A new year and a new decade are upon us, as is a new election year. But 2010 isn’t going to be just any old election year in California. After spending 2009 watching state and national politics oriented around defending the status quo, we are finally starting to see the emergence of a politics oriented around change, spurred on by the most severe political and economic crisis since the American conquest.

The result is that 2010 will be the most important, consequential, and decisive elections in a long time in California. While there are interesting and significant races for elected office that will be decided, it’s the ballot initiatives that really matter. Proposals from across the political spectrum will likely be on the November 2010 ballot in particular, setting up a major contest between right, left and corporate center to determine the future of this state at a pivotal moment in its history.

Even though it’s still unclear which initiatives will be on the ballot, with 51 initiatives in circulation and 37 pending at the Attorney General’s office, a significant number of which will likely make the ballot, it’s clear that the initiative process is still the primary path by which genuine change happens in this state.

And as we’ll see, it’s a path that is controlled not by the people, but by those with access to the large sums of money needed to get the signatures and qualify the initiative for the ballot. Many of the initiatives we’ll see on the November 2010 ballot will involve large corporations trying to use the state’s crisis to change the law, or even the constitution, to further empower and enrich themselves.

More below, including an overview of the initiatives on both the June and November ballots.

Let’s have a look at the Thunderdome contenders. Only a handful of initiatives have qualified for either June or November, but based on my own sources, a lot more are likely to qualify, almost all of them for November.

June 2010

Already qualified:

Seismic retrofitting – retrofits don’t add to property tax value

California Fair Elections Act – creates a public financing system for the Secretary of State’s race in 2014 and 2018

Top two primary – the fruit of Abel Maldonado’s blackmail, this would change the way primaries work to send the top two finishers regardless of party to the general election. The practical effect will be to force intraparty primary battles out into the general election, diverting money and resources from other fights.

Signatures submitted for qualification:

2/3rds vote for public power: PG&E’s effort to make it more difficult for localities to create public power utilities. A truly pernicious and anti-democratic proposal.

Mercury Insurance’s effort to gut Prop 103 – would enable auto insurers to raise rates for those who, for whatever reason, have had gaps in insurance coverage. Designed to punish the poor and leech money out of the middle class.

November 2010

Already qualified:

$11 billion water bond – although environmental groups are split, I expect most progressive organizations to unite against this massive giveaway of scarce taxpayer resources to large corporations, undermining those with senior water rights to favor relative but well-heeled newcomers who waste our water resources.

Likely to qualify:

(In other words, I am very confident these will be on the November 2010 ballot)

Marijuana legalization – Richard Lee’s effort has already gathered enough signatures, but they’re holding off on submitting them so as to ensure qualification for November. This may be one of the few genuinely progressive proposals on the November 2010 ballot, and will require a year-long effort from progressives to ensure it passes.

Term limits reform – backed by both the LA County Labor Fed and the LA County Chamber of Commerce and aided by a rather interesting donation of $300,000 to the qualification effort by the folks who got the legislature to pass a law helping bring an NFL stadium to the City of Industry. Unlike Prop 93, this would exempt current legislators from being able to serve longer in office, increasing its chances of passage. This too is a progressive solution, taking power back from the lobbyists and enabling voters to continue to send good people back to Sacramento if they so choose.

Parental notification, round 4 – this is the poster child for the need for initiative reform, the “bleed Planned Parenthood dry” strategy of trying to restrict women’s rights or destroy the pro-choice movement’s resources in the process. And it’s all but certain to be on the November ballot.

Constitutional Convention – The Bay Area Council has some money set aside to run a campaign to get their two initiatives on the ballot to convene a limited con-con, and have hired San Francisco political consultant Clint Reilly to run the effort. This one’s a bit less certain to make the ballot than the others in this category, but I still think it’s likely we’ll be voting on both proposals in November.

