All posts by Robert Cruickshank

Election 2010

The Oracle Speaks

9 Comments

In the wake of Gavin Newsom’s announcement that he was quitting the race for governor, I argued that California, Democrats, and Jerry Brown would be better off with a contested primary. This morning, our friends at Calbuzz took issue with that argument. Labeling me the “Oracle of Cruickshank” they argued that Dems would be “nuts” to want a contested primary:

Now while Calbuzz has no horse in the race, on either side, and though we’d dearly love a Dem horse race to write about, we do have a penetrating analytical question to ask those Democrats who want a competitive primary: “Are you out of your friggin’ minds?”

You have the ideal situation right now, tactically and strategically, and you want to screw it up? What are you – Democrats?

By “ideal situation” they mean an uncontested primary that enables Brown to hoard his resources until the summer, when he can concentrate his fire on the Republican nominee. According to our friends at Calbuzz, we progressives are crazy to look such a gift horse in the mouth.

Except, as I’ll argue below, it’s not such a gift horse at all. The Calbuzz article, while interesting, doesn’t actually address the core elements of my argument for a contested primary, while offering as its evidence only one out of many gubernatorial races. Now that I’ve had my morning hit of ethylene, I can give you my oracular wisdom.

First, the Calbuzz case against a contested primary:

Consider Exhibit A – 1990 – when U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson was begged by California Republicans to come back and run for governor because they were convinced there was nobody at home who could beat then S.F. Mayor Dianne Feinstein or Attorney General John Van de Kamp.

Wilson stepped into the breach, with no need to run a primary campaign. “It allowed us to position Pete for general election – pro-choice, anti-offshore drilling – two incredibly important symbols of moderation, AND we were able to hold our resources and our fire for DiFi in June, with an entire campaign planned from June to November,” recalled Don Sipple, Wilson’s media strategist.

“If you will recall, it was an off year with GOP controlling White House and we had to buck headwinds at the end,” Sipple remembered. “All of the advantages cited above came into play in order for Pete to squeak out a close win in a tough campaign.”

1990 is one possible example of how this election could go. 1998 is another. Gray Davis survived a contested primary against not one but two wealthy opponents (Jane Harman and Al Checchi) and went on to defeat a Republican, Dan Lungren, who had won an essentially uncontested primary. And of course, as I argued in my original post, the Obama-Clinton primary of 2008, which was fought very intensely here in California, wound up playing a key role in motivating and organizing the Democratic base in CA to work to elect Obama in the general election. Obama was a far stronger candidate because of that contested primary.

One of my core arguments, in fact, was that the conditions of the 2010 campaign made a strong case for a contested primary. 2010 isn’t 1990, it’s not 1998, and it’s not 2008. It is an electoral landscape that ought to be assessed on its own merits – merits I believe show the value of a contested primary. Here’s what I had to say about 2010:

As we’re seeing in Virgina and New Jersey gubernatorial races, the deciding factor is whether the Obama voters of 2008 will turn out to elect Democrats in state gubernatorial races. The answer to that question is clear: where the candidate espouses openly progressive positions, as Jon Corzine has begun to do in New Jersey, he has some success in motivating the Obama voters to return to the polls and elect a Democratic governor. Whereas Creigh Deeds couldn’t distance himself from Obama quickly enough and took anti-progressive positions, and now faces a resounding defeat at the hands of a wingnut….

This centrist positioning is the same playbook Brown ran as mayor of Oakland, where he frequently battled progressives. In short, Brown is unlikely to offer the kind of progressive language and policies that are required to drive a favorable turnout in November 2010 to get himself elected.

That argument was at the center of my case for a contested primary – that Brown has to motivate a significant chunk of the 2008 Obama electorate turn out for him in November 2010, and that the only way to ensure it happens is for him to espouse some progressive policies that offer a way out of the current crisis. Given Brown’s long history of triangulation politics – his “canoe theory” – and his embrace of anti-tax politics, it seems that the only way to push Brown to offer the kind of vision he needs to win the general election is to have a primary challenger who can make Brown compete for the progressive electorate.

