Yesterday’s outpouring of protest against the deliberate decision to destroy California’s public education system was characterized by one dominant emotion: anger. And that was exactly as it should be. If you’re not angry at the collapse of our schools, colleges, and universities, and the stealing of an entire generation’s future, then you’re really not paying any attention.

I spent the day at Cal State Monterey Bay, hearing student after student take the microphone to express their anger at what has happened to their dreams. This was not a violent anger, but instead the kind of deeply rooted anger that anyone would quite rightly feel when they have been betrayed. The state of California has betrayed these students, having asked them to work hard to succeed in school and promising an affordable quality education, only to yank that promise away from them in order to deliver tax cuts to huge corporations.

On other campuses, anger was clearly the dominant emotion, such as the students at UC Santa Cruz who shut down the campus, or the students at UC Davis who tried to block Interstate 80 in order to show the rest of the state what it feels like to have your life disrupted by forces beyond your control.

Anger can be a very healthy emotion. It focuses the mind, and can create a sense of determination. That too was on display at the events I attended – a belief that this anger was being expressed in order to build a mass movement of students, faculty, staff, parents, and other Californians who know that this state has no chance whatsoever at prospering in the 21st century if these cuts are not reversed. It is further evidence of how effective and valuable the March 4 actions were.

Students now understand what is happening to them and why. Their education is being gutted and their already meager financial resources are being stolen from them by a state government that believes corporations matter more than students. That propping up the failed status quo matters more than building California’s future. Most of the speakers I heard understood this very clearly, almost instinctively. It has been beaten into them these last two years.

The question now facing this nascent movement is how to channel that anger into action. A movement is being built, but what are its goals? And how will it achieve them? It is both easy and right to say “fuck the budget cuts.” But unless the movement starts working on the solutions, this moment will be lost just as each preceding moment was lost.

In my own brief remarks to the rally at CSUMB, I noted that we had all been here before. In the late 1960s students protested against Governor Ronald Reagan’s fee hikes, but they happened anyway. In the early 1980s students protested against Governor Jerry Brown’s and Governor George Deukmejian’s fee hikes, but they happened anyway. In the early 1990s students protested against Governor Pete Wilson’s fee hikes, but they happened anyway. In the early 2000s students protested against Governor Gray Davis’s and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s fee hikes, but they happened anyway.

It is time to break that cycle with action.

The core goal for colleges and universities should be to restore the core pledge of the 1960 Master Plan – that a high quality public college education will be free to all Californians who qualify for it. The core goal for K-12 schools should be similar, that a high-quality public education will be free to all Californians, period. In pursuit of that goal, the movement must be willing to pursue actions and policy changes that will provide the new public funding that a restoration of truly affordable and quality public education requires.

One starting point is AB 656. The Courage Campaign, along with Assemblymember Alberto Torrico (author of AB 656), the California Faculty Association, the University of California Student Association, the California State Student Association, and many other groups have come together to support this bill and to launch a campaign to pass it. $2 billion a year for higher education would go a very long way to helping reverse the recent cuts and fee hikes. It would be a downpayment on the full restoration of the Master Plan, and will need to be followed by other methods of collecting the revenue that our state’s wealthy and large corporations currently control.

Another starting point would be proposals to roll back the $2 billion in corporate tax cuts given in the February 2009 budget deal, the same budget that slashed $9 billion from public schools and began this present downward spiral.

Still another starting point would be the restoration of majority rule to California, whether it’s for the budget in the legislature or for votes to raise revenue at the ballot box, or some combination of these.

These goals must be placed at the core of education movement organizing in the coming weeks and months. Those goals have to be pursued in concert with the necessary defensive actions that have to be fought against people like US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, whose “Race to the Top” program served as bait to lead California to weaken some of its core educational standards. Those who want to privatize education in order to turn it into a vehicle for profit must be fought as well. No Child Left Behind must be reformed, teachers must become better paid and freed from onerous, pointless, and stupid burdens that so-called reformers are trying to place on them.

