Two nominations here.  By the way, since it recently came up in comments, the reason we here at Calitics call the California Republican Party the “Yacht Party” can be best explained here and here.

Nominee #1: Sen. Roy Ashburn of Bakersfield, who introduced a bill that would eliminate IOUs for tax refunds.

State Sen. Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield, has introduced legislation requiring California’s controller to issue state income tax refunds in cash.

Controller John Chiang has announced his office will have to delay refunds for 30 days starting Feb. 1 because of the state’s cash-flow problems. He has threatened he may have to issue refunds in the form of IOUs if a budget addressing the $41 billion shortfall the state’s projected to have by mid-2010 isn’t passed.

Chiang has said refunds will resume when he’s sure there’s enough state cash on hand.

Ashburn has said tax refund money belongs to the taxpayers, not the government, and taxpayers should get it back in the form it was paid – “cold, hard cash.” California’s constantly taking in cash, he’s said.

Hey Roy, I know a bill you could pass that would get cold hard cash back in the hands of your constituents.  It’s called the budget, and without it California is out of money, and fiduciary responsibilities (sorry for the $1 word) stipulate that other priorities must be paid first.  It’s called “how government works,” and though you’re a State Senator I’m not surprised at your ignorance.

Nominee #2: Faux-moderate Abel Maldonado, angry about the Controller’s office “requesting new furniture” even though the current Controller, uh, didn’t do that.

“I don’t like the fact that hard working people in my district are getting IOUs and he’s buying millions of dollars worth of furniture,” Maldonado said in an interview. (For the record, taxpayers due refunds from the state and others missing payments aren’t getting IOUs just yet. They’re simply not receiving anything at all.) […]

Chiang’s office struck back, calling Maldonado’s accusation “pathetic.”

“Had he done any homework, the senator should have realized that the expansion project, including furniture,…began before Controller Chiang took office,” his office said.

Further, Chiang’s office argued, the controller “demanded that staff cut down the costs, and by changing financing, materials, design, and construction, reduced the overall expense of the project by more than 50 percent” – a $4 million savings.

Next for Maldonado, he’ll lambaste Arnold Schwarzenegger for Prop. 187.  Wanker.

As a response to post Prop 8 comments from local LDS Church leaders and a supportive poll of Utah voters on an openness to equal rights for the LGBT community, several Utah legislators — working with Equality Utah — put together the Common Ground Initiative, in an attempt to create a dialog, and encourage Mormon leaders (who have undoubtedly large influence over legislative policy in the state) to make good on their statements.

In response, The Sutherland Institute, Utah’s leading (only) think tank and Heritage Foundation offspring — infamous here for holding an “Earth Day” event hosted by Roy Innis and other energy industry hacks — has pieced together their own campaign to counter the adult discussions with petty divisiveness titled Sacred Ground. (pdf)  They’ve scheduled several “State of the Union – Stand Up for Marriage” events here locally (targeting bloggers, legislators, and local media) hosted by Utah’s worst Wing-nut (and believe me that’s saying a lot) LaVar Christensen (Direct Quote: “Tolerance is the religion of people who no longer believe in anything.”) , and completing the campaign with a published book and YouTube campaign.

What is notable about this vindictive effort to oppose a rational dialog between Utah legislators and religious leaders before it even begins is not the content, or the fact that Sutherland is aggressively campaigning against equality. Their fear of change is to be expected.  What stands out is the creativity and thoroughness of their campaign, which involves complete media outreach — which I’ve been subjected to almost daily as a local radio host and blogger — and a full (and also first time, for the state) embrace of “new media.”  Their efforts to target bloggers glares especially, as it surpasses the outreach seen so far from either the minority Democratic Party, or the near super-majority state Republican Party.

Sutherland’s campaign not only poses a threat to any meaningful discussion and inclusive legislation here in Utah, but it also stands to circumvent the (admittedly tepid) efforts of the Utah Democratic Party and other activist groups to build online outreach and a coalition behind the “Common Ground” Senators and other progressive policies.

In essence, despite recent polling that shows Utahn’s are open to equality based legislation, Sutherland stands a real chance of winning this one within the state simply by getting their irresponsible message out further and faster.

Watch Sutherland’s “Sacred Ground” video here

UPDATE: We’ll host an on air discussion today with Michael Mueller of Utahns for Marriage Equality. Live stream/chat begins at 4pm (MST).  Click to join in. Podcast will also be available after the show.

The California Labor Fed is about to release a new mail campaign against Yacht Party legislators who are voting to slash workers’ rights and holding up a budget over unrelated labor issues. You can click the “Full Screen” button to get a better view.

Every two years we see this sort of mail. The trouble is that when people get this stuff, they are concurrently bombarded with a thousand other mail pieces.  It is good to see the Labor Fed get out in front of this.  They’ll be sending these to Republican districts across the state. I’ll plug more information in here when I can confirm. I imagine they’ll be looking at the swing districts, so maybe Berryhill’s AD-25, and Audra Strickland’s AD-37.