Calbuzz seems to try and dismiss this argument, if indirectly:

It’s a no-brainer, really: Why would Brown want to be pulled to the left on gay marriage, driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants,  taxes, or whatever? Why would he want to have to kiss ass for the CCPOA, CTA or any other labor union that would extract promises in exchange for money and volunteers?

While those unions will probably turn out for Brown in the fall anyway, it’s not at all clear that “the left” will do so. Brown very much needs to “kiss ass” to progressives if they’re going to be motivated to care about his election. This is the lesson of Virginia and New Jersey, where moderate Democrats generally took progressives for granted and gave them little reason to organize to overcome the right-wing hordes.

As the LA Times/USC poll indicated, voter disillusionment and apathy is likely to be a significant feature of politics in 2010. The candidate that can best overcome that sense of despair is the candidate who will be our next governor.

Again, as we saw in VA and NJ, that candidate could well be a Republican. Flush with money and with a motivated base, Whitman and/or Poizner would give Brown a serious challenge anyway, but particularly if Brown fails to energize his base. Tom Campbell presents the problem in a different way, someone whose policy positions aren’t likely to significantly differ from Brown’s and who could therefore win the independent voters Brown believes are essential to victory, once again assuming Brown can’t motivate progressive turnout.

Judging by the Calbuzz article, it’s not clear if Brown understands this:

Having run statewide in California for secretary of state, governor, senator, attorney general and president, it’s not as if Brown is a newcomer in the political process. “Even more important,” Willie Brown told us, “He is not a newcomer to the thought process of government.”

But progressives like the Oracle of Cruickshank aren’t convinced. “A contested Democratic gubernatorial primary is essential to not only a strong Democratic campaign in the fall of 2010, but more importantly, to rebuilding the shattered ruins of a once-golden state,” Cruickshank wrote.

To which Jerry Brown replied the other day: “Do you know how many primaries I’ve been through?”

And yet my point is that it doesn’t matter how many primaries he’s been through. All that matters is whether he knows what’s needed to win the 2010 general election. Instead of showing he has some plan to woo progressive voters and generate the kind of momentum and grassroots activity he’ll need to win a turnout election, Brown seems content to rest on his past experiences and assume he can run the same game plan to victory.

Perhaps Brown is right. But it’s not a chance Californians, Democrats, or progressives ought to take. This oracle predicts the only way to push Brown to embrace the progressive policies he’ll need to win is through a contested primary.

Election 2010

Peak California

16 Comments

Over the last few weeks a debate has raged online and in print about whether California is a failed state. By now you likely know my answer: it is, but we can and must revive the California Dream for the 21st century. Doing so, however, requires some rather fundamental changes to the way the state is governed and to our basic assumptions about where our prosperity comes from, especially in how we use the land.

Since those changes seem further away than ever, it ought to come as no surprise that according to a new LA Times/USC poll, Californians believe “the best years have passed”:

There was little confidence that the next governor, whoever he or she may be, would be able to successfully battle California’s problems. Voters were split over whether the winning candidate would be able to bring about “real change.” More than half of voters said that California’s problems are long-term in nature and will not ease substantially when the national economy recovers.

“I just feel like we are spinning our wheels,” said Tracey Blair, a mother of two from Mar Vista who described herself in a follow-up interview as an independent-minded Democrat. “I don’t feel like it’s going anywhere at the moment…. It’s a feeling of — like we’ve peaked.”

It’s difficult to argue with Ms. Blair. California is running on the fumes of the great engine of prosperity built by Pat Brown in the 1960s. Our politics are dominated by those who seek to protect the unequal distribution of wealth, where even widely popular efforts to address our multifaceted crisis, like high speed rail, are getting bogged down by those who adamantly refuse to accept the need to change.