And this movement must remain unified as its enemies seek to defeat it through the divide-and-conquer strategy. Attacks on teacher’s unions have become all too common, even among Democrats. Others may try to leverage higher education against K-12 education, or leverage education against other budget priorities such as health care and human services. These too must be resisted.

A “grow the pie” ethos must be embraced by this movement. Student speakers at CSUMB well understood that other kinds of budget cuts, including to health care programs, bite every bit as deeply as the education cuts. That should not hold the movement back from pursuing the goals of taking our money back from the wealthy and the large corporations who took it from us in recent decades, and should instead motivate the movement to ensure that battles such as AB 656 and majority rule are to be cornerstones for the campaign to provide the kind of robust and high-quality public services that used to characterize the California Dream during the era of Pat Brown.

For that to happen, the movement must figure out how to channel anger into action. Determining the agenda for battle will help this movement become the vehicle by which we end 30 years of right-wing policy that has destroyed our state and stolen our future from us.

As protests unfold across the state and the nation today against cuts to education and fee increases, more attention is finally being drawn to the massive crisis facing our students, our schools, and our future.

20 years ago a year at UC Berkeley cost just over $1,000 in fees. Even that was much higher than the $0 cost that the 1960 Master Plan pledged. The early 1990s saw a big rise in fees, and by the time I started at UCB in 1997 the cost had risen to over $4,000 a year. Now the cost is slated to rise to a whopping $10,000 per year, something many students and their families cannot afford to pay. And even as those costs rise, including at CSU and community colleges, classes are being cut as educational quality declines.

It’s no way to run a state. California’s current prosperity is owed largely to the investments Pat Brown made in the 1960s, building a public higher education system that was the world’s envy – and that fueled our innovation and economic creativity. But instead of renewing those investments for a new century, Arnold Schwarzenegger is destroying them. The fee increases are a massive tax increase on the young and on the working- and middle-classes. They must be reversed.

The only way they will be reversed is to generate new revenue. That’s why the Courage Campaign, where I work as Public Policy Director, is joining the California Faculty Association and the University of California Students Association in launching our pledge to support AB 656, the oil severance tax for California.

AB 656, authored by Assemblymember Alberto Torrico, would generate $2 billion a year for higher education by levying a 12% tax on the extraction of oil and gas in California. Texas uses this tax to fund higher education there, and Sarah Palin increased Alaska’s oil severance tax in 2007 in order to buy the love of her constituents. Every major oil producing state in the union has an oil severance tax – except California.

The result of this massive tax break we give to oil companies is the destruction of our public colleges and universities. Fees have risen since the early 1990s only because of cuts in the amount of state funding the schools receive. The only way to make college affordable again is to increase that funding. An oil severance tax is a good place to begin.

Stand up for students, for faculty, for staff, and for higher education today by taking the pledge to support AB 656. We will use these pledges to help convince the legislature to pass the bill, adding to the fact that 2/3rds of Californians said they’ll pay higher taxes for education. Our next steps will be to target specific legislators, but for now, we need a show of force for AB 656. Let’s tax oil companies, not students.

Below the fold is the email the Courage Campaign sent to our members today, supported by CFA and UCSA.

Today, students and faculty across California are marching to save public higher education. In support of their activism, the Courage Campaign today is joining the University of California Students Association (UCSA) and the California Faculty Association (CFA) to launch a campaign to restore affordability to our public colleges and universities. We’re excited to share this message from Tommy Le, a UCSA organizer and current student at UC Santa Cruz, about the devastating impact of recent budget cuts and fee increases on students like him.

Please read his message below and then join us in taking action to save Tommy’s dream of getting a college degree — and the dreams of so many students like him across California:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/StandUpForStudents

Robert Cruickshank

Public Policy Director, Courage Campaign

Dear friend —

When I was younger, a counselor told me I would never attend college.

My parents were immigrants — my mother worked in a sweatshop and my father made furniture. At times my parents didn’t have enough money to pay for food. Paying for college was something they could not afford. My background led that counselor and others to doubt whether I could succeed in school. But I persevered and, despite that counselor’s lack of faith in me, I became the first person in my family to go to college.

