Well, today Jerry Brown gives his first (well, of this term) State of the State speech.  He gave a preview of what was on his mind last week:

“The budget is a key point, but we have to have some optimism, too, about how great everything is and how rich California is and how we’re going to create all these jobs and have enough water and fix our schools,” he said. “There’s a lot of issues, whether it’s reform of schools, whether its water, whether it’s energy, whether it’s crime. Those are things I’m really interested in; but at the same time, if we don’t get this budget fixed, California will flounder, and it will really be a real impediment to doing all the other good things the state should be engaged in.” (SF Chronicle)

Brown has a history of short speeches, so it would be surprising if he actually got to many issues beyond the budget.  (You can check a history of the previous speeches at the Chronicle)  Given that he likes to write his own speeches, and indicated that he would do so on this one, can this speech really afford to be anything other than a cheerleader for his budget?

The speech will air live on CalChannel at 5 pm.

This weekend, Rancho Mirage will play host to what's often called the “Billionaire's Caucus,” a regular top secret meeting hosted by the Koch Brothers, at which the wealthiest of the wealthy — together with right wing media personalities, lawmakers, and even judges — gather to plot their national political agenda. The meeting has taken on even greater importance in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2009 Citizens United decision, which effectively opened the door to unlimited corporate influence on U.S. elections.

Rep. Darrell E. Issa (CA-49) – $12,500

Rep. John L. Mica (FL-07) – $7,500

Rep. Patrick T. McHenry* (NC-10) – $2,500

Rep. Jason Chaffetz* (UT-03) – $2,500

Rep. Connie Mack (FL-14) – $15,000

Rep. Tim Walberg (MI-7) – $20,000

Rep. James Lankford* (OK-5) – $10,000

Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (NY-25) – $250

Rep. Pat Meehan (PA-7) – $7,500

Rep. Trey Gowdy* (SC-4) – $7,500

Rep. Frank Guinta (NH-1) – $5,000

Rep. Dennis Ross* (FL-12) – $10,000

Rep. Mike Kelly (PA-3) – $2,500

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.

With his State of the Union address, President Obama delivered an important message that Congress and the American people need to hear: our nation’s leaders must pass legislation that creates American jobs now.

America, our shining city on a hill, has been blessed with great fortune in our proud past, but as the President noted, every generation faces new challenges and new opportunities. We must be bold and forward looking, never forgetting that America’s prosperity has always relied on hard work, solid education, and well-maintained infrastructure. We’re a nation that has always thrived when we’ve built things – the light bulb, the automobile, the Internet, and the GPS. We need to build things again. We need to Make It In America

During the Great Recession, America stared into the abyss, but with the leadership of President Obama and Democrats in Congress, we steered our economy toward a better path. We invested in infrastructure, education, manufacturing, and smart tax incentives, putting millions of Americans to work. With the Recovery Act and other pro-growth, pro-jobs laws, we did a lot, but we need to do more. President Obama is right to call on this Congress to pass legislation that creates jobs now.

America – the idea and the nation – is at a crossroads. For decades we have stood by watching our manufacturing sector atrophy. We’ve seen hardworking breadwinners thrown to the curb, because big corporations can make more profits offshoring jobs to countries with atrocious labor and environmental standards. We’ve seen middle class families kicked out of their homes, because wages have not kept up with costs. We’ve seen too many great people on the sidelines of our economy, their talents wasted and dream deferred, because there simply are not enough jobs. We must do better. We must Make It In America again or else we’re not going to make it in America.

An American child born today will grow up in a world where her nation’s long held claim to economic supremacy will be challenged by peers in China, India, and elsewhere. She will live in a world where computer literacy and access to high speed Internet largely predict achievement. She will live in a world of infinite potential for people and nations committed to a better future. She will live in a world where mass transit and clean energy are everyday necessities of life, creating good jobs for someone somewhere. Let’s make sure we Make It In America and create American jobs now, so that she will live in a world where America is still the leader of the free world.

American manufacturing, which produced the largest middle class in history, is crucial to building sustained prosperity for the years to come. Across this country, we see evidence of a new fledgling Clean Energy Industrial Revolution. Detroit is producing hybrid cars, Pittsburgh is constructing robotic instruments, Schenectady, New York is developing advanced batteries, and Livermore, California is building solar panels. Across this country, clean energy is creating jobs.

In his State of the Union address, the President called for one million electric cars and a stronger clean energy standard. By setting this goal, the President was challenging Americans to dream big.

The President is right. This is our Sputnik moment. Imagine if we had responded to the challenge of Sputnik by soaring to the moon in a space shuttle that was Made in the Soviet Union. We could have gone that route – admitted failure and surrendered our economic and security assets to another country. Instead, we focused on inventing and constructing crucial technology, which sparked a wave of new businesses and jobs. Similarly, to address our twin 21st century challenges of energy security and advanced infrastructure, we cannot depend on the kindness of other countries. To enhance our geopolitical security and to create the jobs of the future, we have to strengthen these key manufacturing sectors.

As we see when basic scientific research spurs the flourishing of new industries and generates millions of new jobs, public policy has a valuable role to play in setting the stage for a return of America’s manufacturing prowess. A good first step would be to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent on American-made transportation and renewable energy projects. I am introducing legislation to this effect. Strengthening domestic content requirements for high-speed rail, solar panels, biofuels, and other growth industries will create jobs, right here in America, right now. It just makes sense.

America has energetic entrepreneurs, a skilled workforce, and visionary inventors. Let’s give them the opportunity to do what they do best- to work. The building blocks of a prosperous future are available today. Let’s start building.

Congressman John Garamendi (D-Walnut Creek, CA) represents California’s 10th Congressional District, which includes parts of Contra Costa, Solano, Alameda, and Sacramento counties. As California’s Lieutenant Governor from 2006-2009, he chaired the California Commission for Economic Development.

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.