California is destroying its educational system, shredding what little remains of job growth and innovation, and strangling the middle- and working classes. In a state where most voters want expanded government services and have shown a willingness to pay for them, politicians from both parties instead fall all over themselves to offer budget cuts, deathly afraid to offer genuine solutions. Our best years are indeed behind us, at least for the time being.

It doesn’t have to be that way. But nobody running for governor in 2010 is offering a positive vision of future prosperity and sustainability. Jerry Brown seems determined to stick to the status quo instead of offering Californians a vision for the next 30 years. Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner are battling each other to see who can burn down what’s left of the state the fastest, and Tom Campbell merely wants to take it apart more slowly and more methodically.

In that light, consider the other numbers from the LA Times/USC poll on the governor and US Senate races:

GOP US Senate: Fiorina 27, DeVore 27,  Undecided 40

GOP CA Governor: Whitman 35, Campbell 27, Poizner 10, Undecided 23

Unfortunately they didn’t poll some of the head-to-head matchups for the general election.

Election 2010, Jerry Brown

Oh Dianne, You Tease

4 Comments

With Gavin Newsom dropping out of the governor’s race and leaving Jerry Brown as the only Democratic candidate, speculation was sure to rise about Senator Dianne Feinstein and whether she would seek to avenge her narrow 1990 defeat and run for governor in 2010. Sure, most observers don’t think she’d do it, but until she flatly denies it, the chatter will continue.

And it’s going to continue after the AP caught up with her and asked her about the governor’s race. She didn’t rule it out, but made it obvious that she’s primarily in it for the attention:

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Thursday she will base a decision on whether to run for California governor next year largely on the solutions the announced candidates put forward to deal with the state’s fiscal problems….

“What does affect it is watching to see what precise programs are put forward by various candidates to handle what is a very serious structural budget deficit in this state,” Feinstein said. “It’s of major consequence and California is in considerable distress, and there have to be reforms.”

Feinstein said she would take a close look at candidates’ dedication to enacting their proposals as well as their ability to develop enough support to enact the changes.

There’s really only one way to read this: she’s going to endorse Jerry Brown, say he meets her standards, and wait to do so until a moment when it will be of maximum benefit to Brown.

Feinstein and Brown are good friends. She officiated his wedding in 2005, and speaking as someone who’s officiated a wedding himself, one of the last things I’d do is challenge the groom in a race for the state’s top office.

Feinstein also will likely be loath to give up her Senate seniority, which is likely to become even more important in the coming years. Ironically, a loss of Democratic seats in the Senate would make DiFi even more powerful and important than she is now, as she’s seen as a bipartisan dealmaker.

For those and other reasons, it seems unlikely that DiFi wants to run for governor. Instead she’s teasing the media, enjoying the attention she gets. As the interview made clear:

When asked if she had the patience to deal with a state Legislature that has often been described as dysfunctional, she replied: “That’s a very good question. It shall be unanswered for the moment.”

The reason “it shall be unanswered for the moment” is because she doesn’t want to give up the attention she gets out of being seen as a possible candidate. And the “for the moment” statement seems to reinforce the argument I laid out above, that she isn’t going to run, and is going to endorse Brown at some moment in the spring of 2010.

California Democrats who think a contested primary is good for the party and good for the ultimate nominee are going to have to keep looking for another candidate – it ain’t gonna be DiFi. And thank god for it. As uncertain I am about whether Jerry Brown would be the right person to lead California out of our present crisis, I am completely certain Dianne Feinstein would be the wrong person. Let’s hope she decides to retire in 2012 and trouble us no more.

Uncategorized

65% of Tax Proposals Pass

6 Comments

We are often told that Californians will not vote to tax themselves. One would have thought after November 2008, where voters in four of the state’s most populous counties (Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Sonoma and Marin) approved tax increases to pay for passenger rail with 2/3rds majorities, that such a meme would have died. But it did not; old assumptions die hard, especially when they challenge conventional wisdom and conservative truths.

