All posts by Robert Cruickshank

Uncategorized

Can Congress Cure California’s Cash Crunch?

2 Comments

In what I have to believe is an intervention to try and save the May 19 initiatives, the Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor is warning of a looming cash crunch:

In a report called “California’s Cash Flow Crisis,” the nonpartisan and independent analyst said state government could be faced with having to borrow a record $20 billion at the start of the fiscal year in order to pay its day-to-day bills.

The report said failure of budget-balancing measures before voters at the May 19 special election “would increase the state’s cash flow pressures substantially – potentially increasing the short-term borrowing requirement to well over $20 billion.”

The article seems to misstate the exact nature of the LAO’s analysis, which actually makes an either/or statement:

Deterioration of the state’s economic and revenue picture (such as the $8 billion revenue shortfall we forecasted in March) or failure of measures in the May 19 special election would increase the state’s cash flow pressures substantially-potentially increasing the short-term borrowing requirement to well over $20 billion. California is likely to have difficulty borrowing anywhere close to the needed amounts from the short-term bond markets based on the state government’s own credit.

The proponents of the May 19 initiatives will likely use this to say “omg you must vote yes or else we are DOOMED!” But that’s not the LAO’s point. What the LAO is saying is that the deterioration we’re already witnessing, with or without the May 19 initiatives, is bad enough to damage our ability to borrow. So why should we cause future budget damage in order to provide a supposed fix in the short-term that won’t actually meet our budget needs?

The LAO says there are really only two options before the state:

• Additional actions to increase revenues or decrease expenditures in order to return the 2009-10 budget to balance.

• Additional actions to delay or defer scheduled payments to schools, local governments, service providers, and others.

Bill Lockyer and Speaker Karen Bass are in DC lobbying Congress to help California by providing guarantees for the all-important Revenue Anticipation Notes that the state uses to generate cash flow. Unfortunately Barney Frank isn’t willing to go down that road:

But Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has indicated a bill his committee is drafting will not give California officials what they want. Instead, the bill is expected to include a temporary federal “reinsurance” program for state and municipal bonds and notes, as well as requiring bond rating agencies to base ratings on the likelihood of the issuing agency paying off the bondholders. Frank’s committee is slated to take up the bill May 21, two days after the special election here.

The LAO makes the same point I made a few days ago about California getting shock doctrined by the feds the way NYC did 30 years ago and the way nations like Argentina did in the more recent past:

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we advise the Legislature and other state policymakers to be cautious about accepting any strings that might be attached to federal assistance. Strings attached to recent corporate bailouts-as well as federal loan guarantees provided to New York City during its fiscal crisis three decades ago-have included measures to remove financial and operational autonomy from executives. We recommend that the Legislature agree to no substantial diminishment in the role of California’s elected state leaders. In our opinion, the difficult decisions to balance the state’s budget now are preferable to Californians losing some control over the state’s finances and priorities to federal officials for years to come.

Obviously it depends on whether federal mandates are progressive or regressive – given the neoliberal-friendly nature of this Congress and this White House I am inclined to agree with the LAO that this would not be a desirable outcome.

And yet it shows that until California’s leaders come up with a serious long-term solution, the state will continue to teeter on the edge of the abyss. Only a credible and serious May 20 plan would offer that kind of permanent solution. As I argued before, it should include at a minimum:

• Majority vote budget

• Wealth and corporate taxes

• Reverse corporate tax cuts

• Push repeal of the 2/3rds rule

• Immediate and meaningful prison reform

• Legalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana

In recent days we’ve seen several of these get serious discussion in Sacramento, which is a hopeful sign. But we need to collect them together as a coherent plan and sell them to the voters – instead of selling fear.

As the 2008 election should have proved, fear doesn’t sell. Hope, change, and a plan to put those in action do.

Uncategorized

Shorter Arnold: “Everybody Be Cool, This Is A Robbery”

6 Comments

Not content to threaten to burn down the state if voters reject Prop 1A, Arnold Schwarzenegger is now threatening to raid local government funding. That Arnold would even contemplate this step shows just how much of a failure he is at governing, and how fundamentally reckless and destructive his administration has been.

