Added video at right; see below for explanation.

It’s 1995 all over again, as Republican-induced government shutdowns are all the rage. Congressional Republicans are planning a shutdown in September if they don’t get their way on drilling, which looks to be their core electoral strategy going into November.

Here in California the possibility looms as Republicans show no sign of budging on the budget. Saturday is the deadline for adding propositions to the November ballot, and as most budget solutions proposed have involved going to voters – whether it’s Arnold’s lottery bonds, his sales tax plan, or the Republicans’ spending cap demands, the deadline becomes all-important:

Taking lottery and budget overhaul off the negotiating table could aggravate the already polarized budget debate between the governor and the Legislature, capitol observers say.

“If that happens, you’ll see this budget dug in and you’ll see (the longest impasse) ever. And that’s unfortunate,” said Assembly Republican leader Mike Villines from Clovis (Fresno County).

It’s likely that Republicans in California feel, as do their counterparts in DC, that a government shutdown (which a long budget delay would eventually produce) is a winning electoral strategy. The conventional wisdom is that it hurt Republicans in ’95 when they did it, blunting their upward momentum and eventually helping Clinton get re-elected in ’96 – but it also forced Clinton to accede to many of their demands, such as welfare reform, while doing nothing to threaten GOP control of the Congress. Clearly Republicans believe it’s a win-win – either the Dems cave on policy or the Dems lose at the ballot box.

Of course we’re already witnessing a government shutdown in slow motion. Arnold’s unnecessary mass firing of government workers has led to impacts on public services from the DMV to health care. The even more radical Republicans in the legislature would presumably be happy to do the same to government more broadly – since they don’t believe in public services, breaking them via a budget shutdown suits their ideological agenda nicely.

In that respect it’s worth noting that this isn’t just a budget-produced attitude. Republicans really do want the government to be dramatically scaled back, even though good public services are essential to our modern society. After Hurricane Katrina the Grover Norquist “drown government in a bathtub” philosophy seemed discredited, but Republicans continue to espouse it.

The best – and the only – response from Democrats is to recognize that the budget and the fall election campaign are now one in the same. Dems need to be aggressively framing Republicans as government-destroying nutjobs who would happily shut down schools and hospitals in order to accomplish a far-right agenda. If a shutdown did happen that would fulfill the prophecy and damage Republicans further.

Dems’ failure to take a campaign approach to the budget is partly responsible for the ongoing delay, since Republicans feel no pressure from the public to cut a deal. It’s time for Dems to treat this like a campaign and push back hard on the Republicans before they do further damage to our state.

UPDATE – As if on cue, the California Faculty Association has begun running “Flunk Republican” ads against Republicans in ADs 10, 30, 78 and 80. The ads are a perfect example of campaigning on the budget. Dems take note: make the Republicans pay for their demands for massive cuts.

Matthew D. Shapiro and Joel Slemrod of the University of Michigan know what they’re talking about. They wrote what many consider to be THE paper on the 2001 stimulus payment and now, according to the Wall Street Journal Real Time Economics Blog, have taken a look at the preliminary data on the 2008 stimulus payments. Where did the money go? It’s not too surprising:

The change in the personal saving rate corresponds closely to the size of the rebate as a percentage of disposable income. The figure shows how most of the rebate payments appear to have gone straight into saving.

Which is clearly not what President Bush had in mind when he drew up the checks in the first place.

That most of the rebate checks were saved is, though, consistent with the results we find using the University of Michigan Survey of Consumers. When consumers were asked whether their stimulus check would lead them to “mostly spend, mostly save, or mostly pay down debt,” only 18% answered that it would lead them to mostly spend more.

That statement is also pretty much in line with what has been reported in the past couple of months. Still, many have been hearing reports recently that feature consumers talking about how they are spending their rebate checks, making some question whether or not it had more of an effect than originally thought. Shapiro and Slemrod don’t buy this argument all the way:

Does such consumer behavior correspond to spending that would stimulate the economy? That depends on what the consumers would have done if they had not received the rebate check. If they would have not made those purchases absent the rebate, then the rebate was spent. If the rebate let them avoid running up higher credit card bills for gas and groceries they would have purchased even without the rebate, then the rebate was saved.

Thus the rosy predictions of Americans flocking to stores to spend their rebate checks may not necessarily indicate that they are having the desired effect of stimulating the economy. And what is their overall analysis of how this first stimulus package worked out?

Nonetheless, the rebates are likely to be less effective in stimulating the economy than policymakers had hoped.