Yesterday’s election once again proved that, generally speaking, Californians are quite willing to tax themselves. Not every tax proposal passed, but in an extremely low turnout election (20% in Salinas, for example, a city which saw 80% turnout in November 2008) it’s a sign of how open CA voters are to taxes that nearly 2/3rds of them are headed for approval.

As Michael Coleman demonstrates, 65% of local tax measures on yesterday’s ballot are headed toward approval, putting to rest the notion that CA voters are inherently opposed to new taxes.

Granted, not every proposal passed. One common theme in yesterday’s election was resistance to using the sales tax as a method of providing for local services. In an election defined by economic populism, voters in Salinas, Ventura, and San Carlos said they did not want a regressive tax to fund key services (though San Mateo and Gustine did pass those taxes). Voters would likely prefer more progressive taxes, those that ask the wealthy to pay their fair share. Unfortunately local governments don’t generally have the power to levy those kind of taxes, and owing to Prop 13, have become dependent on the sales tax even against their own better judgement.

Some proposals easily cleared the 50% hurdle, but owing to the 2/3rds rule are going to “fail.” In a vote that I find especially painful since it’s the town just a few blocks away, Pacific Grove’s library is likely to close because a parcel tax to keep it open received 65% of the vote, but not the 66.7% it needed to pass. There may be a few votes still out there to push this over the top, but it’s a sign of how cruel and stupid the 2/3rds rule is, giving power to a small minority and disempowering the majority.

In some cases, local circumstances dictated the outcome. The Salinas sales tax proposal was dogged by concerns that the city council had misspent the funds from a 2005 sales tax increase, claims that have some merit. More significant in both Salinas and Ventura were low turnout; had the electorate more closely resembled that of November 2008 both measures might have passed.

What these measures do clearly show is that in an off-off-year election, where turnout is abysmal and favors conservatives, Californians are still willing to tax themselves to pay for government services. The notion that Californians are inherently opposed to taxes took another major hit yesterday. Let’s see if Democrats learn the lesson.

Environment

Meanwhile, Back On The Ranch…

8 Comments

While most of us were focused on election returns, the legislature approved the big water deal that includes a bond of $11 billion. That’s up $1 billion from the previous version, as Los Angeles demanded and won more funding for conservation.

As usual, Republicans held up approval of the package in order to win more concessions and score more political points. One of the concessions they won includes weakened penalties for illegal water diversion:

Republicans won a major concession as Democrats agreed to sever an enforcement bill from the water package that cracked down on illegal diversions of water, boosted fines and increased the power of the state water boards — provisions long demanded by environmentalists….

Assembly Republican Leader Sam Blakeslee of San Luis Obispo opposed the water-rights bill, in part because of the tough enforcement provisions that sharply increased the authority of state water boards, according to Capitol sources in both parties familiar with the negotiations. Blakeslee was not immediately available to comment.

The bill also included fines of $5,000 or more per day for illegal diversions and allowed the water boards to initiate their own investigations rather than act on complaints. One provision allowed fines pegged to the “market value” of water, which environmentalists said could result indaily penalties far exceeding $5,000.

Republicans had also pitched a fit about funding for a Sacramento tolerance center Sen. Darrell Steinberg had included in the bills. At $10 million, the cost was negligible compared to the overall package, but Republicans couldn’t resist the chance to make Democrats look like pork barrel spenders – especially since doing so helped hide the far larger “pork” spending in the form of $3 billion for unnecessary dams that Republicans won in the water bond.

Assemblywoman Alyson Huber’s efforts to pass an amendment requiring legislative approval to build a Peripheral Canal failed, meaning that under the current deal, a new Delta Stewardship Council, with a majority of members appointed by the governor, would have the power to approve a canal. Both Westlands Water District and LA’s Metropolitan Water District said the deal “paves the way” for that canal.