After all of the obstacles I’ve overcome to get to UC Santa Cruz, now I don’t know if I can stay — if I can even afford to finish my degree. Our fees have risen every year that I’ve been here. In 2010 students in the UC system are facing a 30% annual increase in fees that will bring the cost of attending UC Santa Cruz to over $10,000 per year. My friends at Cal State campuses and community colleges have faced similar increases, even as teachers are laid off and classes cut.

By drastically cutting school budgets at the same time they raise fees to unaffordable levels, California’s leaders are risking my dream — and the dreams of students across the state — of getting a college education.

That’s why students across California are participating in a nationwide day of action on March 4 to protest the cuts and fee increases. But that is just the start. If we are going to begin to fix to higher education so we can create jobs and lasting prosperity, we must bring in new revenues from the large corporations that aren’t paying their fair share to support our colleges and universities.

We can start by demanding that oil companies that drill in California give some of their profits to help students afford to stay in school. Please join me, the Courage Campaign, CFA and UCSA and support the Oil and Gas Severance Tax Act (AB 656) — a bill in our state legislature that can make higher education affordable again. Just click here to show your support:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/StandUpForStudents

California is the only major oil-producing state in the country that does not tax the extraction of oil from our land. Texas uses an oil severance tax to fund its public colleges and universities. Even Sarah Palin’s Alaska has an oil severance tax.

But we don’t. Instead we give big oil companies a multi-billion dollar tax break while students like me struggle to afford an education. That’s why it’s time to stand up for students by supporting the Oil and Gas Severance Act in the state legislature.

AB 656 would create a 12% tax on the extraction of oil in California. At current oil prices, that would generate over $2 billion a year in revenue that would go directly to the University of California, the California State University, and California Community College systems to roll back the fee increases.

I shouldn’t have to worry about whether I can stay in school just so big oil companies can avoid paying their fair share. That’s why I’m asking you to stand with me, Courage Campaign, CFA and UCSA in pledging to support AB 656, the Oil and Gas Severance Tax Act. Click here to stand up to the oil companies and show your support for students across California:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/StandUpForStudents

Thank you for taking a stand to help students like me afford to pursue our dreams.

Tommy Le

Senior, UC Santa Cruz

Seeking a third term as California’s governor, Jerry Brown has announced his campaign for governor. His 3-minute long video rolls out the campaign’s slogan of “Let’s Get California Working Again” and lays out some of the key themes his campaign is likely to include:

• Attacking Whitman, though not by name, as an inexperienced consultant-driven dilettante. “We’ve tried” turning to an outsider before and “it didn’t work.” This is an inarguable fact, as Arnold Schwarzenegger has left California in much worse shape than he found it.

• Brown is experienced, but not a typical politician. He said he has an insider’s experience with an outsider’s mind, which as far as I can tell is indeed true.

• Brown will get beyond the bickering and get California politicians and stakeholders to work together – “Democrats and Republicans, oil companies and environmentalists, unions and management.” It’s a very Obama-like message, and one that might play well given the recent Field Poll numbers showing 75% of voters want their politicians to “work together.” It’s totally unrealistic, of course.

• “No new taxes unless you the people vote for them” – his press release, included below the fold, goes further and touts his tax reductions between 1975 and 1982 (his years as governor) and even the shrinking size of government over the same period.

• Returning power to local government from Sacramento. This is very popular, even though it raises questions of equity and concerns that it would reinforce existing geographically-based inequalities. It also is a big reversal from Brown’s days as governor, when he began centralizing funding for schools and local governments in Sacramento in order to deal with the devastating effects of Prop 13.

Overall it’s about what we would have expected from the Brown campaign. It’s certainly not the progressive message we’ve wanted, but he has been signaling these themes for months.

If he thinks his message of experience is going to defeat Whitman’s slick campaign, he’s going to get a rude shock in November. Unless Brown can motivate the electorate that gave Obama a 20-point win in 2008 to show up for him, he’s going to have a difficult time overcoming Whitman.