As David Dayen explained it yesterday:

Under yet another Prop. 1A from 2004, the state can borrow 8% of property tax revenues (about $2 billion), which would have to be repaid with interest in three years.  The credit cards are open for business again!  While this measure represents 10-15% of the total projected budget gap, it would decimate services at the city and county level, services that – voila! – the state would need to step in to provide.  Also the Governor cannot pull this off unilaterally: it would require a 2/3 vote of the legislature.

The consequences of this would be dire. Our friends at OC Progressive laid out the local impact there:

Fire agencies at every level in Orange County are already under pressure, with  sales tax revenue dropping by double digits and declining revenue from every other source of taxes. Agency by agency, rolling hiring freezes are turning into actual layoffs.

And if you understand what happens when wildfires rage in California, you should be frightened. When wild fires burn in Yorba Linda or Orange, every fire agency, large and small, contributes men and equipment to strike forces that go where they are needed, while working cooperatively through mutual aid agreements to make sure that local needs are still met. They put every piece of equipment into the field, and every firefighter works overtime.

The LA Times projects a further $300 million deficit for the LA County area – on top of the nearly $1 billion they already faced – if Arnold’s attack on local government goes forward:

The city of Los Angeles stands to lose more than $67 million, according to the two-page draft proposal. The county, meanwhile, could be particularly hard hit, by some estimates potentially seeing $250 million or more drained away to help the state balance its books.

Cities and counties would probably have to increase layoffs of police, fire, public heath, recreation and other workers, according to the draft.

Even without the raid on local government funds, cities are in a dire position – Oakland mayor Ron Dellums is proposing mass police layoffs to close a $100 million hole.

Dan Walters did an especially good job of calling bullshit on Arnold’s scare tactics. But we can and should go further. Why aren’t Democrats denouncing these proposals?

A raid on local government funds will push numerous cities, already reeling from the loss of sales tax revenue in a consumption-led downturn, into bankruptcy. Mass layoffs and permanent scaling back of core services will be the result. Additionally, raiding local government will cause public confidence in Democratic legislators to decline even further, and make it difficult for them to add to their seat totals in 2010 or to push through the kind of major reforms we need to fix this mess.

Dems should resist the temptation to go along with Arnold’s scare tactics. Those tactics merely anger voters and make them more likely to vote no on all the propositions. Dems need to be projecting an attitude of competence and of determination to protect vital services. They’ll need to do that no matter the outcome of May 19.

Raiding local government would push California deeper into recession, and would create further long-term budget problems, especially in 2011 or 2012 when the raided funds would have to be repaid with interest. Dems ought to make it clear that they will never give their votes to this kind of screwy plan, and need to push back hard against Arnold’s reckless threats.

Central Coast

Jesusita Fire Threatens Santa Barbara

As if on cue, Mother Nature reminds us that in a dry and fire-prone state such as ours, it is folly to plan to slash the ranks of firefighters. From the Santa Barbara Independent:

The flames are growing above Santa Barbara this afternoon, as a wildfire that seemed to start near Jesusita Trail in San Roque Canyon continues to march its way up the mountains.

Wildfire expert and Indy correspondent Ray Ford is with a fire crew about 400 yards from the fire, which has been officially named the Jesusita Fire. He said that it is burning straight uphill, with 40-foot high flames. He said that the wind is starting to blow hard, with 20 to 25 mph gusts, pushing the fire northeast and east into Mission Canyon. He’s watching two helicopters attack the fire, and says they are doing a good job of knocking it down. He has noticed a plume coming up from Mission Canyon and believes something may be burning there. But the fire does not seem to be moving back down San Roque Canyon at the moment.

Mandatory evacuations are underway in the Santa Barbara foothills, although the current path of the fire is quite unclear. This is pretty early in the year to see a major wildfire, as the “season” usually doesn’t start until June 1. But global warming and the drought are causing nearly year-round fire conditions across the state, putting an added strain on firefighting resources.

Something Arnold might want to think about before threatening to destroy Cal Fire as part of a tantrum over voters’ unwillingness to support Prop 1A.

Bay Area

Have Palo Alto NIMBYs Duped Sen. Joe Simitian Into Undermining HSR?