Since the water policy bills have been de-linked from the bond itself, it seems even more likely that the bond will go down in flames next year when voters are asked to approve it. A combination of progressive opposition to new dams and concern over the impact of the debt service on other general fund programs will likely combine with moderate and conservative unease about $11 billion in spending to sink the bond.

The only way this could pass is if there’s a consistent effort across the state to convince people that the bond is essential to their future, that the cost of doing nothing is greater than the cost of the bond. So far, that case hasn’t been made, and it’s difficult to see how it will be, given that this whole deal is motivated by little more than the desire of Westlands to cut in line and for MWD to have everyone else in the state subsidize their sprawl.

Uncategorized

Garamendi Victory Thread

10 Comments

The US Congress is about to get a new – and very progressive – member. John Garamendi has been elected tonight to represent the 10th Congressional district. We always said the 10th could do better than Ellen Tauscher, and tonight Garamendi proved it. From a press release sent out by the Garamendi campaign:

“Today, the voters have spoken; they still have hope and still want change,” Garamendi told a crowd of hundreds of enthusiastic supporters. “I will hit the ground running in Congress and look forward to casting a vote for comprehensive health care reform that includes the public option, helping to enact President Obama’s vision for America.”

Added Garamendi, “We stayed true to ourselves throughout this campaign, articulating a vision for the district and America that is bold and necessary. President Obama’s federal stimulus package helped save us from the brink of economic ruin, but our work is not done. At this moment of crisis in America, we need leadership that will create green jobs and take on the powerful interests delaying reform.  More than three decades in public service have prepared me for this moment, and you better believe I didn’t run for this seat to be a backbencher.”

The emphasis there is mine, and it’s important. Garamendi isn’t going to walk into Congress on Thursday (when he is likely to be sworn in) and take a quiet seat in the back. No, as one of California’s leading progressives, he is going to take his decades of policy experience and leadership and start working immediately to produce better, more socially democratic outcomes in the House. I’m excited about Congressman John Garamendi.

If Garamendi is sworn in on Thursday, he will resign his seat as Lieutenant Governor the same day. No word yet on who Arnold plans to appoint to that seat.

Congratulations to John Garamendi!

Uncategorized

November 2009 Election Results

8 Comments

As we keep a watch on some of the big races back east, including the Maine marriage equality battle that has turned out to be every bit the nailbiter we expected, we’ll be using this as a thread to update some of the California races on today’s ballot.

CA-10 results from Secretary of State:

28% reporting

Garamendi: 56.1%

Harmer: 39.5%

Also, have a look at Ballotpedia’s list of CA local initiatives. We’ll provide updates of some of the higher profile issues, including SF initiatives, Salinas Measure K (sales tax), Ventura Measure A (sales tax), among others.

Feel free to post updates from measures you’re following in the comments.

UPDATE 3: Ventura Measure A going down, 44-56.

UPDATE 2: AP and SF Chronicle call it for Garamendi.

UPDATE: Salinas Measure K (sales tax) doing poorly with absentee votes. As you see above, Garamendi maintains his sizable lead.

Uncategorized

Election Day in California

1 Comment

Some of the stories we’ll be following here at Calitics:

• CA-10 becomes a left-wing district. John Garamendi, one of the most progressive California politicians we have and a true leader on a broad range of issues, is going to get elected to Congress today. While the right thinks they have an upset potential here, it’s simply not going to happen. Garamendi has a great GOTV operation and widespread support in the district. And whereas the right will spin whatever Harmer’s vote total turns out to be as some sort of victory, the real story here is that CA-10, which as recently as 1996 was a red district, has now become a solidly progressive district. We always said the 10th could do better than Ellen Tauscher. Today John Garamendi is going to prove it.

• Californians will vote to tax themselves to support government spending. In cities across the state there are local tax measures on the ballot to help local governments survive the effects of the economic crisis and the theft of their funds by state government. Many of these will pass, and disprove the conventional wisdom that Californians won’t tax themselves.

