From today’s Beyond Chron.

As in a variety of politically contentious arenas, approaches to water supply range from progressive to conservative. The former side demands water conservation and free-flowing rivers, while the latter wants more dams and limitless development. Odd, then, that one of the most liberal areas of California would find itself teetering on the edge of the far right of this spectrum. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) wants an expensive, destructive dam expansion in the Sierra Nevada foothills to address a currently non-existent lack of water. Their reason? So the region can keep building up its unaffordable bedroom communities, and new residents can keep wasting cheap water like they lived in Seattle during a monsoon.

The Proposal

Next month, EBMUD will hold hearings on a proposal to drop a new 400 foot dam onto the Mokelumne River, about 30 miles northeast of Stockton. The dam would replace the current 345-foot Pardee Dam, resulting in an increase of enough storage capacity to serve a city roughly the size of Portland.

Some impacts would come quickly. Millions of gallons that currently find their way into the delta would be redirected, hastening the area’s ecological collapse. Miles of river recently declared eligible for Wild and Scenic status by the federal government would be drowned, ending the steady stream of recreationalists that regularly kayak down the river. And the Middle Bar Bridge, built near the turn of the century and recently restored to the tune of more than $650,000, would be cut down and removed.

But dam construction would also have consequences that would take a while to bubble to the surface. A cash-strapped state would be constructing an extremely expensive project while cutting essential services to a broad spectrum of people. The river’s tourism industry, as well as the state’s salmon fishing industry, would take a severe hit during brutal economic times. And a place close to the hearts of thousands of Northern California residents would be eliminated.

Considering all the havok replacement of the Pardee Dam would wreak, you’d think EBMUD would have an air-tight, life-or-death argument for proposing such a project. But in California, water and logic rarely go hand in hand.

The ‘Need’

One reason a utility district like EBMUD would seek out more water would be spiking demand, an upward trend so steep that no amount of conservation could ever hope to catch it. Yet oddly enough, water use in the District declined from 1970 to 2005, from 220 million gallons a day to 205. Scratch that idea.

Another would be that no new sources of water remain available, striking fear in the heart of the District that dependence on only one source of water (EBMUD gets 90 percent of its water from the Mokelumne) could lead to disaster. Yet with the $500 million Freeport Water Project recently completed, the District now gets up to 100 million gallons a day from the Sacramento River during dry years, representing a major new source should anything happen to their current system. Scratch that idea too.

The only remaining reasonable reason would be fear of a drought, a desperate attempt to ensure that whatever ills wrought by climate change and strange weather patterns would not catastrophically affect the District’s water supply. Yet here may lie the most confusing aspect of the proposed project – making the dam bigger doesn’t guarantee more supply during an extended drought. During many years, the Mokelumne is unable to utilize the capacity of even the existing Pardee Dam. This means that when a drought starts, the chances that the expanded reservoir will be full are slim at best. Such a scenario would leave the extra water supposedly provided by the new dam lost to the dust.

Given no reasonable reasons for the new dam, it’s best to look elsewhere.

The Real Reasons

EBMUD itself outlined a slew of alternatives to the new dam in their Water Supply Management Program, alternatives which could ensure a reliable and safe water supply for the region for many years to come. Water recycling, expanded conservation strategies, and pricing systems to reduce demand all represent avenues towards the goal of a stable East Bay.

The problem with many of these options involves the sacrifice they require from water users. Past attempts to charge heavy water users their fair share – or at least enough so they start reducing the amount they use – sparked claims from EBMUD that residents and businesses would revolt, either packing up and leaving or refusing to pay for their water.

This tactic will strike many as eerily familar, as it mirrors an argument often used by conservatives to battle proposed tax increases that primarily affect the wealthy. A rate increase on big water users in the East Bay would be just that. Such an increase could achieve its goals without increasing rates in low-income communites like Richmond at all, as these areas use the least amount of water in the region. The increases would, however, disproportionately impact single family ranchettes on the eastern edge of the region. Apparently, the District knows which side their bread is buttered on.

Rate increases and other conservation strategies could also be drastically curtailed if the District didn’t believe the area would see extensive growth. Yet in its Water Supply Management Program, the District estimated a growth rate of more than double the current rate for the region. The estimate is too inflated to be merely an attempt at conservative estimates – instead, the District remains intent on ensuring it won’t stand in the way of progress.

If past events are any indicator, that ‘progress’ will involve more water-sucking single-family homes on the outskirts of the District.

