Today has become an impromptu but very much needed day of action targeting Arnold Schwarzenegger and his insistence on massive budget cuts. The California Labor Fed hosted a series of rallies around the state, including an Arnold dunk tank in Fresno. As the budget negotiations are seemingly coming down to the final hours (although how close they can really be with Prop 98 still a wide-open question is unclear), progressive activists get how important it is to push back against Arnold’s messaging. Californians don’t want massive cuts, and they do want a truly shared sacrifice.

That’s why we at the Courage Campaign commissioned this video, “Up in Smoke,” from noted political video producers Truth and Hope. It plays off Arnold’s notorious “jacuzzi and stogie” comment to inspire our members to take action and call the governor to demand the budget not be balanced on the backs of the poor and working families.

We all know the numerous and structural reasons for the crisis in Sacramento. And we know how difficult it is to produce anything other than a regressive right-wing outcome on the budget. Yet Arnold holds a significant amount of responsibility for the present mess as well, particularly in his refusal to embrace shared sacrifices that would, oh I don’t know, actually require the wealthy and corporations to share in the sacrifice?

If we’re going to overturn 30 years of right-wing framing, we have to be persistent about it. This video and our call the governor action are part of that strategy.

Over the flip is the email Marqueece Harris Dawson of the Community Coalition of South LA sent to our members this afternoon.

Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Executive Director of the Community Coalition of South Los Angeles — one of the leading social and economic justice organizations in our state — asked us to share this email with the Courage Campaign community. He is witnessing first-hand the suffering that cuts to public services are causing across California.

Please also check out the video we produced, which highlights Gov. Schwarzenegger’s priorities at this dire moment. With rumors of a budget deal happening in the next 24 hours, we need you to call the Governor now.

Rick Jacobs

Chair, Courage Campaign

Dear Robert —

Arnold Schwarzenegger is about to let our state go up in smoke. But you can stop him.

I’ve never seen things this bad. Millions of ordinary Californians are on the brink of losing health insurance for their children, care for their sick, elderly or disabled parents, experiencing deep cuts to school funding and struggling to put food on their tables.

The one person who should be providing the most leadership to guide the state out of this unprecedented fiscal crisis seems to be the person least concerned.

Governor Schwarzenegger has shown both a lack of genuine, responsible leadership and of empathy to the effects of the fiscal crisis on ordinary working families. He recently boasted to a New York Times reporter that he was “perfectly fine” and that he could still go home and “sit down in my Jacuzzi” and “lay back with a stogie.”

With budget negotiations heating up today, we need to let the Governor know that while he may be fine, millions of Californians are not. Watch the Courage Campaign’s new online video and then call the Governor at (916) 445-2841. And report the results of your call:

http://www.couragecampaign.org…

Even worse — in a feeble attempt to distract the public from his leadership failures, the Governor is using charges of “fraud, waste, and abuse” as a cover for attacks on poor people, working families, and the vital public services that they use.

Gov. Schwarzenegger’s so-called “reform” proposals — like fingerprinting in-home care service providers — are punitive and have little to do with the budget. All while California loses millions and lives are jeopardized with each passing day without a budget.

We can’t let these attacks on working people go unanswered. We can’t let ordinary Californians drown in the fiscal crisis while the Governor sits in his jacuzzi and smokes a stogie.

That’s why — with budget negotiations reaching a critical point today — I’m asking you to take action right now. Call Governor Schwarzenegger at (916) 445-2841 right now and let him know that you oppose balancing budgets on the back of the poor:

http://www.couragecampaign.org…

Thank you for joining me and the Courage Campaign in making your voice heard today.

Marqueece Harris-Dawson

Community Coalition of South LA

One of the great progressive achievements in American history (and no, that isn’t hyperbole) is the nationwide adoption of universal public education. Here in California we went one better and created what for many decades was seen as the world’s leading system of higher education – the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education.

Both were created out of the recognition that for California to have broadly shared economic prosperity, it was essential that we have a strong public education system that included affordable and accessible college education for those who desired it. California’s fantastic economic success over the last 50 to 60 years was enabled in no small part by this commitment to education. And even after the state began entering a slow period of decline in 1978, with increasing inequality and slowly contracting public services, the educational system was still able to train a skilled and innovative workforce that helped sustain California until the present crisis hit.