In reality Shapiro and Slemrod only add another reliable source to the masses who have highlighted the failure of the first stimulus package to boost the economy. They also join another group that has been picking up steam lately; those who think investing in the states should be a central tenant of any new stimulus package:

If a second round of stimulus is necessary, other options that should be on the table. These include payments to states that will need to cut spending because of balanced budget provisions as their tax revenue falls. Additionally, policymakers should consider increased infrastructure investment on items such as roads and bridges.

Both of these are great ideas. Though they ask the question, is a second round of stimulus necessary? All I can say is look around.

Here in California the state budget impasse is rounding the track on its 6th week (they were supposed to have something figured out by July 1st.) Governor Schwarzenegger has been favoring scare tactics over real negotiation with state Democrats. Ask the 200,000 state employees who had their salaries reduced to minimum wage if they think a second round of stimulus is necessary. Ask the 10,000 plus seasonal and student workers who lost their jobs if they think a second round of stimulus is necessary.

In New York, Governor Patterson is calling the state legislator back into session to address a projected $6 billion budget gap next year and a gap that could ballon to $26 billion in three years. They say everything is on the table for cuts. I’m sure they could use a little help.

These are just two of countless examples of states in need of some aid. Here’s to hoping that when Congress comes back into session next month they do so with the recommendations of Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Slemrod in mind.

(I’m not a big fan of Prop 11.  lindasutton does a good job of explaining the beast. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

TRUTH NOW on Proposition 11…

… the fake redistricting reform brought to you by Gov. Schwarzenegger and his wrong-wing Republican gang

Want to live in a Red State? Want to have gridlock on redistricting in addition to the budget? Want to have the Republicans put in charge of “protecting” our coastline?

This is the reality of the so-called “Voters First” proposition being put on the ballot this year by Arnold and his Republican fat cat cronies. The only “voters” who are elevated will be the Republicans who are attempting to circumvent their declining registration statewide by fooling the voters into the idea that Prop 11 is “independent” and “non-partisan.” You’ve got to hand it to them. They come up with such good titles that mean exactly the opposite!!!

Under the guise of “reform,” proposition 11 creates a new state bureaucracy with an unlimited budget. This new drain on the state resources would essentially operate as a parallel second set of employees since a redistricting staff already exists in the state legislature. Along with the 14 member Citizens Redistricting Commission (paid $300 per day + expenses to attend a meeting), this new unlimited bureaucracy would include political staffers (civil-service exempt), private contractors, and private attorneys.

If this commission, stacked in the Republicans’ favor, does NOT reach agreement, and the rules ensure it will not, redistricting is handed to the California Supreme Court who appoints “special masters” to complete the boundary lines. NOTE that 6 of the 7 justices currently sitting on the court were appointed by Republican governors.

Few people can defend the bizarre configurations of our legislative districts that are currently under the direct control of our politicians. Often neighborhoods are split into “communities of interest,” and this is one of the arguments used in favor of this measure that will be on the ballot this November. But, the politicians ARE responsible for what they have done, and they CAN be held accountable by the voters. If Prop 11 passes, all accountability ends.

Proposition 11 sets up a convoluted maze to choose 14 commissioners. The restrictions on selection of applicants are such as to ensure their ignorance of the political process. Excluded are people who have been candidates for office within the last 10 years, or had a family member who was, anyone who has served on a political central committee, anyone who has been on a political staff or been a lobbyist, anyone contributing $2000 or more to a candidate, any staff people to elected officials or their relatives. Thus, the pool of applicants will be severely restricted to those who have the least possible experience dealing with the complex decisions they will be asked to make. Or, maybe not. Interestingly, politicos from the Republican institutes and think tanks are not excluded.

The maze begins with the State Auditor. You say, “Who?” Who, indeed. It’s not as though we’ve ever heard anything about this unelected state official. But now this unknown takes front and center stage and begins the Prop 11 process by choosing three so-called “independent” state auditors to oversee what follows. This is Step #1, in the multiple-step procedure laid out by this proposition.

For the record, the State Auditor is currently Elaine M. Howle. She is a POLITICAL appointee of the governor’s, selected from a list of three submitted to him by the state legislature. The State Auditor, however, is “accountable solely to the California Legislature” after appointment.

The next step (#2) proceeds by choosing from a pool of applicants 20 Democrats, 20 Republicans, plus 20 not in either major party. This formula bears NO relationship to the actual political party registration in the state which as of May 19, 2008  is 43.75% Democrat, 32.53% Republican, and 23.72% all others. The losers here are obviously the Democrats who have gained a substantial margin in registration and would now be required to forfeit that plurality.

Moving on to Step #3, the state party leaders (only Dems and Reps now) get veto power. The President pro Tempore of the Senate, the Minority floor leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Minority Floor Leader may EACH strike up to two applicants from each sub-pool of 20 for a total of eight possible strikes per sub-pool. So, the whittled down lists of possibly only 12 Dems+12 Reps+12 Others now go back to the State Auditor.