The Future of Water in California

The idea that California can continue to allow relentless growth by trying to squeeze out more water from already over-appropriated rivers represents a step back in thinking of several decades. EBMUD and communities throughout the state must start thinking more creatively and rationally about how to ensure a sustainable future.

Ending growth entirely isn’t necessary. High-denisty housing, built in areas already served by infrastructure and with the latest water conservation technology, would increase water demand by a fraction of that of new suburban development.

But hard decisions must be made. Residents of the East Bay and elsewhere can’t keep expecting to use water like our supply will never end. It’s the duty of our elected boards and public agencies to put in place strategies now that ensure our survival through whatever tempests may come our way. Friends of the River and a variety of other environmental organizations are organizing efforts to stop the expansion of Pardee Dam. But in a world where decision-makers take full responsibility for their actions, EBMUD would have never had the audacity to propose it in the first place.

(I love ground reports. – promoted by David Dayen)

From today's Beyond Chron.    

Last Saturday, I headed up to the Roseville/Rocklin area – Sacramento suburbs off Highway 80 on the way up to Tahoe – to volunteer for Charlie Brown’s campaign for U.S. Congress. I arrived on the heels of some fantastic news for the campaign, a poll commissioned by Daily Kos revealing a five point lead for Brown. It’s hard to understate the significance of this considering the extremely conservative nature of CA-04 (take, for example, 2004, when Bush buried Kerry by 24 points here). After a day of canvassing in the district and speaking with the people that live there, the reasons for Brown’s success so far make a lot of sense to me. The place seems full of disaffected Republicans and Independents open to Brown’s positions and not wild about his challenger, Tom McClintock. While the day wasn’t all wine and roses, I’m convinced that CA-04 represents an enormous chance for Democrats to pick up a seat in Congress, and that activists should continue to focus on this race to ensure Brown makes his way to victory.

 My first pleasant surprise of the day came upon arriving in Brown’s Roseville headquarters, where a professional, competent staff greeted me and quickly gave a rundown of the day’s events. Folks could stuff envelopes, write postcards to potential voters, work the phones, build lawn signs, or hit the pavement and knock on doors. I chose knocking on doors, and when I left at 10 o’clock, the place already seemed a hive of activity. When I returned for a break at midday, the place was even more packed, with about 35 people all hard at work on a variety of tasks.

The second surprise came when I met seven people that came up to Roseville from the Bay Area early that morning to volunteer for Brown. Members of the nascent organization Take Back Red California, these folks travel all over the state to help out with close elections, including recent trips to CA-03 to help out Bill Durston and State Assembly District 10 for Alyson Huber. The commitment and good spirits of these folks boosted my usually low faith  

in the Bay Area’s involvement in statewide issues.

Of course, all good things must come to an end, and when I looked down at the sheets of voters I’d be speaking with that day, I realized more than three-fourths of the doors I’d be knocking on would be the homes of registered Republicans. For someone used to campaigning in San Francisco and Seattle, it came as a bit of a shock, but by the time I finished, I was glad I’d gotten the houses I did.

The major lessons I learned:

Democrats are in the Bag…Mostly

Most of the Democrats I spoke with immediately said they already planned on voting for Brown, and several said they would volunteer or donate to the campaign. However, I did speak with a couple folks who remained skeptical about Brown, citing his status as a former Republican, his avowed belief in fiscal conservatism, and his support for the right to bear arms. While they weren’t necessarily considering voting for anyone else, they wanted to make sure if we sent Brown to Washington, he wouldn’t jump ship and become another centrist Democrat indistinguishable from his Republican colleagues.

A few points seemed to hit home with these folks – Brown is pro-choice, a strong believer expanding health care to more Americans, and has made alternative energy a central focus of his campaign. An even stronger point seemed to be pointing out the evils of McClintock. Despite his run for Governor a few years back, people seemed relatively unfamiliar with just how far to the right McClintock sits. A quick rundown of his positions on climate change (a myth, he says), Social Security (it’s ‘morally bankrupt,’ he says) and the minimum wage (he calls it a ‘destructive government policy’) seemed to hit home.  

I can’t see Democrats in the district voting Republican, and I certainly can’t seem them not voting with the presidency at stake. But I can see some folks leaving the U.S Congress portion of their ballot left blank if they don’t learn a bit more about their candidate.  Brown’s campaign shouldn’t take his base for granted, and ensure Democrats know what he stands for, and what’s at stake in their district.  