Now all of that is about to be destroyed. California’s colleges are facing cuts so vast that they will finally eliminate what remains of the affordable and accessible promise while turning the world-renowned system into “bachelor degree mills” that no longer contribute research knowledge to the state – knowledge that in the past spawned entire industries, including the high-tech industry.

At the same time the state legislature is poised to deliver major cuts to education spending – the only debate at this point seems to be “how” and not “if.” Schools already sustained a $9 billion hit through an illegal interpretation of the Prop 98 rules, so now Arnold Schwarzenegger wants the legislature to suspend Prop 98 outright. Democrats, who have been engaged in a slow-motion cave yet again, appear likely to go along with some form of the insane cut.

Nobody has yet explained how this will do anything to promote economic recovery. Instead it is likely to leave California permanently behind the rest of the nation and much of the industrialized world for quite some time. Without being able to educate our children ind decent schools, it will be difficult to retain businesses here as they will struggle to find qualified workers, and will continually lose employees to other states that have not decided education is no longer important or valuable.

Unfortunately California in 2009 is a place where the word “future” is a verboten word, rivaled only by the phrase “economic recovery” in the level of disdain it is held in Sacramento. We are told that the need to cut trumps all else in our state – apparently it even trumps common sense.

Democrats have convinced themselves a budget deal is necessary to avert meltdown. But that meltdown is already here. Agreeing to destroy education in this state would merely be agreeing to ensure the radioactivity is channeled primarily at the young.

On Saturday Joe Mathews (who runs the excellent Blockbuster Democracy blog) had a very interesting article in the Wall Street Journal on Democratic and progressive reactions to the Parsky Commission proposals that, except for  the Fred Keeley/Chris Edley progressive proposals would embrace an overtly regressive tax structure. Mathews included this quote from yours truly:

Robert Cruickshank, a contributing editor at the progressive blog Calitics, says of the commission’s expected recommendations: “Most progressives are not going to support these kind of regressive solutions. You would see a fight if the Democratic legislature made a move to do this.”

Mathews also quoted Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign (who is my boss; I’m also the Public Policy Director at the Courage Campaign):

But supporters of the commission’s proposals are likely to get a fair hearing. Frustration with the California status quo crosses all ideological lines. Even those who disagree with the commission’s thrust are glad to have something new to discuss. “I’m really glad they’re trying something,” said Rick Jacobs, chairman of the Courage Campaign, a progressive Internet network with more than 700,000 members. He argues that the existing state tax system is too regressive. “It’s important to push the discussion out.”

I want to go into more depth on both of these points. As with any article, one tells the reporter much more than shows up in print. First, on my quote. I said that to Mathews before word of the Keeley/Edley effort to propose progressive solutions became known, but their efforts merely confirm the broader point, which is that progressives will never embrace regressive taxation as a “solution” to California’s budget mess.

California’s tax system is already regressive as the lowest 20% pay a much higher portion of their income in taxes than the wealthy. That has been a deliberate policy choice, going back to Prop 13. But it has never been discussed openly. (And I do wish it had been mentioned in the WSJ article.)

Which is why the Parsky Commission, in its own way, is doing California a service. Instead of back-room deals that regressivize the tax structure without any public input, the commission has undertaken a very open process and is embracing the goals of letting the rich evade their responsibilities.

In the end most Democrats and virtually all progressives will oppose any regressive tax proposals. It’s time we fixed the state’s tax structure, yes, but volatility isn’t actually a problem – the regressive and too-low nature of taxation in CA is, and if the Parsky Commission leads to a discussion and proposals to progressivize the system, then it will have been a useful exercise indeed.

Crossposted from the California High Speed Rail Blog

The California State Legislature isn’t exactly the most popular group of people these days. As the state budget crisis worsens – and as California’s bond rating takes another hit – Californians are losing what little patience they had for their legislators, who remain unable to produce a budget solution. It’s not for lack of trying, as the 2/3rds rule and Republican obstinacy has produced the ongoing delays and deficits. But it reflects poorly on the legislators, who are facing some of the lowest approval ratings ever.