UPDATE: Carla Marinucci reports that Brown will be on CNN’s Larry King Live tonight from 6-7pm Pacific.

Press release from Brown campaign:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 2, 2009

CONTACT: Sterling Clifford – 510.628.0202

Jerry Brown Enters Race for Governor

March 2 – Promising to use his knowledge and skills to end “partisan bickering” in Sacramento and fix “this state I love,” Attorney General Jerry Brown formally announced his candidacy for governor of California today.

“The political breakdown in Sacramento is threatening jobs, our schools and the state’s credit rating, which is the worst in the country,” Brown said in an online video message to voters released as he began a serious of news interviews around the state.  “Our state is in serious trouble and the next governor must have the preparation, the knowledge and the know-how to get California working again.  That is what I offer and that’s why I’m declaring my candidacy for governor.”

Brown, who served as mayor of Oakland before being elected attorney general four years ago, was California’s governor from 1975 to 1983.  During those years Brown marshaled both Democrats and Republicans in the legislature to slow the growth of state government, eliminate capital gains taxes for many small businesses, abolish the business inventory tax, index personal income taxes, adopt the nation’s first energy efficiency standards, and make California the leader in co-generation, solar and wind energy.  Private-sector jobs grew at almost double the national rate.  

“When I was governor, California added 1.9 million new jobs in eight years,” Brown said.  “I know we can do it again and be the leader in renewable energy, good jobs and quality schools.”

Brown said the key to ending the state’s partisan gridlock is a Governor with in-depth knowledge of how government and Sacramento politics actually function.

“Some people say that if you’ve been around the process you can’t handle the job, that we need to go out and find an outsider who knows virtually nothing about state government.  Well, we tried that and it doesn’t work.  We found out that not knowing is not good.”

The attorney general said the answer to Sacramento’s problems “is not a scripted plan cooked up by consultants or mere ambition to be governor.

“We need someone with insider’s knowledge, but an outsider’s mind,” Brown added, “a leader who can pull people together – Republicans and Democrats, oil companies and environmentalists, unions and businesses.  We need to work together as Californians first.  And at this stage in my life, I’m prepared to focus on nothing else but fixing this state I love.”

Brown explained that he has seen state government “from every angle.”

“I’ve seen our government…when it works and when it doesn’t work.  And it’s no secret that Sacramento isn’t working today.  The partisanship is poisonous.  Political posturing has replaced leadership.  And the budget, it’s always late, always in the red and always wrong.”

Brown said that if elected he will be guided by three “governing principles.”

“First, I’ll tell you the truth.  No more smoke and mirrors on the budget.  No more puffy slogans and platitudes.  You deserve the truth and that’s what you’ll get from me.  Second, in this time of recession when people are financially strapped, there will be no new taxes unless you the people vote for them.  Third, we have to downsize state government from Sacramento and return decisions and authority to the cities, to the counties and to local schools.”

As governor, Brown consistently had budgets approved on time and built a prudent budget surplus to serve as a “rainy day fund”.  He reduced the number of state employees per 1,000 Californians from 9.6 in 1975 to 9.2 in 1982.  The tax burden for California residents declined from $6.90 per $100 of income in 1975 to $6.72 in 1982.

Following the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, which cut property taxes collected by local governments by 2/3, Brown used the state’s “rainy day fund” to help local school districts, police and fire departments, cities and counties maintain essential services. Proposition 13 author Howard Jarvis said, “I knew Gov. Brown was the man who could make it work.”

While curbing the growth of state government, Brown instituted cutting-edge environmental protections that became guidelines for the nation to follow.  He strengthened the California Coastal Commission and established comprehensive policies governing development along the coast.  He signed the nation’s first legislation requiring high school students to demonstrate basic proficiency before graduation.  State funding for higher education, including community colleges, more than doubled during Brown’s eight years as governor.

From 1999 to 2007, Brown served as Mayor of Oakland, bringing 10,000 new residents to the city, attracting more than 200 new businesses to Oakland, and cutting the number of serious crimes by over 30 percent.