California Forward’s budget and governance proposals – perhaps the most ambitious and immediate set of solutions to our political and fiscal crisis, it’s also a center-right plan that would reinforce the momentum for spending cuts and having state government do less. It would also reinforce the 2/3rds rule for revenues by largely undoing the Sinclair Paints decision on fees. However, it may also be the only proposal on the ballot to restore majority rule on the budget.

Corporate tax loophole repeal – this proposal to repeal the $2 billion in corporate tax loopholes created in budget deals in 2008 and 2009 is probably going to get enough financial support to make the ballot in November. A welcome proposal it is – even if it doesn’t solve the whole budget crisis, it would help reverse the corporate-friendly nature of our budgeting.

Might qualify for the ballot:

(I’m less sure that these will make the ballot, and would put their chances at 50-50 at best, at least under present conditions)

Part-time legislature – this proposal to turn the legislature into a place only accessible to the wealthy has been withdrawn and resubmitted once. It’s unclear whether they have enough resources to get this on the ballot.

End to raids on local government funds – I hear different things about whether this will indeed qualify, but it’d be welcome if it did. This proposal would end once and for all the theft of local government funds by the state legislature. This is a badly needed reform to not only protect local services, but to force the legislature to actually fight to make long-term revenue solutions part of the budget, instead of trying ever more damaging gimmicks.

State parks funding – a coalition of state parks advocacy groups have raised $1 million for an initiative that would increase the vehicle license fee by $18 to fund state parks. It’s not yet clear if that’ll be enough to put this on the ballot – if so, then this initiative would go under the “likely qualify” heading.

Redistricting commission for Congressional seats – Charles Munger’s proposal to create a Prop 11-style commission for Congressional seats, currently exempt from Prop 11, would cause a big battle with Speaker Nancy Pelosi if it qualified. But it’s pretty unclear whether Munger has the resources to do so, and it might be harder to get them as the Prop 11 commission faces problems with its budget and in recruiting enough applicants.

Paycheck protection, pension cuts, split roll property tax – A big fight between labor and corporations is unfolding over rival ballot initiatives. Big corporations want to gut public employee pension rules and try once again to limit workers’ ability to organize politically, so CTA and other unions are threatening to put a split-roll initiative on the ballot. The link here goes to a Dan Walters column that says the corporate tax repeal is part of this battle, but I understand that initiative is likely to qualify anyway. This all could fizzle, or it could all go on the ballot anyway, dwarfing the battles in 2005 given everything else that’ll likely be on the November ballot.

New Prop 187 – similar to the notorious Prop 187 in 1994, this is an attack on undocumented Californians and the public services they need and that the rest of us need to ensure they receive. I’ve heard a lot of different things about whether this has the money to qualify. Right now it doesn’t look like it will, but definitely one to watch like a hawk.

Voter ID – similar to the New Prop 187 initiative, it’s hard to judge whether George Runner’s effort to limit democracy and voter participation has a shot at the ballot.

Unlikely to make the ballot:

Barring any surprise infusions of cash, the other dozens of initiatives circulating or pending at the AG’s office aren’t likely to make the ballot. Some of the more prominent ones that aren’t likely to qualify include Prop 8 repeal, defining a fetus as a person, the Lakoff majority vote initiative, and a bunch of totally wacko religious fundamentalist proposals.

Finally, it’s also possible, if not likely, that the upcoming budget solution will include tax proposals that will go to the voters in November as well.

The record for ballot initiatives in a single year in California is 1990, including 27 at the November election, including Prop 140 (which squeaked out a victory and created the term limits tyranny). Most of the November 1990 initiatives were defeated. November 2010 may not quite match that record, but in terms of the importance and significance of the proposals, this year’s initiatives may indeed produce a turning point in our state’s political history.

If nothing else, it will at least be a titanic political battle. Welcome to Thunderdome!

Perhaps Arnold Schwarzenegger will sing some Judas Priest at his New Year’s party tonight as yet another judge rules his furloughs are illegal:

An Alameda Superior Court judge has ordered the Schwarzenegger administration to stop furloughing thousands of public servants who are members of three major public sector unions, including the Service Employees International Union, Local 1000, offering state workers a huge legal victory as 2010 begins.

