In polling, the answer you get depends heavily on the question. Obvious enough, right?

Few should understand this point better than the prestigious, independent Field Institute, whose polls on California issues often contribute to the public debate.

So why is Field polluting the discussion around revenues in California with bad questions and bad data?

We can and must do better, and soon.

The most recent Field Poll scans the horizon for support levels on prospective special-election issues

(get the poll here, and the fascinating cross-tab results here).

It’s helpful to see, in this poll, where Californians would cut to help reduce the state budget deficit. Basically, most voters would cut nothing except prisons and, perhaps, the costs of environmental regulation. Republicans would cut a lot more, except K-12 public schools.

The broad consensus is against almost any cuts that would be needed to meet the state’s widening budget chasm.

So are people willing to support new revenues? (OK, let’s go ahead and say “tax increases.”)

Not according to Field. But look at how they asked the question. Registered voters were asked to respond to: “I would be willing to pay higher taxes to help the state balance its budget.”

Even that poor wording got 43% support overall. Democrats and independent voters gave it 53% support.

But look at what’s missing in the question. The wording speaks to who would pay the higher taxes – the respondent – but how much? And for what purpose?

There’s no limit stated, no type of tax enumerated. And the purpose is as grim as they get: “help[ing] the state balance its budget.” If you have ever seen California voters talk about the state budget, they view it as a black hole rife with waste.

It’s astonishing that there’s a core of 43% willing to shovel their own money into a ditch to help “the state” fix “its budget.”

Of course there are many better ways to ask this kind of question. For instance, you could ask voters if they’d pay more to protect the specific programs and services they like. (Which is basically everything but prisons.) Linking tax increases to specific purposes helps a lot.

Or you could ask about specific kinds of taxes that don’t mainly affect the individuals responding to the poll. An oil extraction tax gets big numbers in polling for lots of reasons, one of them being who it’s targeted at (highly profitable oil companies).

An increase in income taxes on the wealthiest Californians similarly scores well because – as much as we may try – most Californians don’t fit into the top 1%, 5%, or even 10% on the income scale. (Disclosure: I managed the campaign for Prop. 63, which added a 1% surcharge on annual income over $1 million to support mental health programs.)

And if you present the facts properly, I’d bet you’d see majorities supporting a split-roll property tax, or at least a fix to change-in-ownership rules for commercial property.

We need to educate voters about the degree to which we have a revenue problem that’s been papered over for 20 years and salvaged occasionally by bogus economic bubbles. There are lots of sensible ways to raise money and not have undue impact on the people who can least afford it. If there’s ever going to be a time to find billions of dollars in steady new revenue sources, we’re pretty near the “hair on fire” phase now where that will be both necessary and possible.

Don’t believe you’d be limited to 43% support for a raft of revenue measures. Smartly designed, longer-lasting revenue solutions will have an audience – an even bigger audience if we don’t see this special election happen, or if the tax extensions fail and we flop into devastating austerity. Let’s get to work now.  

One advantage the Legislature has had for years in referring ballot measures directly to the people is that lawmakers were not subject to any standard of impartiality. They could, and often did, write a sunny “official” description of their own referred measures for official ballot materials. The hope was to encourage some number of extra votes by casting such measures in a positive light.

That’s in the past tense now, though, due to a court ruling last week. And that change could jeopardize legislatively referred measures intended for the much-discussed June 2011 special election ballot.

Without the power to control the framing of the special-election measures, the Legislature and Gov. Brown could find passage just marginally more difficult in an election that could be extremely close.  

The Court of Appeals ruled late last week that the Legislature cannot supplant the Attorney General, who is normally charged with writing a fair and “impartial” description of statewide ballot measures. From now on, no more advocacy language from legislators can appear in the official title & summary.

The case came out of the successful Nov. 2008 high-speed rail bond measure, whose title and summary were pointedly upbeat. For instance, the title was the “Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act,” and the first bullet read, “Provides long-distance commuters with a safe, convenient, affordable, and reliable alternative to driving and high gas prices.” (For more see here: http://bit.ly/gK7c05)

The measure won (52%-48%), and that victory won’t be revisited due to this ruling, but the appeals court found that the Legislature’s practice of writing such chipper language for its own ballot measures violated the law controlling initiative descriptions. The Legislature has routinely exempted itself from that law in the course of stipulating the language to appear as the title and summary. But those days are over.

Going forward, every measure, whether it’s put on the ballot by citizens or legislators, will now need to have a neutral ballot title, summary and label prepared by the AG. And that could make the much-discussed June 2011 special election harder for Gov. Brown and his slate of initiatives.

To see why this matters, look back only to the most recent statewide special election. In May 2009, the Legislature put a slate of special measures on the ballot, most related to the budget. I worked against two of those, Props. 1D & 1E, which sought to cut early-childhood programs and mental health services that had previously been created by voter enactments.