“These are really serious times, but our state is still the best place on earth to live and to raise a family,” Brown said. “Our businesses lead the world in technology and innovation.  Our natural environment is second to none. By making the tough decisions now, we can get through this crisis leaner and more efficient, poised for a comeback that will lead to a whole new period of prosperity. That’s what drives my candidacy.  But it’s not going to happen overnight or with empty promises and photo ops.  It takes patience and courage.  But, together, we can all get California working again.”

Transcript of Video can be found here: http://www.jerrybrown.org/Tran…

Jerry Brown’s Biography can be found here: http://www.jerrybrown.org/Bio0…

The Field Poll is out with a new look at Californians’ attitudes on the state budget crisis. The results are being reported as “Californians prefer spending cuts, not taxes” as a way to solve the budget deficit. And even though that headline misstates what is in the poll, the bigger issue is the general and vague nature of the poll itself.

Here’s what Field asked:

California lawmakers face a deep budget deficit again next year, with a gap that may reach $20 billion between projected revenues and current spending levels. How would you prefer to have this deficit closed – only through tax increases, mostly through tax increases but with some spending cuts, through an equal mix of tax increases and spending cuts, mostly through spending cuts but with some tax increases, or only through spending cuts?

The responses, of statewide registered voters:

Cuts only: 31%

Mostly cuts: 19%

Equal mix of cuts and taxes: 29%

Mostly taxes: 9%

Taxes only: 4%

No opinion: 8%

So the way this is being reported in the media strikes me as being pretty flawed. The way I read this says 61% of voters want taxes to be some element of the solution to the budget mess, and only 31% want cuts-only.

Sure, those numbers could and should be better. But even in spite of progressives’ inability to deliver those messages to Californians, 61% don’t want an all-cuts budget. It should be noted that such a budget is exactly what Arnold Schwarzenegger and Meg Whitman propose for California.

What the poll didn’t ask is about specific programs. In January PPIC found that 2/3rds of Californians would pay higher taxes if it went to education. That suggests that the rather vague and unspecific nature of this Field Poll means its utility for driving policy is very, very limited.

Field Poll also examined attitudes on the upcoming initiative to change the 2/3rds rule to a simple majority on budget (but not on taxes) that may make the November ballot. They found it was close: 43% support, 47% oppose. The initiative likely to go forward would include financial penalties to legislators if a budget isn’t passed on time, which as I understand it boosts the poll numbers for this proposal significantly.

But what we also see is that just as Democrats in Washington, DC have failed to drive home the message that Republican obstruction is responsible for a large part of the political problems the country faces, Democrats in Sacramento have had similar problems. When Field asked about whether we could solve California’s problems “if lawmakers are willing to compromise and work together” or if we needed constitutional changes, they found 20% said “constitutional change” and 75% said “politicians should work together.”

While the construction of that question is iffy (of course voters will say they want their politicians to work together), it does indicate that Sacramento Democrats have not done an effective job of explaining that Republican obstruction is the reason why nothing gets done.

Ultimately this poll gives a roadmap to Speaker Pérez: insist that taxes be part of the budget solution, link them to specific programs that people want (particularly education), and make sure Californians know that it is Republicans who are standing in the way of that happening.

Mickey Kaus, one of the first political bloggers and noted blower of goats, is apparently desperate for attention. Back in the day, he made a name for himself as a so-called “liberal” who supported George W. Bush, who was an early adopter of the swiftboating of John Kerry, fed talking points to wingnuts about ACORN supposedly “stealing” the MN-Sen election for Al Franken, and is probably the best known example of a “concern troll” in the entire country, apparently isn’t getting enough attention these days.

There’s no other way to explain his decision to take out papers to run against Barbara Boxer in the Democratic US Senate primary:

Pioneering political blogger Mickey Kaus took out papers filed to run for U.S. Senate in California, he told LA Weekly. The Venice resident said he’ll run this year against Barbara Boxer for her seat. He said he took out filed papers at with the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters, although a spokeswoman there could not yet confirm the filing.