Many Republicans Want to Talk



The biggest shock of the day came during my conversations with registered Republicans. For the most part, they seemed happy to talk about the race with me, and wanted to learn more about Brown. The talking points the campaign provided me helped a lot – the first few statements provided an immediate foot in the door, emphasizing Brown’s 26 years in the military, his status as a former Republican, and his belief in balancing the country’s budget.

From there, things got interesting. I talked to several people who voted for Doug Ose, a more moderate Republican in the primary, and felt McClintock didn’t represent their values. Like many Republicans, they seemed fed up with the Iraq war, with our dependence on foreign oil, and with valuing corporate America over the average citizen. McClintock seemed like more of the same to them, and Brown’s support of tax cuts to the middle class and providing health care coverage for more citizens resonated with them.

The message of McClintock as a carpetbagger, slammed home by Ose during the primary and picked up by Brown, also resonated with a lot of the folks. When they learned McClintock is not from the area, nor has any real connection to it, and simply seems to be looking for a way to continue his political career after being termed out of his Southern California State Senate seat, they listened. And they listened even closer when they learned that Brown has lived in Roseville for 16 years. There seems to be a strong regional identity in the area, and Brown’s campaign should continue to take advantage of the fact that people don’t like the idea of an outsider representing their homes.

Brown’s strong record as a military veteran also hit home. One woman I talked with spent much of her time taking care of her disabled brother, a veteran wounded during a tour of duty. While she usually voted Republican, she seemed impressed with Brown’s military experience. Even more so, she seemed livid when she learned of McClintock’s record in the State Senate, which includes several vote against benefits for veterans and their families.

Despite hearing from many Republicans who said they’d support Brown, or at least would remain undecided, a variety listened to me but maintained their support for McClintock. Most of these folks seemed one-issue voters – that issue being fiscal conservatism. They maintained that Democrats always run up massive deficits, and that they can count on McClintock to not do the same. Pointing out the record-setting deficit the Bush administration ran up over the past eight years didn’t seem to resonate. If they can, it seems Brown’s campaign could gain some traction by working more to tie McClintock to Bush and his failed economic policies.



True Believers are True Believers



As much good will as I found in the suburban cul-de-sacs and parkways of Roseville and Rocklin, I also found a chunk of strong McClintock supporters, maybe 10 percent of the people I talked to. These folks had no desire to speak about issues or the campaign, and I heard several variations of “I’m for McClintock and I don’t want to talk about it (cue slamming door sound)”. While this is to be expected, Brown’s campaign should do it’s best to identify strong McClintock supporters and not waste time trying to win them over.

Moving Forward

To win, Brown’s campaign must continue to get its message out to voters. Face-to-face interaction seemed to be an excellent way of doing this, as it quickly broke down the instant barriers Republican partisans put up against Democrats. So far, the campaign seems to be doing an incredible job, with a cadre of volunteers and staff that, at least from what I’ve seen, are energetic, competent and committed.

These folks, and the people in their district, represent one of the best opportunities Democrats have to turn a former Republican stronghold into a place that will help add to a blue majority in Congress. They deserve the support of progressives everywhere, and while it’ll take a lot more work between now and Election Day, I think a victory party in CA-04 come Election Day is within our sites.  

The Public Policy Institute will release polling data today revealing 49 percent of Californians would support a repeal of the 2/3 budget rule. While the question seems a little weighted (it appears they asked voters if it should be reduced from 2/3 to 55 percent, rather than just 50; it also looks like they just asked about the 2/3 rule regarding a yes or no on the budget, not on taxation), this is outstanding news.

It’s striking that so many voters already have an opinion on this issue. The same polling data shows 29 percent of Californians still have no idea how they’ll come down on Prop. 11, the redistricting proposal. Folks are angry out there, tired of seeing services shut down every time its budget season, of obstructionist Republicans using the process as a political tool, and of real people being hurt in the process.

If polling already shows 49 percent in favor of a 2/3 repeal, the rumblings from Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg about placing 2/3 rule reform on the upcoming special election ballot may turn into reality. It should. This is an historic and vital reform that’s necessary for a functioning state government, and there’s no better time than now to take it on.

As I’ve argued previously, by providing voters with a clear distinction between the Schwarzenegger/Republican method of budget-balancing – borrowing, shifting funds, and cutting transit and benefits for low-income people – and a more realistic and compassionate alternative should the majority party, i.e. the Democrats, actually be allowed to do their job, we can win this battle.

It will take work, but the base for reform is out there.

From today’s Beyond Chron.