5 Comments

You might be forgiven for thinking that, between the passage of Proposition 1A last November (the good Prop 1A, authorizing $10 billion in bonds to build high speed rail from SF to LA) and President Barack Obama’s strong leadership for HSR, including securing billions to start funding projects, that all is well with California’s high speed rail project.

Unfortunately, that’s not the case. A group of well-organized and wealthy people along the Peninsula between San Francisco and San Jose have been increasingly successful in throwing up major roadblocks to the system’s planning process. What began as a classic “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY) opposition to the high speed trains has now grown with the city of Palo Alto reversing its previous position of support for the project. As we’ve explained at the California High Speed Rail Blog the Palo Alto City Council is making dishonest and inappropriate claims about the HSR project in an effort to undermine and compromise its effectiveness.

The issue involves how the existing Caltrain corridor will be upgraded to handle high speed trains. Currently trains cross streets “at-grade” – a very dangerous situation that leads to frequent and often deadly accidents. High speed trains cannot use at-grade crossings – the trains have to go over or under the cross streets. The California High Speed Rail Authority proposed the most affordable and effective solution – “above-grade”, i.e. an overpass.

This led to breathless and frankly ridiculous whining from some Peninsula residents who lived near the rail corridor. Despite an above-grade solution being safer than the existing rail solution, some claimed that it would make their communities “ugly” – a few even took to labeling it a “Berlin Wall” (which is odd because the CHSRA wasn’t planning to include barbed wire or gun towers). There’s already enough right-of-way along most of the corridor and very few houses would have to be taken to build this.

As yesterday’s SF Chronicle explained, several Peninsula cities are now demanding a tunnel be built instead of an above-grade solution. The problem is that a tunnel could cost around $5 billion, money that the state and federal governments don’t have.

Even though above-grade HSR can be implemented effectively, the absurd demand for a tunnel has merely grown, and many now advocate a “tunnel or nothing” approach.  They convinced the city of Palo Alto to demand that the CHSRA study cutting the HSR trains off at San Jose and forcing passengers to transfer to Caltrain to finish the trip to SF (which is unworkable and will destroy ridership) or move the trains to the median of Highway 101 (which is poor urban planning and would do nothing to help improve Caltrain).

Peninsula NIMBYs realize that few Californians are going to take them seriously. After all, why should we let a key piece of 21st century infrastructure be held hostage to a handful of wealthy homeowners who refuse to admit that the 20th century is over? So instead of attacking the project, they are trying to attack the people who are building it. Their hope is that if people will question the credibility of the CHSRA, then they will either question the credibility of the HSR project itself and/or support state legislative “solutions” that will undermine or destroy the project.

Unfortunately it seems they may have been able to dupe Senator Joe Simitian into helping them accomplish their anti-HSR goals:

Simitian said the community’s message was “loud and clear.” The subcommittee agreed to hold off on authorizing the funds and urged rail-authority officials to expand their outreach efforts.

The senators heard from about 30 concerned Peninsula residents who made a morning trek to Sacramento to lobby for more oversight and transparency.

“What we really asked for is for them to change the structure of who is running this,” Palo Alto Vice Mayor Jack Morton, one of the speakers, said.

“It’s quite clear that the high-speed rail staff is insensitive to the community and has no ability to be responsible for the funds,” he said.

Simitian said the nature of the rail authority has changed over the past few months from a small study group advocating a high-speed rail line to an organization actually building the line. Now is the time to consider changes that would bring more oversight and more community outreach to the process, he said.

As far as I can tell, Palo Alto vice mayor Jack Morton misled, and may have openly lied to, the Senate subcommittee here. There’s more at the HSR blog on this, but the short answer is that the CHSRA has been holding a series of public meetings over the last few years. Palo Alto residents have been claiming that the routing of HSR trains along the Caltrain line was a “surprise” – which is not a credible argument since that routing was in the Prop 1A wording and was prominently reported on by local media. Peninsula NIMBYs are also trying to claim that CHSRA officials have made contradictory statements, but as far as I can tell, they’re just upset that the CHSRA will not guarantee them a tunnel.