In a ruling handed down late Thursday, Judge Frank Roesch said the governor’s reliance on provisions of the state’s Emergency Services Act to order mandatory furloughs was flawed and illegal, saying “the emergency necessitating them was the failure of the Legislature to pass the budgets” yet the administration continued the furloughs even after the budgets were passed.

This comes on the heels of several other recent court decisions regarding Arnold’s budget cuts, including a recent case won by the prison guards union and another recent case blocking cuts to IHSS workers. As a result Arnold is whining about the courts, apparently upset that he is a governor and not a dictator, living in a system with three equal branches of government:

Schwarzenegger suggested in October that when judges make decisions, they should take into account the fact that California is grappling with a historic shortfall.

“Whenever they agree with me, they’re right, very simple,” Schwarzenegger said wryly in a Capitol news conference. “When they don’t agree with me, they’re wrong and they’re interfering with our governing of the state.”

Whatever, dude. Next time, try budgeting within the law rather than against it. Maybe in 2010 Arnold can make a resolution to actually solve the state’s budget crisis with lasting new revenues instead of breaking the law and hoping the courts won’t notice.

Two and a half years ago, the city of Stockton voted to abandon privatization of city water after four years of poor service, contamination, and soaring rates. It’s a textbook case of why public services should never be privatized – investors merely want to generate profits and don’t care about the quality of service, so they’ll cut corners and jack up rates.

One might have thought that this experience would have led the state legislature to stay as far away from water privatization as possible. And you’d be wrong, as the San Francisco Chronicle reported over the weekend:

Private companies could own, operate and profit from reservoirs and other water-storage projects built with billions in taxpayer dollars under a little-noticed provision of the $11.1 billion water bond that was approved by the Legislature and goes before California voters next year.

Lawmakers barely discussed the provision while considering the bond, and water experts who were asked about it by The Chronicle said they knew little about it or why it was a necessary part of the plan to overhaul the state’s water system….

The bond provides for the formation of what are known as joint powers authorities – usually a coalition of public entities that pool resources for projects they probably couldn’t do, or couldn’t afford to do, on their own. The water bond, though, specifically allows for the creation of joint powers authorities that “may include in their membership governmental and nongovernmental partners that are not located within their respective hydrologic regions in financing the surface storage projects.”

This came at the request of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District in the Sacramento Valley, where the $3.5 billion Sites Reservoir is going to be built, partly with funding from this bond. Instead of water fees going to pay off the costs of construction and operation, some would go into the pockets of an investor. In short, users would have to pay an investor to take a shower, wash their clothes, or cook their dinner.

As the Chronicle article shows, water privatization tends to benefit a few wealthy individuals (Stewart Resnick) and distorts the usage of water:

In a controversial agreement, the state officials turned control of the bank over to the Kern County Water Agency in 1995 in exchange for water rights to 45,000 acre-feet of water, or enough to meet the annual needs of about 90,000 households. Later that year, the Kern Water Bank Authority formed as a joint powers authority that includes the Kern County Water Agency, four other water districts and one private company, the Westside Mutual Water Co.

Westside now owns 48 percent of the shares of the water bank. The company is owned by Los Angeles billionaire Stewart Resnick and his Paramount Farms company…

Paramount Farms is in the midst of a significant expansion, according to the company. Most Kern County farmers have suffered through years of drought, and the water agency there declared a state of emergency this year due to a lack of water.

Arnold Schwarzenegger sells these kind of private funding deals to the voters as a way to save money – but they’ll spend more for the water fees than they would if we paid for this out of tax revenue.

Privatization of water resources – in any form – is a line that should never be crossed. Some places in California do get their water through private companies, such as we who live on the Monterey Peninsula. It’s a totally unnecessary situation, and should be avoided when possible. This news will only further damage the bond’s already doubtful prospects for passage. Which would be just fine by me given the numerous flaws in the proposal.