Hey Bay Area, how’s it going? Greetings from the Central Valley. You remember us – it’s that yellow place you drive through on your way to Burning Man. Wanted to talk politics with you today. I know, I know, you’ve got issues of your own. Issues like, hmmm, should we elect the lefty Democrat, or the far left progressive? Wow, times must be tough for you guys. But just for a second, I wanted to let you know that, um, well, we miss you guys. Because over here, we’re having some real trouble. Those people you read about in the Sunday New York Times, who believe ‘Rush is Right’ and abortion’s cool like, never? Yeah. They’re over here. Big time. And that whole budget thing, that ended up having disastrous consequences for poor and working class people everywhere? Well, that was sort of our fault. Not to sound like we’re trying to tell you what to do, Bay Area – we know how you hate that – but we did want to point out that without your help, we might be in this mess a long time.

Look, we know how good it feels to be around people just like you. Heck, a lot of us lived in the Bay Area for a while, or at least go there for concerts and think, damn, this is niiiice. But the problem is, after our visit, there’s so few of us when we get back home, the Republicans get to run the show. And with no one around to hold them in check, they can get a little crazy.

Remember that John Doolittle guy? You know, U.S. Representative, took some huge bribes in the Jack Abramoff scandal? This might jog your memory: loyal Bush supporter, opposes gun control and abortion, wants to privatize social security, and anti-immigrant. Wow, sounds scary, huh? Must be from Kansas!

Hey, get this, Bay Area – you could get in your car right now and drive an hour and a half east and be in John Doolittle’s district. Woah! Freaky!

Ok, so now you’ve at least got some kind of idea of what goes on over here, right down Highway 80. Now let’s turn to this whole state mess.

Hopefully you’re at least aware that Republicans in Sacramento get to hold the state budget hostage every year. There’s this wacky thing called the two-thirds rule that means 2 out of 3 members of the Senate and Assembly have to approve a budget or any new taxes to be approved.

‘Wait a second,’ you ask. ‘Isn’t California, like, 92 percent Democrat, 7 percent Green, and 1 percent Peace and Freedom Party?’ Wrong there, Bay Area! 32 out of 80 members of the Assembly and 15 of the 40 members in the Senate are red-blooded Republicans. And in addition to the usual litany of conservative beliefs that go along with that party affiliation, almost every one of them signed pledges to never raise taxes. Never.

“Well,’ you follow up. ‘They must all be from Orange County! That filthy place! It must be all the Scientologists turning them into crazy people!’ Ah, if that were only the case. In the State Senate, the minority leader Dave Cogdill’s district includes chunks of land west of Stockton. That’s right, Bay Area – right in your back yard! No Scientologists for miles! And another big name, Dave Cox, includes part of Sacramento County and…brace yourselves…your beloved Lake Tahoe! Your winter weekends are watched over by the Republican Vice-Chair of both the Appropriations and Local Governments Committee.

Surely the Assembly can’t be as bad, right? Um…how do I say this…

Let’s start with Roger Niello. The Vice-Chair of the Budget Committee, Niello served as the Republican lead on this year’s budget, playing the role of the loudest ‘no new taxes’ cheerleader, and essentially working tirelessly to drive the whole budget process into the ground. He represents – you guessed it – a big portion of Sacramento County and areas east of there.

And Mike Villines? Top Republican dog in the Assembly, big time righty, and enemy of progressives everywhere? Well, he’s just down the road in Fresno. Alan Nakashi’s in your backyard of Stockton, and the representatives of Districts two, three and four are all Republican, and all in beautiful Northern California.

Sorry to depress you, Bay Area, but here’s the point – your local battles are important, there’s no question about it. But huge decisions get made in the state capitol all year long, and they’re being made by people that you wouldn’t shake hands with. So c’mon, Bay Area.

Follow our state races, and help us out when you can. You wouldn’t believe the difference you could make.

Or maybe … just maybe … what if you moved here? I know it sounds like crazy talk, Bay Area, but hold on … houses over here are like 5 bucks! Ok, ok, I just got carried away. But they are cheap. And cool people are over here, too, Bay Area. Did you know the band Pavement is from Stockton? No joke! ‘Course, they move Portland, but who doesn’t move to Portland eventually anymore?

Also, we know like half of you grew up over here. Don’t try to deny it. Dad’s getting older, Mom worries about you all the time. C’mon, return home, prodigal sons and daughters. Frankly, us Democrats out here, we’re not much different than your parents…

…we admit it, Bay Area. We miss you.

(An interesting idea…thoughts? – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

From today’s Beyond Chron.