In Step #4, The State Auditor is to draw random names from the pool submitted by the previous step, and they become the first 8 on the Citizens Redistricting Commission. There are to be 3 from the largest political party (Dems), 3 from the second largest political party (Reps), and 2 from all others. Again, the LOSER on this cozy little split is the Democrats who AGAIN forfeit their significant voter registration plurality to…guess who???  The REPUBLICANS.

Now to Step #5, and if you’ve zoned out by now, well, that IS the point. But, please stay for the finale. The 8 from step #4 review the names in the remaining pool from which they had been drawn, supposedly randomly, and now themselves APPOINT 6 more. These are to be evenly split: 2 Dems/2 Reps/2 Others. Each one of these must then be approved by 5 votes of the existing 8 commissioners with a required 2 each from each major party and 1 other. And there you have it, the FOURTEEN who have made it through this convoluted sieve and are now charged, on paper, with redrawing the district lines after each decade’s census. And again, the losing party is scheduled to be the Democratic Party that holds the greatest voter registration in the state.

By now you’re probably wondering IF those 14 will even have the expertise to know where to begin! But, not to worry. At the end of the text of this ballot measure, glossed over in the ballot summary, we find the fine print detailing all the undisclosed new expenditures of this ill-conceived boondoggle, and you’re welcome to read it yourself: http://www.sos.ca.gov/election…

“The commission shall hire commission staff, legal counsel and consultants as needed.” These employees shall be EXEMPT from civil service requirements, which means they will be POLITICAL appointees. Civil service would have meant appointment under a general system based on merit ascertained by competitive examination (CA Constitution Article VII:  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.con… And, listen to this, ONLY ONE of those hired as legal counsel needs to have “extensive experience and expertise in implementation and enforcement of the federal Voting Rights Act.”

There are NO LIMITS on number of staff, consultants, or legal counsel. There’s also no limit on the funding that the governor submits for this new bureaucracy created through Prop 11 OR for the “statewide outreach program” that is to be set up “to solicit broad public participation” —  public relations events.  Be assured, however, that there is planned fiscal oversight, from the GOVERNOR’S Department of Finance!!!

The greatest travesty is the gridlock built into the commission by a requirement of 9 votes to approve final maps. These votes must be evenly split between Democrats/Republicans/ and Others. Can anyone who has watched state government in recent years even imagine agreement? This is where the Republican-appointed State Supreme Court steps in to dictate the final maps.

If Proposition 11 passes, and it WILL if people do not read more than the title and blurb provided by the Secretary of State,  there will be a huge faucet of state funds funneled to private consultants and attorneys, overseen by political appointee staff and citizen commissioners paid $300+expenses per meeting, and Republicans will be in charge.

And this is being sold to voters as an improvement??? THIS is reform??? Certainly there will be the well-connected who will profit from this new bureaucracy, but it’s not going to be the average taxpayer who will again be stuck with the bill for this privatization of the redistricting process. And the Democrats, who have gained significantly in voter registration, again will be stymied by this seizure of power by the Republican elite.

We now move to the more interesting part — the financing of this interesting excursion into the redistricting wonderland. WHO would be funding this?

Turns out that anyone who wants to check into the FUNDERS of any of the propositions OR candidates can do so quite easily through our Secretary of State’s website. From the main page, click on “political reform” on the top bar, then find the link for http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/ part way down that page.

I’ve done this and you would not believe WHO is there!! How about New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg to the tune of $250,000! And there’s Boone Pickens, the Texas oil tycoon, for $100,000. And CEO’s and Chairs abound. I wonder if the shareholders of these companies know where the profits go. From Williams Sonoma –W. Howard Lester, $250,000; from Guess–Maurice Marciano $25,000; from Trust Company of the West–Robert Day $100,000; from Charles Schwab–$100,000; from the Gap–Donald Fisher $50,000; from PIMCO–William Powers $100,000; from Netflix founder Reed Hastings $147,307.01; from Rick Caruso, RE Development, $100,000; from the LA Chamber of Commerce, $32,500. Then there is the New Majority California PAC (more on this follows) with $175,000. Here’s where you check out the donor list:  http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/C…

And that’s just from under the first listed committee, California Voters First, #1299492, that is supporting the measure. They report $4,826,382.01 received for only the first 6 months of 2008. http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/C…

Additional donors, insurance companies, land developers, etc., are tucked away under what is called the New Majority California PAC (a major donor to Voters First) here:

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/C…

Homebuilder William Lyon kicked in $8,000; the Irvine Company $8000; Bank of America PAC $5600; Heritage Development $8000; Robert Follman of RA Industries $8000; Robert Grimm of Strategic Financial $8000; Stephen Fry of Fry Steel $8000;  Yokohl Ranch $8000; Horowitz Management $8000. (David Horowitz, that is, who is also within Voters First with an additional $5000); Marion Knott Montapert $8000 (another multiple donor with an additional $2000 disclosed within Voters First too); William E. Simon $8000; Syd Liebovitch of Rodeo Realty $5000.