Shane Goldmacher got the scoop over at the LA Times on Arnold Schwarzenegger’s plans to close the budget gap in January 2010: more cuts! Lots of cuts! Huge, wacko, crazy cuts!

Facing a budget deficit of more than $20 billion, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to call for deep reductions in already suffering local mass transit programs, renew his push to expand oil drilling off the Santa Barbara coast and appeal to Washington for billions of dollars in federal help, according to state officials and lobbyists familiar with the plan.

If Washington does not provide roughly $8 billion in new aid for the state, the governor threatens to severely cut back — if not eliminate — CalWORKS, the state’s main welfare program; the In-Home Health Care Services program for the disabled and elderly poor, and two tax breaks for large corporations recently approved by the Legislature, the officials said….

The shift would gut a voter-approved measure, Proposition 42, that protects how current gas taxes are spent. Public transit — buses, rail and other forms of mass transportation — now receives 20% of all gas sales tax. After the tax swap, that requirement would disappear. The tax swap could also cost schools — as it would result in the share of tax revenues they are entitled to under state law dropping by more than $800 million.

That’s the meat of it: further and illegal cuts to public transportation (but apparently no cuts to roads), $800 million in cuts to schools, potential elimination of CalWORKS, drilling, and begging the feds for money.

In other words, more of the same. Oh sure, Arnold is willing to admit the $2 billion in corporate tax cuts created in the February 2009 budget deal was a bad idea. But everything else here is going to the same well Arnold’s gone to before, including things he knows the Legislature has rejected, such as offshore drilling.

What this proposal shows is a tired, exhausted, intellectually bankrupt governor playing out the string. This is his last January budget before he is finally termed out of office at the end of 2010. Instead of trying to chart a more sensible course for state finances, such as embracing some of the revenue proposals that have floated around, he is trying to do the same things he’s done in previous years, even though we know they’ll either fail in the Legislature or fail to balance the budget.

This proposal shows that the Arnold Schwarzenegger experiment is, beyond any doubt, a failure. Brought to Sacramento in 2003 to solve a budget crisis and “blow up the boxes,” he instead helped create a far larger crisis by remaining stuck inside his own boxes, including an unwillingness to address the structural revenue shortfall by raising taxes on the wealthy in order to protect the public services that are essential to economic recovery.

The federal government will have to come to the aid of California and the numerous other states still facing big budget deficits, unless Obama wants to risk jeopardizing the oh-so-tentative economic “recovery” some claim to be underway. But here again Arnold has consistently failed to bring federal money to California, another of his 2003 campaign pledges.

It’s not yet clear whether any of the gubernatorial candidates plan to chart a meaningfully different course than Arnold when it comes to the budget. But it should be clear to them that Arnold’s approach, of cuts and refusal to embrace taxes, is a complete failure.

The economic forecasters at Cal Lutheran University (who used to be based at UC Santa Barbara) are out with a new forecast that includes the headline claim that California is likely to default on its debt. In the words of lead forecaster Bill Watkins:

Our governor and legislature used every trick in their books when they created the most recent budget. They even resorted to mandatory interest-free loans from the taxpayers. Now, they have no idea where to go. The Democrats have declared that they will not allow budget cuts. The Republicans will not allow tax increases. They have probably run out of smoke and mirrors, although their ability to engage in budget gimmickry is amazing, enough to make an Enron accountant blush. No one is considering raising revenues by increasing economic activity.

In my opinion, California is now more likely to default than it is to not default. It is not a certainty, but it is a possibility that is increasingly likely.

Watkins then realizes that CA would be entering uncharted territory, that a CA default would spark a financial crisis on par with the failure of Lehman Bros in September 2008, and argues for a “balanced budget” and aid from the federal government and the Federal Reserve.