• The majority will be prevented from governing itself. Perhaps even more important than the number of tax measures that get 66.7% is the number that get 50%+1. Most of the local tax measures that will “fail” will have easily cleared the 50% mark. But thanks to the 2/3rds rule that gives conservatives veto power over virtually all local government decisions, the desire of the majority of Californians to preserve their parks, libraries, police and fire departments will be blocked.

• The battle between democracy and teabaggery. American politics is quickly returning to its pre-1950 state, where the centrist consensus is rendered impossible by economic insecurity that foregrounds the debate of whether we should use democracy to promote prosperity, or whether we should attack democracy and government as undermining the wealthy and the privileged. Most of the tax proposals revolve around this very question, but so do issues like whether the Carmel Valley will choose to incorporate or not. Supporters of incorporation espouse local control and democracy; opponents claim a Town of Carmel Valley will provide another layer of oppressive government and will raise people’s taxes. (It’s amusing watching them complain that a town won’t be “financially viable” – by that logic the state of California should be dissolved and the USA disbanded.)

• The fight for equality. Both Maine and Washington are voting today on equal rights laws – Maine will vote on whether to keep marriage equality; Washington will vote on whether to keep domestic partnership rights (itself a test of whether WA will support full marriage equality). The outcome of both ballot questions will shed light on how we can reverse last year’s injustice and repeal Proposition 8.

What stories will you be following? Tell us in the comments.

Environment

Will There Be A Water Deal Tonight?

7 Comments

With Democratic leadership eager to get a water deal done, the legislature appears set to vote tonight on two water bills, with Speaker Bass saying members will “make history today” by approving a package. The “policy” bills, focusing on Delta restoration and conservation, have been technically split from the big water bond, but there remain fundamental political linkages. And as the day wears on, more and more opposition to these bills, and ultimately to the entire process, emerges.

As things stand now, there will be a $10 billion bond to construct “dams, regional water projects, and ecosystem restoration”, $3 billion of which goes to build dams at Temperance Flat and Sites, and to expand Los Vaqueros Dam near Livermore. Unlike every other water project in state history, these would be funded by taxpayers, and not solely by the users of these projects. They would also not be subject to separate legislative approval.

The policy bill includes the creation of a Delta Stewardship Council to help oversee the use of the Delta. A majority of its members would be appointed by the governor, and it would have the authority to approve the construction of a Peripheral Canal, subject to certain environmental thresholds that are currently unclear. As the Contra Costa Times explains, Westlands Water District – which has been driving this process by demanding to be allowed to cut in line ahead of other water users and to be subsidized to do so – is satisfied with the proposed language:

At the heart of the new policy is a framework for a canal to route water around the Delta, a prospect that Delta interests detest because it could curtail housing development, make it more difficult to farm and could harm water quality and fish by diverting a portion of the Sacramento River out of its natural watercourse.

The path to building a peripheral canal would be clearer and more certain, but it would also be more difficult. The bills would strictly require the canal’s vehicle, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, to ensure its operation actually restores the Delta.

The provision has the support of the state’s largest irrigation district but has split environmental groups.

The Westlands Water District supports the legislation because, despite its strict language, it provides “a clear path” to a new way to move water around the Delta.

“We’re not certain we can meet (the requirements). We hope we can,” said Ed Manning, a lobbyist for the Westlands Water District in the San Joaquin Valley, in testimony last week.

The policy bill also includes some statewide groundwater measuring standards, and mandates 20% conservation of water, statewide, by 2020.

Key environmental groups, labor unions, and other Californians are already taking sides. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) are embracing the deal, with CLCV doesn’t think the deal is perfect but thinks it’s good enough to support at this time. On the other side, the Sierra Club opposes the deal, and Carl Pope denounced the process in a HuffPo op-ed.