It doesn’t help matters when the Legislature proposes something that is manifestly stupid, wasteful, and unnecessary. And that is what has happened regarding high speed rail on the peninsula, where the legislature has caved to Peninsula NIMBYs at the possible cost of $1 billion in stimulus funds:

An obscure sentence inserted deep in a massive state budget bill could delay construction of the proposed high-speed rail route from San Jose to San Francisco, potentially costing the region more than $1 billion in federal stimulus money, high-speed rail planners said Monday.

The language requires that as a condition of getting $139 million next year from the state budget to hire staff and engineering firms, the state High Speed Rail Authority must study “alternative alignments” to the route along the Caltrain tracks, approved by the authority last July.

Though the bill has passed both chambers of the state Legislature, its fate is uncertain because it remains part of the bigger state budget imbroglio.

This is ridiculous. The CHSRA already studied the Peninsula corridor, already studied the Altamont alignment, and already concluded that the Caltrain corridor is the best solution. They spent 11 years on these studies. Neither the Legislature nor the Peninsula NIMBYs have any place calling for another study just because they didn’t like the outcome of the first one.

This is especially troubling given the financial implications of the Legislature’s meddling:

On Monday, Rod Diridon, a former Santa Clara County supervisor who sits on the high-speed rail board, said that restudying the route could jeopardize federal stimulus money that requires eligible projects have construction started by September 2012.

“If it were to stay in, only our corridor in the whole state would be penalized, and all the federal stimulus money would go to Southern California,” Diridon said.

The San Jose-to-San Francisco route will be seeking $1.3 billion in stimulus money, Diridon said. Two other proposed high-speed-rail routes near Los Angeles also will be seeking similar amounts.

The Peninsula NIMBYs would be perfectly happy with this outcome – their goal is to kill the HSR project in their own backyard, and have shown no regard for fiscal responsibility (such as their proposal of an extremely costly tunnel without offering any method of paying for it). (See this Calitics post for background on the dispute.)

But it would cost the state as much as $1 billion in HSR stimulus, which translates into thousands of jobs and a not insignificant boost to the local economy on the Peninsula, which in turn means rising tax receipts in Sacramento. I’m not surprised at the Peninsula NIMBYs for not caring about any of this. I am surprised at the Legislature for being incredibly reckless by approving this proposal.

More below, including the mystery of who is actually responsible for this idiocy…

Sen. Joe Simitian, who represents Palo Alto, understands as much, as he denied responsibility for this moronic provision:

Adding to the drama Monday was that neither Diridon nor any other member of the high-speed rail board said they knew who wrote the provision requiring the extra study.

“We’re all mystified. The whole board was caught by surprise how the language got in the bill,” Diridon said.

State Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto – whose constituents are most upset by the route – said he’s not the author.

“That’s not my language. I didn’t have anything to do with it,” he said.

Political skulduggery may not be to blame. In the rush to finish the budget, legislative staff members crafted the new requirement based on what Peninsula residents who testified at hearings and senators seemed to want, said Brian Annis, transportation budget consultant on the state Senate budget committee.

“We were incorporating many different comments and issues that staff and legislators were involved in,” Annis said. “As far as the specific language, we drafted something we thought was workable.”

So the problem seems to be in the Senate Budget Committee. There are a LOT of Senators on that committee – including one familiar name:

Senator Alan Lowenthal.

Now granted, we don’t know whether he was responsible for this provision. But it would not surprise me if he were. Senator Lowenthal has been working for the last year to gut the HSR project. My assessment has always been that he wants to turn the HSR project into a vehicle to deliver funds to commuter rail projects in Southern California, and that he has no commitment to the statewide project, and certainly not to the route voters approved in Prop 1A at the November 2008 election.

