ... The reaction is really based on the mayor boasting and overselling Healthy San Francisco." [...]
"Healthy San Francisco -- I think people should be very proud of it. I think it's going to meet its full potential. The rollout is going to be incremental and there's going to be little tweaks that it needs. But, you know, that's not the target [...] Unfortunately, it's getting tainted because of the mayor's boasting and overselling of it."
The neighborhood clinics at the heart of the Healthy San Francisco plan are at full capacity while funding is being slashed, and additional "woodworking" - residents coming out of the woodwork to seek services. The revenues aren't meeting the expenses, and the General Fund of the city, now facing a $590 million dollar shortfall (less per capita than Los Angeles'), has to make up the difference. As the economy continues to slow and the ranks of the unemployed swell, those at the bottom of the income ladder are already seeing service cuts. I would simply call it bad politics to put so much emphasis on a program you can barely claim ownership to and are cutting funding for at the same time as more services are desired. And this is sadly part of a pattern of the whole story being left out.
But let's set aside the issues for a moment. As focused as I am on process, I awaited Newsom's response to the inevitable questions about budget reform. He asserted support for a 50% + 1 threshold for the budget process, using the line "You need two-thirds of the vote to pass a budget, but only a simple majority to deny civil rights," referring to marriage equality. It's a good line, but he leaves out that he was shamed into changing his position after the initial proposal for a 55% threshold was slammed by just about everyone. The first instinct was to half-ass reform. There was also no explanation that there are two thresholds requiring two-thirds, the budget and tax increases, leaving his answer fairly vague, as it has been in the past.
But far worse than this was his flippant approval of Prop. 1A, the draconian spending cap that would effectively eliminate what amounts to half of the state school budget within a few years, and his dishonest rendering of the initiative as "a rainy day fund," without explaining how the rainy day fund is created. On the other ballot measures like 1C, 1D and 1E, which would privatize the lottery and raid voter-approved funds for children's programs and mental health, he gave a Solomonic "on the one hand, on the other hand" soliloquy and ended saying that he would be a bad spokesman for them.
This, then, is what needs to be kept in mind when Newsom urges a call for a constitutional convention. We see by his stances on the May special election what he would reasonably be expected to get out of that convention - a constitution that includes a "rainy day fund" created by a spending cap, coming at it from a right-wing perspective and ultimately resulting in a fake reform. This is essentially the position of Arnold Schwarzenegger, clueless media elites, bipartisan fetishists who assume without evidence the midpoint of any argument is automatically the best option, and most tellingly, the Bay Area Council, which makes perfect sense.
Meantime, the Schwarzenegger-sponsored political campaign in support of the six measures announced today an endorsement from the Bay Area Council, the business-centric public policy organization that is the impetus behind calls for a constitutional convention. Last week, Schwarzenegger made it quite clear that he supports the first convening of a state constitutional convention in some 150 years... a way to focus on multiple ideas for government reform at one time.
These two announcements certainly play to the idea of another "business vs. labor" narrative in California politics. Another possible fuel for that storyline comes in a $250,000 donation to the pro-budget measure committee on Friday by wealthy Orange County developer Henry Segerstrom. The donation from one of his companies is easily his largest campaign contribution in recent years, which saw smaller checks written to both the guv's 2006 reelection efforts and to the California Republican Party.
I support a Constitutional convention because I know what my principles are. I don't support mealy-mouthed calls for "reform" that are essentially corporate-friendly back doors to advance the interests of the powerful over the people.
Ultimately, Randy Shaw has this right - the people of California could elect Noam Chomsky, Warren Buffett or Howard Jarvis, and nothing would fundamentally change until the structures that restrict anyone in Sacramento from doing their jobs are released. And our assessment of who would be best to lead that reform should be based on deeds and not words.
If California's future is measured by our education system, we are in deep trouble. And we are in this difficulty because the state's Democratic Party and progressive activists have allowed right-wing Republicans to exert major control over the state's budget.
I say "allowed" because there is no other explanation for elected officials and activists failing to put a measure on the November 2008 ballot removing the 2/3 vote requirement to pass a budget. Although state Republicans made their opposition to new taxes clear, progressives passed up a large turnout ballot whose voters would have approved such a reform. Passage of such an initiative would have avoided the billions of dollars in cuts we went on to face, with more cuts slated for future years [...]
If we have learned anything from the past months, it should be that putting money into state candidates will accomplish less than passing the budgetary reforms and tax hikes needed to return California to its leadership in education and other areas [...]
It's time for the people to say "Yes We Can" to a new progressive future for California. Once the people lead, the politicians -- particularly those seeking their votes -- will follow.
It is senseless to discuss candidates for a race into a straitjacket, which is the current dress code for Sacramento. Anything less than fundamental reform will not solve the enormous set of problems the state faces - and it will take more than charisma, but an actual commitment, to make it happen.