The Democrat has been centrist and even conservative on some of the issues on which Boxer has taken a more left-leaning stand, including immigration: He does not favor amnesty and favors a more restrictive national policy.

The journalist’s Wiki entry says he’s also “skeptical of affirmative action, labor unions (particularly automotive workers’ unions and teachers’ unions), and gerrymandering of congressional districts.”

In short, Mickey Kaus seems to think that Californians don’t really want Barbara Boxer and her liberalism, despite having elected her three times to the Senate – he thinks we want Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman. He’s gone from being a right-wing “Democrat” to being truly unhinged.

David Atkins offered this insightful take on Kaus’s politics to Calitics:

Race resentment fuels nearly every dispute Kaus has with mainstream Dems. He’s upset about welfare, immigration, and affirmative action. He loved the Clinton welfare-reform sistah-souljah version of the Party, and is really upset at the progressive resurgence. He’s DLC through and through.

Doesn’t surprise me that he would want to take out Boxer. What’s surprising is that he thinks he has the remotest shot. If I had to guess, he probably just wants to take potshots at boxer to set up a Campbell win, as Campbell espouses that corporatist bipartisanship of which Mickey’s such a big fan.

Gotta agree here. Kaus is doing this for attention and to further undermine the progressive movement he so despises. I doubt this campaign of his will get very much traction, especially since most California Democrats are very happy with Boxer and plan to fight for her this year.

Today’s Sacramento Bee has a good article on Arnold Schwarzenegger’s inconsistent tax rhetoric, and Kevin Yamamura does a good job showing how Arnold relies on semantics to justify supporting fees while threatening to veto several proposals to close tax loopholes, including for online sales and for corporate tax calculations.

But what the article really reveals is that Arnold Schwarzenegger has a very simple approach to taxes that the rhetoric merely obscures: any tax on corporations is bad, but taxes on everyone else are just fine. Arnold Schwarznegger is bent on making the working people of California pay to keep vital services operating in order to fund tax breaks for his corporate allies. From Yamamura’s article:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger threatened last week to veto a bill that would reduce a corporate tax break, calling it a tax increase. He says requiring Amazon.com to collect tax dollars already owed is a new tax burden.

But he believes a new surcharge on property insurance is a “fee” that Californians ought to pay.

The Republican governor has pledged not to raise taxes in his final year in office, but whether that holds true depends on what your definition of a tax is. Legislative counsel already has drafted the insurance fee as a tax bill.

We can draw the distinction even more clearly. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to give Amazon.com a big tax break, but is going to drive up the health care costs of hundreds of thousands of families by further gutting state health care programs. He wants to give oil companies a massive tax break by refusing to support an oil severance tax to fund higher education, but supports a 30% increase in the fees students have to pay for higher education. He supported a sales tax increase but opposes closing a reckless corporate tax loophole opened in the February 2009 budget deal that costs the state $2 billion a year.

Most Californians now understand that Arnold Schwarzenegger has been a catastrophic failure for the state, having left California in much worse shape than he found it in 2003.

Only now are Californians beginning to understand why that is the case. Arnold Schwarzenegger came to power with the primary mission of helping his corporate allies enrich themselves at our expense. Meg Whitman is poised to finish the job by destroying what remains of California’s shared prosperity by cutting and privatizing most public services, massively increasing the cost to most Californians but being able to claim she’s avoided new taxes in the process.

It’s further evidence of how anti-tax politics don’t actually work – they wind up costing most taxpayers more money in the end, by making them more individually responsible for paying for necessary services that were cheaper when the cost was pooled.

California Watch has a new article out examining payouts of accrued vacation time. Some employees have accrued so much unused vacation time that they get six-figure payouts upon leaving/retiring.

My first reaction to this is “so what?” It’s an extremely common practice for employers to pay out unused vacation time as pay. It’s better and fairer to the workers than “use it or lose it” policies regarding vacation time that tend to penalize workers for not making immediate use of benefits they have been given. This is especially true in an American working environment where vacations are discouraged as we quite wrongly believe that constant work is good either for the employer or the employee.