Was he behind the provision in question that would undermine the HSR project AND cost California $1 billion in HSR stimulus? We don’t know, but someone in the Legislature was, and they’re currently trying to keep quiet. These things don’t just wind up in the legislation by accident. California deserves to know who in the State Senate believes that a few NIMBYs should have the power to upend 11 years of studies and cost the state $1 billion in stimulus funding.

It’s also time for the Legislature to stop meddling with the HSR project. The CHSRA exists to provide clear leadership and project management that isn’t tied down by the vicissitudes – and, frankly, the incompetence – of the state legislature, which has shown itself incapable of offering anything positive toward the HSR project. The legislature needs to take advantage of the budget delay by stripping this provision from the bill, and ensuring that the legislature remains committed to the HSR project as approved by voters in November.

Once upon a time, way back in the spring of 2009, there was a lot of talk of “green shoots” and the promise of economic recovery. Well, that theory seems pretty much shot to hell now, as there is growing recognition that, in Nouriel Roubini’s words, “the green shoots are mostly yellow weeds.” Unemployment continues to rise, and the economic indicators that implied a possible turnaround seem to have been little more than side effects of another Goldman Sachs bubble.

And as a result there’s more and more talk of a “third stimulus” across the left blogs, including Paul Krugman, especially as people come to realize just how stupid it was to gut the February stimulus by taking out the all-important state stabilization funds. As realization dawns that 50 Herbert Hoovers are wiping out the effect of the stimulus by state budget cuts, the necessity of federal aid to the states is becoming obvious.

Unfortunately, some commentators are still stuck in “blame” mode, and haven’t yet grasped the need to move beyond blame and toward action that can prevent a full-blown Depression. Take Ryan Avent, for example, who opines today that California is the obstacle to a new stimulus aimed at rescuing the states:

The huge obstacle to getting this done, however, is California. California is the state in the worst shape, and it’s also the state no one wants to help, because its problems stem from terrible institutions and a horribly dysfunctional government. They’re not just cyclically screwed; they worked very hard to get themselves into this mess, and the rest of America, quite reasonably, doesn’t want to bail them out. But this is a problem for the rest of America, because rare is the state that couldn’t use some additional help right about now.

This sort of argument is becoming depressingly familiar. As we pointed out yesterday most Californians weren’t able to vote in the June 1978 election that approved Prop 13, and many who voted yes didn’t know what they were doing. More significantly, Californians have never been given the chance to vote again on Prop 13 as our political leadership convinced itself that it could cut a series of deals in the name of asset bubble centrism and avoid both financial collapse and being overrun by the Jarvisite hordes.

Californians routinely vote for tax increases, especially at the local level, and would do so much more often if the right-wing hadn’t blocked the majority from governing the state by the 2/3rds rule. Folks like Ryan Avent offer a superficial understanding of California’s problems, unfamiliar with the fact that we have a center-left electorate governed by a center-right system and a Democratic Party whose leadership has been frankly afraid to challenge that status quo.

But as wrong as Avent is about the details, his “blame all Californians and let them rot” attitude is quite familiar, even widespread, among national elites, including ostensible liberals. I say “ostensible” because a core tenet of liberalism is the notion that government should provide second chances.

Avent does offer a somewhat sensible basis for a solution:

This is the part where I’d recommend a negotiated, conditional aid package to California, combined with a broader state budget resolution authority designed to facilitate countercyclical aid in situations like these. But at this point, I kind of think that California is screwed, and that by extension America is screwed, and will suffer a longer and more painful recession than is necessary thanks to the intractable politics of the issue.

And such a package is precisely what many of us in California want. We recognize that we need the federal government to use its leverage to break the impasse in Sacramento. But we’re worried about the conditions. With Larry Summers in charge of economic policy, the conditions are likely to resemble a 1990s IMF bailout, demanding massive cuts to the public sector – cuts that will merely worsen the recession, as the Sacramento region is discovering.

The fact that many other states are facing budget meltdown may be enough to overcome the previous hesitance of the feds to offer California anything that smacks of a “bailout”. And if that assistance came with appropriate and progressive conditions – that California place a repeal of the 2/3rds rule on the ballot, that corporate tax loopholes be closed, that education and health care no longer face cuts – then it would be a significant step forward.