It’s no longer a debate – the blame for California’s current financial crisis falls directly at the feet of the requirement that two-thirds of the state legislature must approve any budget proposal. Minority Republicans’ use of this requirement to refuse to negotiate a compromise budget, threatening vital services for the state’s most vulnerable residents in the process, reveals just how ugly things can get when the majority party finds itself handcuffed by obstructionists. Consensus has been growing for years that eliminating the two-thirds requirement represents an integral step towards creating a truly progressive California, and now rumblings can again be heard among Democratic leaders to place a repeal of the two-thirds rule on the ballot. But these rumblings all point to placing it on the 2010 ballot, when a different tactic – placing the repeal on the special election ballot next spring that will likely be necessary to pass a state budget – could be Democrats’ best chance to enact the change so desperately needed.

It’s becoming evident that California’s endless budget battle can no longer be treated, as much of the mainstream media seems to, as merely another political turf war between Democrats and Republicans. Real consequences for real people continue to mount as the impasse refuses to break.

State funded child care centers, for example, are now kicking kids out due to lack of funds caused by the budget gridlock. Child care represents an essential service for working poor people trying to support their families, and losing it could bring about dire consequences for thousands of Californians’ lives. It’s often easy to ignore what happens in Sacramento, particularly when it comes to process-oriented details that seemingly have little consequence. But right now, it’s this exact sort of detail – the two-thirds requirement in the state legislature – that is leaving working parents with no place to leave their children while they’re at their job.

As Paul Hogarth pointed out yesterday, Democrats tried to repeal the two-thirds rule back in 2004, to miserable results. Proposition 56 lost with only 34 percent of the vote, a crushing defeat that rightly leaves many anti-two-thirds folks wary of being put through the ringer again.

However, realizing that fruitless deadlock will continue until someone addresses the issue, Democratic Senate and Assembly leaders now appear ready to give it another shot. In their comments to the Los Angeles Times regarding the subject, they stressed caution in moving forward, stating they would “order up a lot of polling and focus groups before they decide whether to attempt that move,” and that it probably wouldn’t be until 2010 that the repeal would make it to the ballot.

While this strategy makes a lot of sense at first blush, it may not be the best way to pass a repeal of the two-thirds law.

The 2004 effort failed in part because voters don’t pay attention to what happens to Sacramento. Rather than understanding the consequences of the two-thirds rule, and viewing the initiative as a concrete way to improve the lives of everyday people, it seemed like an effort by legislators to grant themselves more power to tax.

To make matters worse, the ballot Prop. 56 appeared on went before voters during a similar budget squabble. Governor Schwarzenegger came out against Prop. 56, offering up instead a massive bond get the state out of debt. This quick fix passed by a large margin despite it doing nothing to solve the structural budgetary problems plaguing California.

But things have changed since 2004. Voter approval for the Governor has plummeted by almost 40 points, and his endorsement of measures on the upcoming March ballot won’t be likely to help them out. Not only that, but voters appear sick of endless half-measures for alleviating California’s deficit. Now may be the time to make the case that without repeal of the two-thirds rule, we’re relegated to an endless re-run of the same show – deadlock, borrowing, and real suffering for real people.

Because the upcoming March election will likely be entirely about the budget, it represents an excellent opportunity to draw a clear connection between the two-thirds rule and the problems plaguing the state, as well as capitalize on Schwarzenegger’s declining popularity and voter resentment at obstructionists preventing a budget from being passed.

The strategy would be simple:

• Allow Republicans to put whatever they want onto the ballot – lottery borrowing, spending caps, you name it. Democrats would only place one measure on the ballot – the two-thirds repeal – and argue that voters have a choice. They can continue to choose stopgap measures and financial trickery, or they can vote for real budget reform.

• Placing one initiative on the ballot would focus Democratic efforts and resources on one campaign, rather than spreading it thin over a variety of budget-related efforts. This could grant the fire power necessary to achieve victory.

• Ensure that voters know the real consequences caused by the budget impasse. Make the face of the campaign working people with no childcare, adults going back to community college who now can’t find classes, and the recipients of community non-profit services that must now go without.

• Point out that the special election is costing taxpayers $50 to $100 million. Argue that taxpayers may have to keep paying that tab, year after year, until reform happens.

• Finally, make sure rank and file California Democrats understand what’s happening in Sacramento. Repeal of the two-thirds rule shouldn’t be about taxes – it should be about allowing elected Democratic legislators to do their job, and demonstrating that a small group of Republicans will continue to be able to bring the state to a standstill without reform.