Suffice it to say that the title and summary descriptions written by the Legislature skipped over a lot of the details, like the fact that we were being asked to amend past voter initiatives. The summaries made these cuts sound painless and even, in some ways, made the proposals sound like efforts to ensure funding for important programs, not to cut programs.

Hoping to find votes, the authors of these summaries had inverted the meaning of the actual proposals to make them sound good. For those of us hoping to persuade voters to stop the cuts, the official language was maddening.

Opponents of 1D were not able to challenge the ballot description, but the 1E opponents did. They feared that the initial summary language would falsely convey to voters that 1E would protect and enhance children’s mental health services, instead of cutting significant mental health services. But it was unclear whether we could win a court fight. If the court were to find that the Legislature was free to exempt itself from the requirement for an impartial title and summary, 1E opponents would have been forced to accept the language as initially drafted

Before their case went to a judge, attorneys for the Legislature and the 1E opponents worked out a settlement. The revised summary was better. But settlements get forced when both sides are unsure of the outcome. The 1E opponents took half a loaf rather than risk going with the first draft.

There was more of a titanic battle around that year’s Prop. 1A ballot description, a fight over the nature of the tax increases proposed therein and how they were tied to a spending cap. Opponents of 1A won a couple of tweaks to the language, but mostly lost their effort to recast 1A in a more neutral/negative light. In their case, the court upheld the basic right of the Legislature to put almost anything they wanted into the title & summary.

Now, all of the budget measures in May 2009 went down to defeat by about 2-to-1, so you can argue that any puffery put into ballot materials by the Legislature was a nonfactor. But in a close race, everything matters. The June 2011 special election – if it comes together – was surely conceived with one big assumption: whatever the Legislature puts on the ballot, it will control the framing of those measures in the official ballot materials. No more.

The Court of Appeals decision in this case is remarkably simple to read and grasp. It’s online here:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/op…

The gist of the ruling is this: The requirement for the AG to write an impartial summary of “each measure” on the statewide ballot was itself instated by a ballot measure – the Political Reform Act (PRA) of 1974. Even the Legislature can’t ignore the statutory requirements of a ballot measure enacted by the people. So the appeals court found that the Legislature could not exempt itself from those requirements. The fact that legislators were only doing it for measures they had drafted themselves was immaterial. The PRA says it’s the AG’s job – period.

This is a simpler Article II case than even many critics of this longstanding legislative practice seem to have imagined.

The bottom line for June 2011 now is that any legislatively referred measure must go to the AG for a description, and the content of that description will be subject to litigation on any claim that the language may be prejudicial.

That could be a big negative for some of the issues that have been rumored to be part of a new special-election package, including possible repeats of 2009’s 1D & 1E to cut children’s services or mental health care. The job of selling the special election just got harder.

We’ve seen that the Republicans are scared of letting the voters vote on taxes. The Norquistians are saying that even putting taxes on the ballot is a violation of the no-tax pledge.  Something has got them nervous, perhaps that’s because of numbers like these:

The poll, just released, shows strong support for Brown’s special statewide election on budget fixes, as well as reasonably strong support for his suggestion to erase California’s deficit with a mix of cuts and taxes.

The Public Policy Institute of California finds 66% of voters surveyed like the idea of a special election to consider budget issues. That includes not just an overwhelming majority of Democrats (74%) but a majority (55%) of Republicans, too.

*** **** ***

While the poll offers several more interesting nuggets (like an affirmation of the fiscal disconnect affecting the state’s voters which we’ve discussed before), here’s one more that helps explain why Governor Brown’s budget not only protects K-12 schools (for the most part), but puts them front and center should the voters reject the $11 billion in tax extensions he wants on a June statewide ballot: 75% say they oppose any more K-12 cuts, and 71% say they’d pay higher taxes to spare those schools.(Capital Notes)

In fact, a strong plurality rejects a cuts only budget.  Only 36% favor cuts alone, while 49% prefer at least some taxes, and another 7% favors additional debt.  As to which taxes, well, the corporate tax is still tax number one.  Too bad the voters just chose to preserve a $1.5 billion corporate tax cut. I guess it goes to show you what a bit of campaign propaganda can do.  You can grab all of the numbers at the PPIC survey here.

The voters clearly still need additional information on how our system works. They don’t quite understand how we fund our budget, and where it all goes.  But, at the same time, I think voters understand more than they are given credit for in the media and amongst some political circles.

Governor Brown’s budget is far from perfect, but it’s enough that it is scaring the Right. And that’s a start.