But nowhere does Watkins explain that a CA default is legally difficult, if not impossible. The state constitution mandates that debt service is the first use of public funds, followed by education. It’s entirely conceivable that state government, in a media climate where spending cuts are still seen as preferable to tax increases, will just keep chopping away in order to ensure that we avoid a default.

That’s the solution being imposed in Greece to avoid a default, and it seems likely that like the ECB and EU leaders, the Federal Reserve and US political leaders will similarly tell CA that the primary solution has to come through further spending cuts, regardless of the negative economic impact.

The forecast also argues that CA will not see new job creation until the second half of 2011 (two long years from now) and that the recovery will be “tepid.” Not much to argue with there.

However, the forecasters give themselves away when they throw in an entirely unnecessary article titled “How to Bring Back California.” It reads like Meg Whitman’s campaign platform, leading off with a ridiculous and evidence-free attack on AB 32:

Clearly, California creates an almost insignificant amount of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Whatever we save because of regulation will be insignificant. For one reason, much of our potential output will simply be moved to other places, with the possibility that total world output could increase. Even if we were to reduce carbon emissions to zero, China’s growth alone would offset our decline in only 15 months.

California alone cannot even impact global concentrations of carbon dioxide, much less be the solution to any carbon problem. However, California’s regulations are impacting Californians’ lives in distressing ways.

California’s regulations, particularly AB32, have made the state uncompetitive relative to other states. Businesses that might otherwise be in California are expanding and creating job opportunities elsewhere, while Californians suffer.

This is so absurd it’s hard to know where to begin. First, they offer no evidence at all that AB 32 is costing the state jobs. Further, the notion that CA doesn’t really impact the climate so why bother is itself utterly ridiculous – every place has to do its part to reduce carbon emissions, and CA merely took the lead in doing so when the federal government refused.

Did Watkins include the impact of the climate crisis on his economic forecast? Has he considered that the drought plaguing Central Valley farmers might have something to do with global warming? That the state’s economic recovery cannot survive further climatic shocks?

Apparently not, because that would conflict with his baseless right-wing attack on climate legislation.

Watkins goes on to argue that somehow we can strengthen K-12 education without spending more money, and build a 21st century infrastructure, though without even once discussing how it is to be funded.

The right-wing framing of this economic analysis should be considered when assessing some of its headline claims. California is facing a severe economic crisis, but these proposed solutions would merely make matters worse, not make them better.

California Democratic Party Chair John Burton sent an email this morning to the CDP list calling on respondents to email Senator Harry Reid to end the filibuster. Quoted from the email:

I’ll get right to the point: I’m through trying to figure Lieberman out. I’m through with holding my nose as I watch Democrats cobble together compromise after compromise on his behalf only to have him turn his back on us and on the millions of Americans in desperate need of reform….

Enough is enough. It’s time to end Joe Lieberman’s reign of terror and restore democracy to the Senate by changing Rule 22 and ending the filibuster….

Make no mistake: the threat of filibuster has resulted in too many victories for the status quo and is the single greatest impediment to real and lasting change in health care and beyond. With critical issues like climate change coming up on the legislative agenda, it’s clear that we can no longer afford to continue with business as usual in the Senate…

We have the votes to do it — it only takes a simple majority to end this anti-democratic practice. All we need is the will of the Democratic leadership in the Senate, and that’s where you come in.

Obviously this is primarily intended as a list-builder for the CDP. But it’s also a significant call for fundamental change in the way the US Senate operates. Burton will get no argument from me about the undemocratic nature of the filibuster – one of Obama’s most important mistakes was his failure to call for an end to the filibuster upon taking office, something that might have been possible back in January and could have spared him some of the headaches he’s dealt with this year.

Of course, California has two rather powerful US Senators. Has Burton delivered this “kill the filibuster” message to Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer? If Burton is serious about killing the filibuster, and I hope he is, then he should have no hesitation calling on our own Senators to support an end to the filibuster.

…additionally, I’m with Jane Hamsher on this, Lieberman is an easy scapegoat; Reid and Obama bear far more responsibility for what has happened.