Rather than wasting any more time on the state’s budget when it’s clear that structural change is necessary to achieve real progress, it’s time Democrats focus on the actual problem – the two-thirds rule. Yes, this ‘all-in’ strategy for the March election is risky. But even riskier is allowing any more time to pass as Republicans, year after year, hijack the most important process our state legislators are charged with – passing a budget to fund our state.

(SB 375 is truly important in smart growth, but it cannot operate in a vacuum. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

From today’s Beyond Chron

‘Smart growth’ received a flurry of coverage over the past couple weeks, due largely to an important bill just passed by the state legislature to encourage denser development throughout California. Yet a crucial element of this year’s budget debate remained conspicuously absent from much of this coverage-the proposal to slash public transit funding in 2008-09. Treating transit like an afterthought is nothing new for the state (just last year, for example, the Governor robbed $1.25 billion from public transit coffers). But as a bipartisan consensus begins to gel around addressing climate change through land use decisions, it seems remarkable that perhaps the most essential component of making smart growth work-dependable, affordable and convenient public transit-is getting the short shrift.

There’s no question SB 375, written by Sacramento’s Darrell Steinberg, represents a big step towards ending California’s obsession with sprawl. The bill would encourage the development of regional land use plans directing new development to urban centers and near public transit stations. Transportation funding and reduced environmental review would then be tied to projects adhering to those plans. The strategy could help bring the type of growth our state needs to get people out of their cars and significantly reduce our contribution to climate change.

But for the strategy to work, a crucial element of the effort must be addressed head-on: ensuring adequate state funding for public transit. Without this funding, SB 375 could end up being known for creating a series of plans that work great in theory-but have little real impact.

Smart growth does not operate on dense development alone. Be it for work, fun, or doctor’s appointments, people must leave their neighborhood sometimes. Without transit that gets people to and from their jobs quickly, provides the ability to go out at night once and a while, and remains affordable, one of smart growth’s main benefits – reducing the miles Californians drive – will be seriously compromised. And with the way budget negotiations are moving in the Capitol, it appears the level of transit necessary for smart growth to truly succeed won’t be coming anytime soon.

Governor Schwarzenegger released an August update to his budget proposal last week, proposing a half billion dollar cut to public transit. The proposal would redirect $250 million of gas tax revenue legally intended to go towards transit, and eliminate $317 million recently restored to transit by the Budget Conference Committee. While the details of the final deal won’t be revealed until the budget gets signed, the Bee recently reported that whatever happens, both the legislature and Executive appear willing to accept significant transit cuts as part of the solution to the current impasse.

The consequences of likely cuts can already be seen. Sacramento’s Regional Transit, for example, recently unveiled a plan to address what they expect to be an $18 million hole in their budget due to this year’s state cuts. Their proposal? Cut service throughout the region and substantially raise fares. Despite rapidly increasing ridership, sparked by rising gas prices and a growing awareness of climate change, many of those who just discovered the benefits of public transit will soon be facing higher prices for a lesser product.

Encouraging density over sprawl represents an important front in creating a less car-dependent state. But it’s only half the battle. And ultimately, it may end up being the easy half.

Developers, while slow to come around, often end up embracing the idea of ‘smart growth.’ Despite claiming their support involves a real commitment to the principles of sustainability, there’s usually another, obvious motive. The densification smart growth requires often means massive upzones in desirable areas, opening up an opportunity for these developers to earn some serious profit. Once housing gets built in these newly dense areas, however, the development community often gets curiously silent when it comes to paying for the transit improvements that should come along with the density.

It’s not easy to ensure funding for public transit, particularly when so many other vital services find themselves on the chopping block. But progressives should not give up the fight to obtain enough new revenue to adequately invest in our state’s public transit infrastructure and operations, this year and every year. Not to take away a single thing from Steinberg and the passage of SB 375, which should be celebrated by anyone who cares about climate change and livable communities – but the struggle to create a truly sustainable California has just begun.

From today’s Beyond Chron

If Democrats could choose a city for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee to visit, Sacramento should be near the top of the list. The city’s current political situation says a lot about the state of the Republican Party – not only in California, but across the country. Once a juggernaut of party unity, disciplined messaging, and perceived ‘toughness’, Republicans now look more like a petty group of infighting children unable to make the tough decisions necessary to lead the most populous state in the Union. While the Democratic National Convention tears out of the gate, John McCain’s visit to California’s state capitol yesterday for a fundraiser represents an opportunity to underscore the striking similarities between the severe problems both the state and national Republican party face.