While I like the effort, I think this piece could be a bit stronger against Gilmore.  It seems that they bury the lead a little bit by only mentioning the fact that Californians are about to get IOUs because Gilmore and cohorts are holding up the budget. Holding up the budget is a massive burden to lower income Californians who can’t wait for their refunds while Republicans dither away.

I’ll update this upon further information, but it’s always a good thing to see progressives attacking the GOP obstructionists early and often.

UPDATE: I’ve just been told that the plan is to do more than just mail, but a full-court press in several districts. If done properly, this could potentially help provide groundwork to actually nab 2/3 in 2010, along with a Democratic governor.

(Cross-posted from www.OCProgressive.com)

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard a local Republican repeat their favorite talking point.

“We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem”.

So quickly, without looking below the fold, what’s your best guess on the average annual growth in California state spending, from 1997-98 to 2007-2008, first as a raw number, then adjusted for inflation and population growth?

From the Legislative Analyst’s Office

Total state spending over the decade 1998-99 through 2008-09 … Total spending grows over this period from $72.6 billion to $128.8 billion-an average annual growth rate of roughly 6 percent…

   * After adjusting for inflation, real spending has grown by roughly 18 percent over the entire period, or an annual average growth rate of roughly 1.7 percent.

   * Real per-capita spending-which adjusts for both inflation and population growth-would increase by about 2.2 percent over the period, for an average annual rate of 0.2 percent.

And if you’ve followed the news about the way that the consumer price index has been understated by federal agencies, it could easily be argued that there has been no real growth in state spending during the last decade.

Everything that is corrosive and broken about California politics can be seen in this incredible article by Kevin Yamamura.  In it, he explains that negotiations on the budget are being held by the Assembly and Senate leadership in secret, so as not to upset the critical balance needed to pass it.

Five Californians are trying to solve the state’s budget crisis, in part by keeping the other 38 million residents in the dark.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the four legislative leaders have continued their negotiations behind closed doors for weeks, bypassing open legislative committees and offering the outside world few details as a precondition of their talks.

See, what happens is that the population of 38 million elects 120 representatives to go to Sacramento, and they vest all their power in the hands of four leaders, and they go off to run the state by themselves.  It’s such a brilliant program, not subject to personal ambitions or petty jealousies. Not at all.

Among the people the Big Five are hiding from are their own fellow legislators, and lobbyists:

They fear special interests will mobilize on every proposal they hear about, ramp up pressure on lawmakers and prevent any possibility of reaching a deal that could secure enough votes.

“Whether it’s education or labor or any of the other groups, when we get wind of something that has significant jeopardy for us, we fight against it,” said Kevin Gordon, a lobbyist for hundreds of California school districts. “It’s a (lobbying) system set up to defeat the latest idea that’s been hatched, which makes it that much harder to get a solution.”

When they do reach a deal, legislative leaders intend to hide it as long as they can until a floor vote, for fear that lobbyists may undermine the agreement by persuading key legislators to vote against it.

Wow, there’s an honest lobbyist.

So let’s get this straight: budget negotiations are happening in secret, because if they were even remotely public, special interests would scuttle the deal.  And when an agreement is reached, they’re going to SNEAK IT ONTO THE FLOOR so no wayward lawmaker gets in his silly little head that he wants to read it.

The increased secrecy behind this year’s “Big Five” leadership negotiations has made interest groups nervous and has alarmed open-government proponents.

“The thought that to be able to solve this you have to ram it down members’ throats just to lock something up before a constituency finds it outrageous is evidence of how bad the process has gotten,” said Terry Francke of Californians Aware, an open-government advocacy group.

Yep.  Keep in mind that there has not been one Budget Committee hearing this year.  When a deal is reached, that committee will probably meet in the middle of the night and rubber-stamp the deal, moving to the floor as fast as possible to outflank the special interests who clearly run the state.

The Big Five process is absurd.  There are ways to decrease the influence of special interests, the biggest being full public financing of all elections.  The best practice is NOT to hide from them so that the legislative process is like a team of burglars trying to rob a jewelry store without being detected.  And the less people involved in any negotiation, the more possibility for eventual corruption through backroom dealing.

The entire brief for a Constitutional convention can now be “Read A-1 of the Sac Bee on February 4, 2009.”

As local governments make the obvious moves to try and force resolution to the budget crisis, Republicans continue to hold the state’s economy and its future hostage to their insane right-wing demands. And unless Democrats refuse to give in, we will see the worst possible outcome – a permanent destruction of government services.

The Republican plan appears to be one of permanently locking into place the cuts that will be made during this budget deal. Some Californians believe cuts are necessary right now given the economic crisis – they’re wrong and misguided, but they see the cuts as a temporary measure of necessity, and many believe they can be restored once the economy recovers.