I was in Sacramento for some meetings this week, and have a few thoughts and observations.
The first is the most important. The people in and around our government are good, dedicated people who are doing those jobs because they care and want to do the right thing. You don't make big money in public service. In the last few decades a government job meant less pay than a comparable "private" sector job and a number of working-environment hassles, like the extra procedures (paperwork and bureaucracy) that are required in public positions to involve transparency and accountability. And, of course, they have to put up with the Republican-inspired abuse of people who work for the government. So give these people a break and assume good faith.
Congratulations to those brave souls who managed to win Assembly delegate elections over the weekend. Your first state Convention, scheduled for Sacramento in April, should coincide nicely with the mass protests from folks who got IOUs instead of their expected tax refunds, the first double-digit employment numbers in the state in a generation, and essentially the near-total shutdown of state government, by design, from a working conservative majority that uses outdated and anti-majoritarian rules to destroy the state for their own ends.
I have a hard time arguing with the deep pessimism from Dan Walters today.
What, if anything, will come next to pull us out of recession and return California to prosperity? Some think it will be biotechnology, services to baby boomer retirees or solving global warming.
Lurking in the background, however, is a nagging worry that there won't be anything, that the state's endemically high costs, political dysfunction and long list of unresolved dilemmas, from transportation to water to education, have made us uncompetitive in a global economy. Just last week, a new federal survey found that California has the nation's highest adult illiteracy rate.
We have tended to take the future for granted. No matter how moribund the economy may be at the moment, we think, we have the weather, the entrepreneurial spirit and the strategic location to regroup and prosper.
We may have. But then again, maybe we aren't so special. Maybe we're not immune to the societal afflictions that have beset other states. Maybe we are a rust-belt-to-be on the left coast, a Michigan with winter sunshine.
This is not a failure of entrepreneurship or a lack of a desirable consumer base. It's quite simply a failure of politics, a series of compromises and capitulations that have led the state into a blind alley. Because legislative Democrats have never effectively rid the process of the constraints of the past, they have made the future impossible.
The biggest burst of meaningful political activism in recent history was the crusade to defeat Arnold's special election in 2005. That happened outside the party structure because labor felt threatened and needed to lead an effort, working together with the grassroots and the party establishment to fight back. There was a singular mission and nobody brought their own single-issue buckets to the table. Their public relations strategy and the activism they encouraged was nothing short of brilliant. But it was primarily a defensive maneuver. Now the CTA is trying to add a penny to the sales tax in a more offensive maneuver to secure funding for schools. This is precisely the wrong way to go. It carves out another dedicated funding source for one area while imposing a regressive tax on the state's most burdened citizens. Single-issue money grabs will not do the job. Unity is the great need of the hour.
At one of the AD meetings I attended this weekend, my Assemblywoman, Julia Brownley, got up to speak. I would call her a pretty mild-mannered woman. She practically pleaded with everyone in attendance, saying "We need your help... the Governor is breaking this state... we need you to throw your shoes at Arnold." She was sending out an urgent call for the kind of unified activism that broke Arnold's back in 2005. It's a heavier lift because it requires something proactive rather than reactive. But without labor, grassroots activists and the party establishment working in concert, this is going to be the worst 2 years of all these newly-elected delegates' lives.
There are going to be two Democratic legislative initiatives this week: a request for a federal government loan to ensure our unemployment insurance fund doesn't go broke, and legislation putting a moratorium on foreclosures, which cost roughly $250,000 each to the greater economy in opportunity costs and property value reductions. There is help coming in the form of hopefully $5-7 billion dollars from the federal recovery package, earmarked for state and local government relief. But eventually, we're going to turn to the ballot. In June of this year, there's going to be a host of initiatives, and we need there to be more than simply signing off on the bad budget of last year, but real structural reform, whether to do with 2/3 or expanding the budget cycle to 2 years or even the tax increases in the Democratic budget (The LAO thinks that election should happen earlier to relieve this crisis of confusion). These MUST get on the ballot, and they MUST pass, with a coalition of every progressive in the state working toward that passage. The survival of the state hangs in the balance.
So good for you, winners. Now make sure you don't get picketed during your first convention. Because if you don't, I'll be the first one out there with a sign.
I'll have a much larger roundup later. But it looks to me like there was a significant undervote in the election. So far, 10.04 million votes have been counted in the Presidential race. Yet on Prop. 8 we have about 9.9 million votes counted. The difference there is 79,000 votes. But that's the smallest discrepancy. Most of the other statewide ballot measures had undervotes of around 600,000-800,000 votes. And there are maybe 1 million votes yet to be counted, so this spread could be much higher.
And if you look at the Congressional and state legislature ballots, the spread is just as high.
A lot of people stopped at the top, probably because they didn't have enough information and didn't feel comfortable about voting.