“Read My Lips…No New Taxes”

Back in February, McCain made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows to declare that “under no circumstances” would he raise taxes. By July, he started to backtrack, stating he would consider increasing the Social Security payroll tax. But after receiving a harshly-worded open letter from the notorious Club for Growth lambasting the idea, McCain quickly reaffirmed his anti-tax stance, telling a group of voters at a town hall meeting in Colorado, “I want to look you in the eye: I will not raise your taxes nor support a tax increase. I will not do it.”

Of course, he still remains silent on exactly how he would preserve Social Security benefits in the future without increasing revenue. McCain’s strategy of using an unrealistic and dishonest pledge to oppose tax increases as a weapon to paint Barack Obama as fiscally irresponsible, while simultaneously avoiding discussions of how to maintain current levels of public services without tax increases, presents some startling similarities to California’s Republican legislature.

With the state budget now 57 days overdue, Republicans in the Senate and Assembly remain vehemently opposed to any tax hike. Yet throughout the process, they have yet to offer any proposal to solve the state’s budget gap that would rely solely on cuts. The reason is simple – the disastrous consequences such a proposal would have on millions of Californians would be a public relations nightmare.

So, they continue to hide behind their anti-tax pledge and eschew any real negotiation on how to solve the current crisis. The election of McCain, like the reelection of the obstructionist Republican state legislators responsible for the current budget impasse, will leave citizens in the same old tired mess – declining public services without any substantive discussion about how to stop the bleeding.

Republican ‘Unity’

Over the past 20 years, Republicans became increasingly identified with a remarkable degree of party unity. The seemingly disparate coalition of blue-collar, rural and religious voters and big business proved to be a powerful one, resulting in a simple and easily maintained set of core values – tax breaks for economically powerful interests, socially conservative edicts, and above all, the aforementioned ‘no new taxes’ promise.

As the Bush Jr. administration comes to a close, however, this national Republican coalition appears to be severely cracking, and McCain represents an excellent representation of this demise. So far, he has been unable to reassure religious voters that he’ll fight for their interests. And, despite his recent promise to not increase taxes, hardcore fiscal conservatives remain suspicious of McCain, due in large part to his previous efforts to enact campaign finance reform. Should McCain be elected, the possibility of an Executive divided with his own party’s legislative caucus remains very real, no matter how far McCain bends over backwards to prove he won’t raise taxes.

These fissures can also be seen in the state Republican Party. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, unlike his fellow party members in the legislature, has offered a budget proposal that includes a three-year hike of the state sales tax. While this represents a stopgap measure that will not lead to a structurally sound budget, it still reveals the Governor realizes that walking in lock-step with the rabid anti-tax crowd is not a viable option when it comes to successfully running a state.

Schwarzenegger, however, can’t seem to convince fellow Republicans of this fact, as they remain steadfastly opposed to his budget proposal. The Governor’s inability to maintain party discipline regarding the best approach to the budget reveals a deep chasm forming between the Executive and his supposed allies in the legislature. As the state budget morass deepens, so do the cracks in the formerly unassailable unity of the state Republican party.

Democratic Opposition

The Democratic Party stands in stark contrast to the current state and national Republican disarray.

On the national level, despite media narratives of disgruntled Hillary supporters and undecided blue-collar voters, Democrats stand to display an impressive degree of unity not seen for some time. Speeches by both Bill and Hillary Clinton will cement broad inter-party support for Obama’s candidacy. The unprecedented number of youths involved in the convention will highlight renewed vigor among an important element of the party’s base. And the convention’s location in Colorado signifies growing support amongst a group of Western states formerly considered reliably red.

In California, Speaker Karen Bass passed the first test of her tenure with remarkable aplomb. The Democratic Assembly remains consistently on message concerning the budget, arguing that the Governor’s proposal does not represent a sound solution, that the Republican legislature has no solution, and that Democrats will not give up core values simply to pass a budget. When Assemblywoman Nicole Parra of Hanford strayed from her caucus and refused to vote on the Democratic budget proposal, Bass took the necessary steps to discipline her and ensure her party remains united in its efforts.

McCain declined to hold a public event in Sacramento yesterday, opting instead for a private fundraising affair with donors. But his reticence to take the spotlight here should not distract the public from the obvious and growing connection between a weakening Republican Party here in California and nationwide.

From today’s

Beyond Chron.