That’s not the Republican plan. There are persistent reports that a “hard spending cap” is going to be placed on the ballot as part of the deal – and a recent PPIC poll showed 70% of Californians would support a cap – never mind the fact that we’ve had one for 30 years.

As the California Budget Project clearly explains, a hard spending cap is a death sentence for government services. If we had a cap in place starting in 1995, as the chart below shows, this year we would have…you guessed it, $40 billion in cuts to make–>

Even worse, a spending cap prevents new spending efforts even if voters want to do so. Presumably a hard cap would stop high speed rail in its tracks, for example. Kiss goodbye any effort to address climate change, the drought, or the economic crisis. And when the economy recovers, California can never restore what was cut now. Schools will die once they are hit with the double whammy of massive funding cuts and NCLB rules.

And that’s not all. We’re also told that the budget deal may include new tax cuts – permanent tax cuts at that, including for corporations. Whereas the federal government can simply go deeper into deficit to pay for a tax cut stimulus, bad policy though it may be, California cannot. The CBP showed the impact of similar tax cuts that were included in the 2008 deal – which will soon cost over $1 billion per year (<–)

Democrats need to understand – a bad deal is worse than no deal. A hard spending cap and tax cuts mean that the pain that would be induced by the current budget solution would last far into the future. It is a recipe for permanent disaster. It’s time for Democrats to show that they have given all they can give, and that if Republicans want to destroy public services, it will not be done with Democratic votes.

The situation is getting desperate for counties across the state.  Yesterday, the Riverside Board of Supes voted to sue the state for the millions of dollars that are being withheld due to the, well, fact that they don’t exist. And, this being Riverside County, if they can’t get the money, they’ll also just drop the services.

Riverside County supervisors voted Tuesday to sue the state to compel it to pay billions of dollars in funding for county-run social services, payments the state began delaying this week to conserve cash.

Supervisors also voted to take legal action to relieve the county of the responsibility to provide those state-mandated services, such as welfare, assistance for disabled people and mental health services, if the state does not fund them.

“The action was taken despite grave concerns about the effect on the programs that serve the county’s most needy and vulnerable residents,” county counsel Pamela Walls said at Tuesday’s supervisors’ meeting in Riverside. “However, the county cannot bear the overwhelming costs of taking on responsibility for programs that the state is obligated to fund.” Riverside P-E 2/4/09

Of course, this is the expected outcome of denying the flow of money. Counties simply don’t have the money to continue to pay for the programs the state mandates.  While counties like San Francisco have a reasonable shot at raising taxes on a special election, it’s just not all that practical in Riverside.  Even if the Riverside Supes put some sort of revenue measure on the ballot, getting 2/3 to support it seems unlikely.

Welcome to your new state, it’s in freefall, and the safety net is gone.

UPDATE by Dave:  It gets worse.  The Board of Supervisors in Los Angeles County, which houses over 1/4 of the state’s residents and collects substantial tax revenue, is threatening to withhold it to pay for health care and social services.  This is the opposite of Riverside County’s gambit – instead of suing the state for money, they’re just threatening to keep it for themselves.  This is in reaction to the state delaying health and human services payments to the counties.  The treasuries of counties and local governments are routinely illegally raided every year as part of budget deals, but this is the first time I’ve seen the reverse.

“We’re declaring our own Boston Tea Party,” Supervisor Gloria Molina said during Tuesday’s board meeting, adding that refusing to turn over the money to state lawmakers “will make their pain more acute.”

But it may not be legal, or, for that matter, practical.

“It’s a delicious idea,” said Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky. “It may be deliciously illegal, but I think the state’s action may also be illegal.”

Two wrongs making a right – welcome to California 2009.

While we push for this program or that program to be kept out or left in the final budget, the investor class has rendered their verdict on California, and you can hardly blame them.

The downgrade of $46 billion of California’s general obligation bonds by Standard and Poor’s on Tuesday sets the stage for similar actions by Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings as the state’s budget crisis persists, analysts said on Tuesday.

“It’s a red flag,” said Christopher Thornberg, an economist with Beacon Economics in Los Angeles. “What they’re responding to is the fact that the state is running out of cash.”

S&P cited the state’s weakening finances and slow talks between Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers over closing a budget gap topping $40 billion through this fiscal year and the fiscal year beginning in July.

The agency cut its rating late on Monday on California’s GO debt, which is backed by the state’s general fund, to “A” with a stable outlook from “A+.”

The final straw was California’s cash shortage. “It just to us indicated another level of distress in the overall situation,” said S&P director Gabriel Petek.

What this means is that the value of outstanding bonds will be lowered, and more importantly, it will become incredibly steep for the state to borrow money.  If you weren’t aware, that’s how we finance the state.  It will not be possible to do so at usurious rates, which we brought completely upon ourselves, and so there is now no reasonable way out of the death spiral.  No matter what the budget solution.

Congratulations, Yacht Party.  You sunk California.  Have fun living in it.