The California Watch article’s point, of course, is that this practice is detrimental to the state at a time of budget crisis:

Amid a crippling fiscal crisis, managers throughout California’s government have routinely allowed their employees to amass unused vacation time, enabling hundreds of workers to end their public-service careers with payouts topping $100,000, a California Watch investigation has found.

One worker combined vacation and compensatory time to walk away with more than $800,000, records show.

In the past four years, nearly 500 government workers earned six-figure paychecks mostly for unused vacation. In total, the state spent $486 million between 2006 and mid-2009 to pay more than 52,000 employees for time-off benefits – which includes a small percentage of unused comp time and holidays that weren’t taken.

$486 million sounds like a lot of money. But that is just 2.43% of the current $20 billion deficit. In other words, if we had eliminated that practice in 2006, or capped it, the budget deficit would not be meaningfully impacted. In fact, given that we’ve had about $60 billion in budget shortfalls since 2007, these vacation payouts are 0.81% of the overall deficit.

So I don’t understand why this is all that newsworthy. Sure, there might be some point to capping the payout at $100K or $200K, but even then it would be a very minor fix that would do nothing to address the deeper budget mess.

Of course, these kinds of articles help build a larger narrative that the budget problem is in large part caused by greedy public sector workers who are paid too much. The actual numbers here indicate that the vacation payouts are not a meaningful part of the budget problem at all. Similarly, Meg Whitman’s desire to layoff 40,000 state workers would probably save about $2.5 billion (assuming those workers make the state average). That’s a bigger chunk of the projected $20 billion deficit, but it’s still only 12.5%. Whitman and other critics of public employees need to come up with solutions for the other 87.5% of the deficit.

Maybe one place to start is by looking at how the rich evade their tax obligations. Last week the LA Times’s Michael Hiltzik showed that Frank and Jamie McCourt paid no federal or state income tax between 2004 and 2009. Many wealthy Californians and large corporations have similarly evaded taxes.

There’s a lot there for investigative journalists to pore over. For example, California Watch could examine how much money some of California’s largest corporate landowners have cost the state by using shell companies to get around property tax reassessments at sale, unfairly extending Prop 13 protections. Or they could examine how many other California CEOs follow Meg Whitman’s lead and use offshore tax shelters. There is much more money the state loses through these means than the paltry $486 million over 3 years cited in the California Watch article.

But instead they seem to be focusing on attacking public workers. It’s a sad reflection of the fact that in today’s California, workers are seen as an acceptable punching bag, but corporations and the wealthy aren’t.

Privatization is typically a very costly and wasteful way to deal with public services. Usually it is little more than a transfer of public wealth to well-connected people in the private sector, done in spite of the fact that that it’s usually unnecessary and forces the public to spend more money than they would have before the privatization.

That scenario is likely to repeat itself in the upcoming privatization of 11 state office buildings:

California has put up the “for sale” sign on 11 state office buildings, including the San Francisco Civic Center and Ronald Reagan building in Los Angeles.

Real estate firm CB Richard Ellis began marketing the buildings Friday on behalf of the state.

Vice chairman Kevin Shannon says the firm is pitching the sale worldwide as a low-risk investment because the state is planning to lease the space back, giving the new owners a steady stream of income.

The sale was adopted as part of last year’s budget agreement between Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers to raise money for the state. California is facing a $20 billion shortfall through the middle of next year.

The sale is expected raise more than $2 billion.

Read that again. The sale is pitched as “low risk” because you and I will give the new owners a steady stream of income. We’re going to rent these buildings indefinitely, ultimately at much greater cost than $2 billion.

Public ownership of office buildings is a much cheaper way to operate government. We pay back the construction loan and the ongoing maintenance, and that’s usually more affordable than leasing from a landlord who seeks profit in the arrangement. The costs come out of our pockets, especially if we’re cutting other services down the road to pay the privatization cost.

We can expect much more of this if Meg Whitman becomes governor. In fact, I would expect she will make mass privatization a core element of her plans to “solve” the state’s budget mess. California Closed indeed.