Unfortunately we may not be at the point yet where this is possible. Avent blames “intractable politics” but I would argue the problem is instead intractable assumptions. Too many people are still out to play the blame game, or like the Obama Administration, are more afraid of right-wing criticism than of the political repercussions of a slide into Depression.

It would help if national observers would look past the superficial assumption that all Californians were party to the reckless economic, fiscal and political choices of the last 30 years, and instead realize that avoiding a national Depression and fixing California’s problems are not mutually exclusive, but instead are mutually reinforcing.

Usually at this time of day the cars start filling the streets of my quiet Monterey neighborhood. Families spill out, carrying lawn chairs and blankets and hot drinks, headed for the hill on the lower Presidio just above the municipal wharf to watch the annual fireworks display. Sure, it’s a bit cheesy, and last year was a bit obnoxious when the woman brought the boom box belting out the Sousa and Lee Greenwood, but the city’s fireworks display was also a small yet meaningful moment of a community coming together, and it was always the highlight of the evening.

But not this year. Monterey, like several other cities around the state, have canceled the fireworks display because of budget cuts.

I don’t exactly oppose the move. Sure, city fireworks displays were a key part of getting people away from using their own fireworks and losing a hand, but as Monterey city officials noted, it’s not a difficult decision to cancel the fireworks to preserve other programs:

Kay Russo, director of Monterey’s recreation and community services, said the exact opposite. She thought it was more important than ever to use public funds to provide services to citizens….

A $7.5 million budget deficit for this fiscal year has forced $6 million in program and service cuts, layoffs and employee concessions totaling an additional $1 million, said Anne McGrath, city spokeswoman.

“Given the fiscal environment, I know that people will miss the fireworks display, but they understand this has to be done,” McGrath said.

And judging by the reaction of my friends and neighbors, McGrath is right. I couldn’t justify spending the money on fireworks and policing the event that could otherwise go to keep city employees on the job, keeping the library open more hours, and so on.

A canceled fireworks display doesn’t compare to the 900,000 Californians who lost dental coverage this week, the 26,000 teachers who aren’t going back to work this fall, the disabled Californians who are losing their caregivers and their support checks.

And yet they all share a common link – they’ve been sacrificed in order to protect the wealthy and corporations from a tax increase. Social values of education, health, and community gatherings are all being undermined and denigrated by a state government which has decided, without any public discussion, that spending cuts are a necessity. Even those localities that would like to raise their own taxes to keep teachers in the classrooms or ensure their neighbors and families have health coverage cannot do so, because nobody in government is willing to challenge the bogeyman that is Prop 13-induced system of government that prevents tax increases no matter the cost.

So Monterey isn’t going to have fireworks this year. Perhaps it’s a good thing – the sea otters will be pleased. But if our community wanted to do something else – improve bus service, fix our schools, build the long-desired train to the Bay Area, open a community health clinic – we are prevented from doing it, because we are effectively prevented from raising the money to make it happen. We cannot make collective decisions any more, we cannot take community action to do something as important as saving our schools or something as small and ultimately insignificant as holding a fireworks display. We are stuck with a false and rigged choice – cut schools or health care – because the biggest choice of all, whether to tax wealth or not, is not a choice we are free to make.

It’s hard then to not see the canceled fireworks display as a symbol of a broader social collapse happening all around us. On the day we celebrate 233 years of independence, and almost 163 years to the day since the US took possession of Monterey and brought California into that independent nation, the 4th of July seems almost funerary. There isn’t much to celebrate, certainly not here in California, where our national holiday feels hollow.

We are a center-left state and nation governed by a center-right politics – and in California, by a government that gives conservatives veto power even though they represent just 33% of the population. On a day when we are supposed to celebrate our freedom, it is rather ironic to realize that in California in 2009, unless you are wealthy you aren’t really free.

Despite all the political wrangling over specific budget solutions, there is one thing Democrats and Republicans in Sacramento agree on: the bulk of the budget solution should be spending cuts. All that is being fought over now is whether the cuts will be merely reckless or catastrophic. It reflects a political consensus that isn’t based in economic logic – we’ve demonstrated before how the budget cuts are going to worsen the recession.

