Today’s San Francisco Chronicle has a front page story on potential offshore oil rigs along the California coast – including regions where no such drilling currently exists, such as the North Coast.

The federal government is taking steps that may open California’s fabled coast to oil drilling in as few as three years, an action that could place dozens of platforms off the Sonoma, Mendocino and Humboldt coasts, and raises the specter of spills, air pollution and increased ship traffic into San Francisco Bay.

Millions of acres of oil deposits, mapped in the 1980s when then-Interior Secretary James Watt and Energy Secretary Donald Hodel pushed for California exploration, lie a few miles from the forested North Coast and near the mouth of the Russian River, as well as off Malibu, Santa Monica and La Jolla in Southern California.

“These are the targets,” said Richard Charter, a lobbyist for the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund who worked for three decades to win congressional bans on offshore drilling. “You couldn’t design a better formula to create adverse impacts on California’s coastal-dependent economy.”

The targeted areas include the coastline off of Humboldt Bay, Mendocino County, northern Sonoma County, most of the unspoiled waters off of Santa Barbara County’s western shore, even Santa Monica and La Jolla. Exploration could be permitted as soon as 2010 and rigs could be in place by 2012.

All for what the article suggests would be merely 17 months’ worth of oil supplies.

Neither Obama nor his Interior Secretary nominee Ken Salazar have made firm commitments on offshore drilling. They seem open to the concept, but might look at limiting it to the Gulf of Mexico.

What’s needed is a firmer “no” from the new administration on offshore drilling here in California. The 1969 oil spill was devastating for Santa Barbara’s coast and economy and spills continue to this day. Spills wreck the environment and as a result cost local economies jobs and economic security. Drilling isn’t much of a solution for the country and it’s not going to help California’s worsening economy.

Unfortunately the Democratic surrender on drilling in September didn’t help matters. Congress needs to reverse that reckless and panicked decision – it would certainly help stiffen Obama’s and Salazar’s spines. It’s time for California and the US to abandon the failed models of the 20th century and protect our oceans and our jobs, instead of giving in to conservative manufactured outrage every time.

Paul Krugman has a good column today about how state balanced budget needs lead to perverse outcomes during an economic crisis that demands fiscal stimulus.

But even as Washington tries to rescue the economy, the nation will be reeling from the actions of 50 Herbert Hoovers – state governors who are slashing spending in a time of recession, often at the expense both of their most vulnerable constituents and of the nation’s economic future.

These state-level cutbacks range from small acts of cruelty to giant acts of panic – from cuts in South Carolina’s juvenile justice program, which will force young offenders out of group homes and into prison, to the decision by a committee that manages California state spending to halt all construction outlays for six months.

As Krugman notes, it’s crazy to cut public spending at the same time that private spending is drying up.  It’s a recipe for a Hoover-esque depression with no investment or economic activity, and no way to increase consumer spending or create jobs.

Krugman acknowledges that balanced-budget rules are only a part of this problem in the states.

The answer, of course, is that state and local government revenues are plunging along with the economy – and unlike the federal government, lower-level governments can’t borrow their way through the crisis. Partly that’s because these governments, unlike the feds, are subject to balanced-budget rules. But even if they weren’t, running temporary deficits would be difficult. Investors, driven by fear, are refusing to buy anything except federal debt, and those states that can borrow at all are being forced to pay punitive interest rates.

Are governors responsible for their own predicament? To some extent. Arnold Schwarzenegger, in particular, deserves some jeers. He became governor in the first place because voters were outraged over his predecessor’s budget problems, but he did nothing to secure the state’s fiscal future – and he now faces a projected budget deficit bigger than the one that did in Gray Davis.

That’s absolutely true.  And the suffocating 2/3 requirement is most of the problem here.  But once we get out of this crisis, hopefully with some assistance from the federal government for Medicaid and public works, we need to think a little more creatively about how to reduce the risk of a state’s fiscal trap on the greater economy.  One idea is allowing state governments the ability to deficit spend, perhaps through the creation of some federal Stimulus fund that states facing certain deficits can tap.  This is the framework behind the National Infrastructure Bank proposed by Sens. Dodd and Hagel last year, but I would broaden it out.  There’s also the option of federal guarantees for state bond markets to increase investor confidence, or allowing states in a fiscal emergency to borrow at lower federal rates in the short term.  These are steps similar to those being used to bail out banks, with the Fed intervening in the commercial paper market, and they should be tools for the states as well.

With structures like this in place, just maybe we can phase out the balanced budget amendments that force these bad choices on the states.  Ultimately, California can’t ask for help until they help themselves.  The bond market will simply not improve until investors are assured that the state can manage its own affairs.  But after the failed Schwarzenegger Administration, the next governor should think seriously about giving the state flexibility in an economic downturn, rather than going along with the necessary steps to making things measurably worse.

It is never too early to look ahead to the next election, and I am doing that with my handy dandy registration tables for the State Senate and State Assembly districts with term-limited and possibly vulnerable incumbents (in italics). Without further Apu, here are the numbers, complete with links to the complete updated list of registration numbers in each district.

Cross-posted at Swing State Project, Democracy for California, and my blog.

And I might as well use this diary to promote my new 2010 California Race Tracker website. Anyone is free to join in and contribute information that will be useful for us going into the 2010 elections.

Edit by Brian: Check the flip for some great info.

SENATE

8 incumbents are term-limited in 2010, 4 Republicans and 4 Democrats. I am also watching Lou Correa in the 34th district due to his razor-thin win in 2006 after recounts. The 12th district has the best chance of flipping to us, though if we work very hard in the 4th, like Charlie Brown in CA-04, we may have a chance here too.

Republicans (4)

Democrats (5)

ASSEMBLY

17 Assemblymembers are term-limited in 2010, 6 Republicans and 11 Democrats. I am also including the 6 new freshmen (2 GOP, 4 DEM) that were elected by close margins, and 6 reelected Assemblymembers (all GOP) that won by close margins (though Nestande in the 64th was unopposed, the GOP registration advantage is small).

Republicans (14)

Democrats (15)

Since it’s never too early to prepare for the next election, we should get started on targeting vulnerable districts right away. The 26th and 30th were close heartbreakers for us, but hopefully with more support from the CDP and national Dems, we can take them back.

The 37th was another close race, but fortunately Audra Strickland is term-limited out, so we have a better chance at a pickup here, and can strengthen our presence in this part of the state and hopefully take down Audra’s husband Tony in 2012. (I know the districts will have new configurations in 2012, and I intend to map out redistricting possibilities for the next decade later.) The 36th is edging closer and closer to a Dem edge in registration and with enough support we can pick this one up. The 38th is also ripe for the picking.

Other areas ripe for the picking include AD-33 on the Central Coast, and in the Inland Empire/Riverside County districts 63-65. My normally Republican-leaning hometown of Rancho Cucamonga is in the 63rd Assembly District and voted for Obama this year, so we have a real chance of making big gains in this part of the Southland. I can’t wait for 2010!