Water agencies are similarly split. NorCal water agencies now oppose the deal, though most SoCal agencies, led by the mammoth Metropolitan Water District of Los Angeles, playing key roles in getting the deal done.

Of political significance, Artesia Democrat Tony Mendoza reports CTA is opposed to the water bond, likely to be joined by several other major labor unions who are rightly concerned about crowding out public services spending by adding to general fund debt service levels, with Treasurer Bill Lockyer warning 10% of the general fund could be going to service debt if the water bond is approved.

Not being in Sacramento, you should take my prognostications with a grain of salt (preferably salt from the western San Joaquin Valley, which has too much of it). But I would be surprised if this deal goes through. Unlike the budget, there’s no looming threat of statewide fiscal meltdown. Failing to approve a water deal won’t cause government to shut down, it won’t cut off payments to schools and workers.

There is considerable political pressure to do a deal, but there is growing pressure to not do a deal. CTA’s opposition is significant, and may give Democrats who might be inclined to back the deal some pause, especially those looking to move up to other elected offices in 2010.

Finally, there is the question of the electorate. Any water bond has to go before voters in 2010, likely at the November election. I have a very difficult time seeing voters approving a $10 billion water bond, especially considering that the state’s finances aren’t likely to be in much better shape.

More importantly, the water bond will come with significant environmental and policy costs that other similar bonds haven’t had. For example, I was a strong supporter of the Prop 1A bond last year that authorized $10 billion for high speed rail. But that essentially came with no costs and  no downsides. HSR creates thousands of jobs, generating new tax revenue and saving people money on their travel costs without negative environmental impacts. In fact, high speed trains powered by renewable energy help provide cleaner air and mitigate against global warming.

That doesn’t eliminate the financial questions, but it made HSR a far easier sell than a water bond that could produce major environmental damage. After all, the bonds to build a Peripheral Canal were rejected by voters at the 1982 election, for many of the same reasons as a 2010 bond might go down in flames as well.

Whether a deal gets done tonight or not, the torturous process, once again largely hidden from public view, that produced the deal is yet another sign of how broken our state government has become.

UPDATE by Robert: The Delta governing bill, SBX7 1, passes by a 29-5 vote. No roll call just yet. Sen. Steinberg’s press secretary, Alicia Trost, counters claims on Twitter that this is a deal done in the dark:

Water pkg has had 9 months of public debate, 10 full public hearings.  Cogdill bond bill has been around for 3 yrs.

Note the “X7” in the bill title. This is the seventh special session in the current legislature. Not exactly an argument for a part-time legislature, is it?!

…the Cogdill bond bill, SBX7 2, is currently under debate. Cogdill says we need this for when we have 50 million people in the state. Lois Wolk speaks against this, arguing we can’t add the debt load to the general fund. Ironic to see Republicans calling for profligate spending – IOKIYAR! Or, It’s OK If You Hired Sean Hannity To Whine On Your Behalf (IOKIYHSHTWOYB).

…Wolk says SEIU now opposes bond along with CTA, complains that Delta will have to pay into the mitigation fund – “like asking a crime victim to pay half the restitution. shame on you all.”

…Maldonado speaks in favor, says we’ve been talking about this for 30 years, we need bipartisan solutions, we have to do this even if some people think it’s unpopular, blah blah blah. Will Arnold pick him for Lt. Gov already and get him out of our hair? I can’t stand having this guy represent us. Why exactly should your Central Coast constituents, Abel, have to pay to subsidize Westlands or let SoCal sprawl?

…Maldonado isn’t talking about water, he’s running for Controller and gunning for Central Valley votes. He’s already decided that his Central Coast constituents can be tossed overboard for his own ambitions. And not for the first time.

…love watching GOP Sen. Benoit (Riverside County) almost trip over his contradictory wingnut talking points, justifying the now $9.9 billion water bond because of global warming “even though, uh, some of us, uh, might question that” (referring to global warming).