Sunday’s vote on the state budget, in which every single Republican in the Assembly cast a ‘no’ vote against a proposal that would have both cut spending and raised taxes to close the current $15.2 million gap, exposed a glaring fact about the budget impasse. For state Republicans, the process has ceased to represent an effort to reach a solution. Instead, it represents an opportunity to stoke California’s anti-tax sentiments and tell constituents come election years that they ‘steadfastly opposed the Democrats’ attempts to raise taxes.’ While the State Dems must hold strong in their efforts to pass a more progressive state budget, they must simultaneously develop a simple argument targeted towards everyday voters explaining their refusal to bend to Republicans’ will.

There’s more…

Despite California’s progressive reputation, our state possesses a long history of being rabidly opposed to taxation. Proposition 13, passed in the late 70s, tapped into this wellspring and sparked a national movement still in bloom today. State Republicans in Sacramento remain determined to keep stoking the fires of the faithful.

Reading quotes from Assembly Republicans about Sunday’s vote made me feel like I’d been transported back to the apex of American fiscal conservatism, the Reagan era. Mike Villines (R-Clovis), for example, ripped a page from the Gipper’s playbook, telling the Chronicle that “what’s important now is that they [the Democrats] know we’re not willing to (vote for) taxes.”

To close the state’s $15.2 billion budget gap without raising a single tax represents an impossible task. Employing solely cuts would cause catastrophic effects to state services and anger amongst constituents across party lines. And the Republicans know it. They refuse to present a tax-free alternative to the Democrats’ solution, instead focusing on pandering to their anti-tax base and painting Democrats as fiscally irresponsible.

The state’s mainstream media seems determined to add credence to this narrative. They present the battle as one between the Governor and the Democratic-controlled legislature. In reality, because of California’s policy of requiring a 2/3 majority to pass the budget, it’s the State and Assembly Republicans who hold all the power. As long as these Republicans refuse to vote for a budget proposal, negotiations will remain at a standstill.

This leaves the Democrats with two options:

First, they can continue to bend over backwards to produce compromise budget proposals, trying to convince the public that they’re still working to solve the impasse. This involves offering up more capitulations that should be anathema to a truly progressive state Democratic Party, including creating a state spending cap that would destroy a wide array of essential services. It also does nothing to reverse the Republican narrative that the entire budget debate comes down to taxation.

Or, they can hold strong and refuse – just like the Republicans – to pass any budget that doesn’t represent their vision for California.

Holding strong seems the obvious choice. The problem remains, however, that to the average voter, Democratic control of the Senate and Assembly means the budget failing to pass will be viewed as their fault. The media will do absolutely nothing to correct this fallacy. You can try to tell folks about the 2/3 majority rule until you’re blue in the face – when something doesn’t happen in Sacramento, people will continue to blame the Democrats.

So what can the state’s progressives do? Fight fire with fire.

They can come up with a slogan, a mantra, as pithy and powerful as ‘no new taxes,’ explaining why they’re refusing to pass a budget. And they can use it as their battle cry during this year’s budget fight. The opposition has turned the debate over the budget into a proxy war over taxes, and progressives must now utilize the same strategy. Instead of reacting to accusations of being fiscally irresponsible, it’s time Democrats went on the offense.

There’s a variety of slogans to choose from, as the budget battle represents a fight to save basic services that reflect the core values of many Californians. “Respect Our Children,” for example, as a spending cap would prevent the state from being able to afford baseline levels of spending on the state’s school system. “Protect Our Workers,” as a sales tax increase would hit the pocketbooks of hundreds of thousands of the state’s low-income workers hard. “Grow Our Economy,” as desperately needed funding for research and development in building new sectors in the state’s economy would disappear without increases in taxes. “Real Transportation Choices,” as without new revenue, state public transportation funding will be gutted.

The list could go on. What’s important is that Democrats should cease trying to pass a compromise budget when the people they’re negotiating with obviously have no intention of compromising. They should instead focus their efforts on convincing Californians that the reason they’re refusing to capitulate is to protect and defend the interests of the state’s residents.

While further intransigence from both sides means a budget solution won’t be reached any time soon, what have the Democrats have to lose? Yes, the state will face a cornucopia of problems should the stalemate continue. But the Democratic Party must work to convince the state that it’s the Republicans’ thoughtlessness towards children, workers, the economy and the environment that’s the cause of these problems – not the Democrats’ love of taxes.

The budget shouldn’t be about taxes. It should be about people. And it’s up to the Democrats to change the terms of the debate.