But for those research wonks you really want to go for it, please check out the New Majority California PAC EXPENDITURES here: http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/C…

This is where you find the actual FUNDING of petition gathering by Kimball Petition Management for Voters First (indeed), the Republican Governors Association donations, the contributions to Gov Scharzenegger’s committees, various Republican county parties, mailers for Bernard Parks (candidate for LA County supervisor), and $10,000 for KARL ROVE!!!

For those of you who have gotten this far, I have a challenge. Within the California Voters First PAC, Governor Schwarzenegger’s Dream Team is listed multiple times for both in-kind and monetary contributions…$280,000 here, $300,000 there…get the idea? Try to figure the total in millions and call his office to ask what each of these contributions represented. I’m curious and have simply run out of time. I also suspect many who were behind Arnold’s failed Prop 77 in 2005 are behind this new incarnation.

What I am certain of is that this proposition #11 is as “fair and balanced” as Fox News. This is yet another one of these “by the rich and for the rich” propositions being marketed by the high priced Republican propagandists to harried voters. Democrats living in the Red Zones are particularly vulnerable, since they are hoping this will benefit them. It won’t. It also only applies to STATE districts, and NOT to Congressional districts.

Expect the Republicans will be continuously pounding the airwaves with their lies using credible-looking endorsements from credible sounding “good government” organizations and people.

Don’t fall for it. Vote NO on PROP 11 and keep the politicians directly accountable for these critical decisions. As bad as some of them have been in the past, this certainly is not a viable alternative. The Republicans are attempting to circumvent their continuous losses in registration over the last Bush years. Don’t let them do it. VOTE NO ON PROP 11 and pass this around.

© 2008, Linda Sutton

Truth Now Productions

###

I’m heading down to Orange County for Labor Day weekend, and once I arrive at the old homestead in Tustin one of the first things I might just do is turn on the tap and have a drink of water. Seems like a totally unremarkable thing to do, right? Not in OC. As Elizabeth Royte’s article in the NYT Magazine explains, OC has become a world leader in wastewater recycling – or as it’s called by its critics, “toilet to tap”:

I gazed balefully at my hotel toilet in Santa Ana, Calif., and contemplated an entirely new cycle. When you flush in Santa Ana, the waste makes its way to the sewage-treatment plant nearby in Fountain Valley, then sluices not to the ocean but to a plant that superfilters the liquid until it is cleaner than rainwater. The “new” water is then pumped 13 miles north and discharged into a small lake, where it percolates into the earth. Local utilities pump water from this aquifer and deliver it to the sinks and showers of 2.3 million customers. It is now drinking water. If you like the idea, you call it indirect potable reuse. If the idea revolts you, you call it toilet to tap.

The article is a fascinating tour of the Orange County water infrastructure, including the Santa Ana River, the Prado Dam wetlands, and the Fountain Valley treatment plant where all the “magic” happens. Many cities in the Orange County plain, including the city of Tustin’s water department, will draw upon the water produced by the treatment plant – which is first put into the ground to “recharge” the aquifer.

Royte makes several important points along the way. ALL water we use is recycled, and it’s often not through purely natural processes – the millions of residents along the Mississippi River, for example, drink water that’s been taken out of and then put back into the river (after treatment, of course). Moreover, the “natural” flows of water are not particularly clean, as anyone who has had the misfortune of going into the ocean near the mouth of the Santa Ana River in Huntington Beach knows (the water has a funk to it that almost always gives me a rash). The water produced at the Fountain Valley treatment plant may be among the cleanest in the world.

But the real importance of the wastewater treatment project in Orange County is what it suggests about how we in California manage our dwindling water resources. Global warming is already impacting our water supplies and a drier state may well be our future. That means we have to expand conservation and recycling programs, instead of building dams to catch rain that isn’t falling or building desal plants that are more costly than they’re worth.

Here in Monterey we’re facing a much more severe water crisis than OC, and wastewater recycling may well be part of our solution. Other parts of the state are going to have to consider this – especially if people don’t start getting serious about water conservation. If I had a dollar for every idiot hosing down his driveway in Orange County…

Recycling and conservation are the best, most cost-effective and sustainable solutions to our water crisis. For once Orange County seems to have done the right thing, and it will be interesting to see how this experiment works out.