…Cogdill closes on the finances: “hope and pray” that in 5 years there is economic recovery and the money won’t be an issue. I see that hope and prayer are what pass for Republican financial planning these days.

…$9.9 billion water bond squeaks by 28-8 (needs 2/3rds). Some Dem noes include Mark Leno, Mark DeSaulnier, Lois Wolk, Pat Wiggins. Didn’t catch the full list.

…SBX7 7 up now, the water conservation bill, with some last-minute amendments. It would be great if this bill information was being updated in real-time for us out in the public. As far as I can tell, without having seen the recent amendments, this is a good bill.

…20% conservation by 2020 is totally doable, especially for urban users. No excuse for not doing so, no matter the specific problems with this water deal. Time for CA to stop wasting water. Too bad this is linked to a ridiculous water-wasting and Delta-killing deal.

…water conservation bill passes 25-13. On to the Assembly next. And I’m headed to sleep.

Budget

Mike Genest Tells Truth About Poizner On His Way Out the Door

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s right-wing Director of Finance, Mike Genest, is resigning from his post, after being the governor’s point man on the budget since 2005. And after being the governor’s point man on gutting the state these last few years, he is leaving with a few parting shots. Not at the current governor, but at one of the hopefuls looking to replace him: Steve Poizner. As Genest tells it to George Skelton, Poizner’s 10-10-10 tax cut plan is a political non-starter as well as economically and financially ruinous:

“Tax cuts do tend to improve the economy,” Genest says, “but it’s very hard historically to find where they result in a revenue increase. You could argue that the best thing for the economy is to have no taxes at all, but people depend on some government services. Without them, we don’t have any economy. If you don’t believe me, look at Somalia.”

Genest continues: “There’s no basis to believe that a tax cut now would be affordable given the budget situation the state faces. I know Rush Limbaugh is going to hate me.”

As for deeper spending cuts, Genest says: “You can always cut spending by 10%. The question is do you want to. We just tried to close parks, and that didn’t work out. We tried to take money away from women’s shelters and had to relent on that.”

I like Genest’s honesty here – he says they wanted to close parks and cause further harm to battered women, but that public outcry prevented this. One wonders if Democratic leaders will get the message: Arnold can be forced to back down if the Dems refuse to go along with his hurtful cuts by mobilizing public outrage. Skelton, for once, helpfully connected the dots and showed that the attack on government itself actually hurts instead of helps businesses and jobs:

There’s also a dispute about whether businesses and wealthy Californians really are fleeing the state to escape high taxation. Many think any fleeing has more to do with high property costs, traffic congestion and subpar public schools.

“If high income taxes were chasing away rich Californians, high-income households would be more likely than low-income households to move to states without income taxes, but they aren’t,” the Public Policy Institute of California reported in July. And two years ago, the institute found that “when California businesses relocate, most stay within — rather than moving out of — the state.”

This gets to a fundamental truth that most Californians understand, but that Poizner is determined to ignore: without strong public services, California is an undesirable place to live, work, create, and innovate. The best way to chase away businesses and jobs is to destroy our schools, wipe out our health care system, and let our transportation system become paralyzed through gridlock and dependence on oil.

In fact, a coalition of business groups have come together to fight for one of the big government spending programs designed to help California’s crisis – high speed rail. I fully expect Poizner to oppose the high speed rail project, so I would like to see him explain that opposition to the corporations that comprise the SF Chamber of Commerce, the Bay Area Council, and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, who together founded the new HSR coalition.

Skelton also quoted from Lou Cannon, noted biographer of Ronald Reagan, who pointed out that the Republican hero himself supported several tax increases in California, including the largest ever (as a proportion of the budget) to close a budget gap in 1967. At least while he was governor, Reagan understood the role of government in providing for the California Dream.

It’s a role Poizner refuses to understand, even when a fellow right-winger like Mike Genest tries to explain it to him. Although I’m sure it will play well with the teabagger base.