And it is also based on massive lawbreaking. The budget cutting mania of the last two years in Sacramento has been, at its core, an attack on the laws of the state of California and the United States of America. Zeal to make budget cuts has led the Legislature and the Governor to fall afoul of any number of laws designed to protect public services and resources. Some examples:

• The National Parks Service threatened to seize numerous state parks in recent days and reminded the state of its obligations under laws dating back 60 years to keep parkland purchased with federal aid open “in perpetuity”.

• A state appeals court ruled yesterday that diverting billions in public transit money to other uses was illegal. An earlier court ruling that such diversions were illegal didn’t stop the legislature from trying to revise the law to make legal the elimination of state funding of local transit agencies, but yesterday’s ruling held that even this violated at least four state laws and voter-approved initiatives.

• There is the ongoing saga over the February budget deal’s cut of $9 billion in education money owed under Prop 98. The California Faculty Association, the California Federation of Teachers, and several other organizations sued the state over the refusal to pony up the money owed. Sacramento tried to head off the suit by Proposition 1B on the May 19 ballot, which voters rejected.

• Efforts to cut state worker pay, benefits, and jobs have frequently run afoul of the courts, in examples sadly too numerous to list here.

• And of course there’s the long-running battle over prisons. Federal receiver J. Clark Kelso remains likely to take billions directly from the general fund to address prison health care problems. Sacramento’s reaction? Sue to deny Kelso authority over state prisons.

This is all part of a larger pattern of lawbreaking, from the habitual ignorance of the constitutional mandate to have a budget in place by June 30 to the efforts to evade the rules regarding the federal stimulus funds. John Adams once called the United States an “empire of laws, not men” and yet Sacramento appears to have instead decided Howard Jarvis is the state’s true Founding Father, holding the line against taxes by any means possible, even illegal means.

Americans are becoming inured to the systematic ignorance of the law by their political leaders. The Bush Administration and their Democratic enablers have set the tone – when your path is blocked by a law, ignore the law. It’s deeply damaging to our democracy, to our institutions, not to mention to our economy. We keep being told the state must “live within its means” – and yet those means never seem to include the law.

California’s far northeastern corner is comprised of Modoc County, population 9,184. This heavily Republican, even libertarian place is the largest recipient of state spending on a per-capita basis. California’s blue counties subsidize the red counties, whose voters send reps to Sacramento demanding that the blue counties cut schools and health care spending even further:

However, both McGarva and Hodge maintain that state legislators shouldn’t even think of cutting health and education funding to rural counties like Modoc, where 9,184 residents knock around a territory the size of Connecticut.

Instead, they say, swing the budget ax on bloated-big-government-style frills – for instance, state-paid cars for legislators and misguided environmental regulations, though they don’t always agree on which ones are misguided.

The fact that health and education spending make up about 70 percent of California’s general fund, leaving little else to cut, only emphasizes the importance of that funding, they say.

As the article explains, rural counties like Modoc rely on the state government to survive. Want roads plowed in the winter? Need state money. Want schools for your kids? Need state money. Want police to keep your stuff and your self safe? Need state money.

Of course, the anti-government, anti-tax attitudes of places like Modoc mean that even those basic services can be rejected if it’s necessary to maintain those attitudes. Their neighbors across the border in Oregon have refused to raise taxes to fund things like police patrols, leaving several southern Oregon counties without enough police services to keep the population safe or enough resources to prosecute crimes.

Yet Modoc County isn’t rejecting the state money they are getting. Instead the dominant attitude there, as with other conservatives in California, is that the spending they receive is legitimate, whereas the spending someone else receives is illegitimate, wasteful, and should be cut.

Modoc’s tiny population makes this phenomenon an interesting curiosity. But when it is held in the Central Valley, or Orange County, or the Inland Empire, then it becomes politically significant. And while Modoc County residents can delude themselves into thinking they can survive without government, it’s even less realistic in these metropolitan areas where government is the difference between mass poverty and a decent standard of living and economic opportunity.