On May 19, voters were asked to divert money from First Five programs to pay for General Fund expenditures.  The argument was that First Five had a reserve that was just “sitting around” and they should give up some of that money, earmarked for children’s programs, to pay for the budget.  At Calitics, we called this the “if it ain’t broke, break it” proposition.  First Five, financed by a tax on cigarette sales, was well-funded and able to make multi-year program projections, so that the programs started up were not in perpetual fear of being dropped.

One of the values of First Five is that they can seek out other programs affecting children and contribute to them, in keeping with their mandate.  And that is what they have voluntarily agreed to do with respect to the Healthy Families program, California’s version of S-CHIP.

Meeting in Sacramento this afternoon, the First 5 California Children and Families Commission agreed to help the Healthy Families Program, which faces a $90 million General Fund shortfall in 2009-10. But the Commission declined to commit to a specific level of financial assistance. As a result, it appears all but certain that the enrollment freeze approved last month by the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board, which oversees Healthy Families, will take effect on Friday, July 17.

In a resolution, the First 5 Commission committed “to join with like-minded public and private partners, including but not limited to health plans and philanthropic organizations, to provide financial assistance in Fiscal Year 2009-10 to the extent practicable and feasible…to ensure young children have access to affordable health insurance coverage.” This commitment, however, “is contingent upon the availability of funds in the applicable First 5 California accounts.”

I wish that First Five would have chosen a specific funding level, which could have rolled back the enrollment freeze.  Still, they are making a commitment to help provide health insurance to needy children, one they couldn’t have made if the state clawed back some of their money in the May 19 election.  This way, First Five can target the money and keep in line with what the voters asked from them – to use their revenue to provide needed services for children.  The state could have used that money for anything if they skimmed it off the top.

People often wail about ballot-box budgeting and the broken initiative process in the state, and to an extent I agree with them.  But First Five is an example of GOOD ballot-box budgeting.  It has a dedicated funding source, it’s well-managed and well-capitalized, and it has the ability to make contingencies.  If the structure of state government fails to allow increased revenue to pay for needed services, it’s perfectly logical to go outside that process and produce dedicated sources of funding.  It shows the virtue of a balanced approach.  I don’t necessarily want the ballot to do all of Sacramento’s work for it, but the broken system of government sometimes leaves no choice.

The road to lasting security and economic prosperity runs through America’s universities, state colleges, community colleges and technical training schools.

Yet for an increasing number of Americans, the dream of the quality education they need to compete in the global economy of the 21st Century is out of reach.

That’s why I am asking you to help me remove barriers to college right now by signing the Service to College petition.

For decades, politicians have used cuts to public schools and financial aid programs, as well as tuition hikes at universities as a means for closing state budget gaps.

We now know that these short-sighted decisions have come at an immense long-term cost to America’s economy, the competitiveness of our workforce and our security.  

But together, we can reverse these wrong-headed policies- starting with stable and adequate funding at the K-12 level, rolling back recent tuition increases, and by rewarding national service with a year of college tuition for every year served in the military, Peace Corps, AmeriCorps or other recognized full-time service programs.

Growing up in Fairfield, California as the son of a single mother, my family couldn’t afford health care, much less think about college tuition.

But I was lucky. I was accepted to West Point, where I received an excellent four-year college education our family would never have been able to afford alone. I went on to serve my country, including two tours of duty in Iraq.

This kind of college for service should be available to more Americans. It is a win/win bargain that will make our country stronger right now as we harness the public service spirit of a new generation and it will make our country richer in the long-run as we train more Americans for the high-skill and high-wage jobs that will keep us economically competitive.

I have been honored to serve not just in Iraq – but to work as a volunteer for Habitat for Humanity rebuilding homes in New Orleans after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. I’ve seen first hand the tremendous energy and effectiveness of Americans serving other Americans. It does more than transform once-devastated communities; it helps transform the people performing the service. This kind of community engagement helps build a model of citizenship and life-long service that is America at its best.

History has always been my passion. At West Point, and later at the Kennedy School of Government, we frequently talked about the sacrifices of the “Greatest Generation” that protected our nation in WWII.

It is a deserved title for these Americans, because they did more than serve our country in the military. They came home and used the GI Bill to help unlock nearly 25 years of economic growth and prosperity. They opened the door to opportunity for tens of millions of Americans. And they served, and continue to serve, their communities at home.

As a member of what’s being called the Millennial Generation, the largest generation in our nation’s history, I want plans like Service to College to unlock a new and great wave of service. I hope you will help me make this Service to College plan a reality.

If you agree that we need to break down the barriers to college by promoting national service, please sign our petition today.

And I hope you will learn more about me and my campaign for Congress in the California’s 10th Congressional district by visiting my website, or joining more than 3,000 supporters at Facebook or

Twitter.

Thanks for all you do,

Anthony Woods

Democrat for Congress, CA 10

CLICK HERE to Contribute to our Campaign