Considering that the CHSRA has never had stable funding, and even now cannot access the $10 billion Prop 1A bonds owing to the state’s financial crisis, demanding the agency reform before backing further HSR planning is putting the cart before the horse no matter the context. But it’s even worse that Sen. Simitian is apparently letting a small group of vocal HSR opponents drive the process. He needs to stand up to them, and stand up for high speed rail, and insist that the project be built properly yet affordably – and that Palo Alto along with the rest of the Peninsula understand that the 20th century is over, our dependence on cars is over, and high speed rail WILL be built along the Caltrain corridor.

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Shorter Arnold: Vote For My Props Or I’ll Set Your State On Fire

18 Comments

That faint smell is the whiff of desperation coming from the governor’s office:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger plans to seek the elimination of more than 1,700 state firefighting positions and closure of scores of fire stations if voters reject key ballot measures in the May 19 special election, according to documents obtained by The Chronicle on Monday.

Schwarzenegger’s proposal involves slashing $80.8 million from Cal Fire’s spending plan – a 10 percent reduction – by eliminating 602 full-time positions and 1,100 seasonal firefighting positions. The cuts would be part of a series of deep cuts to the state budget.

Cal Fire, the state’s fire agency, has about 5,000 full-time firefighters. At the peak of last year’s fire season, more than 2,700 wild fires ravaged the state and the agency hired extra help: 3,000 seasonal firefighters.

Arnold seems to have quickly forgotten the record-setting 2008 fire season, and the 2007 fires before that, and the 2003 fires before that, etc, etc. And considering that the US Forest Service’s firefighting problems haven’t yet been straightened out, and that firefighting capacity is being cut as cities try to balance their budgets, Arnold’s proposal is likely a death sentence for many vulnerable communities this coming summer.

Obviously Arnold is trying to scare voters into supporting his craptacular May 19 propositions. But voters can smell desperation a mile away, and they’re not likely to be swayed by this truly insane proposal.

What Arnold’s crazy “let’s burn down California – literally!” plan will actually do is show voters that Republicans, whether they are for or against the May 19 propositions, are really just hell-bent on destroying our government and leaving everyone to fend for themselves. The last time a Republican demonstrated that to the public, as Bush did after Hurricane Katrina, his party’s public support collapsed and they were thrown out of power at the first available opportunity.

The same will happen here in California. The question is whether Arnold and his wingnut allies  will destroy the state first. They’re already pouring gasoline on everything in sight…

Uncategorized

CA-10: Garamendi Leads Among Likely Voters

9 Comments

That’s the verdict according to a J. Moore Methods poll that dropped over the weekend and that found its way into my hands this afternoon. Remember that this is an open primary – if someone gets more than 50% they win; if not then the top candidates from each party go to a runoff. According to the poll, Lt. Gov. John Garamendi leads among likely voters (36% have no opinion):





































Garamendi Rupf DeSaulnier Buchanan
Support: 24 17 13 10
Known: 80 20 39 45
Favorable: 35 9 16 17
Unfavorable: 12 9 13 12

(Rupf is Republican Warren Rupf, Sheriff of CoCo County)

The personal ratings are included, which show that Garamendi also has a big name ID and favorability advantage over all his challengers. Voter turnout is projected to be 30%, with 55% Dem, 33% Rep, and 12% DTS.

Of course, Garamendi doesn’t have a 50% lead here, and the election hasn’t even been scheduled yet. There’s time for either DeSaulnier or Buchanan to try and catch up, but it’s going to be a difficult climb. Garamendi’s high public profile and ability to raise money for this campaign will be significant advantages. DeSaulnier, a solid progressive who would also make an excellent member of Congress, can counter with strong on-the-ground support, but it’s unclear if that can trump Garamendi’s built-in advantages.

This leads me to wonder if Buchanan plans to stick around in the race – I can’t see her getting very far against this kind of opposition. Or perhaps DeSaulnier might step back and let Garamendi take it. So far as I can tell, however, both fully intend to continue their run.

Neither Anthony Woods nor Adriel Hampton were included in this poll, but I can’t imagine either one would meaningfully impact the outcome.

So as far as I can tell this is Garamendi’s to lose. We’ll see if this poll shifts the landscape at all.

California

Will California Democrats Investigate Jay Bybee?

1 Comment

Note: I work for the Courage Campaign

Now that the California Democratic Party has gone on record as supporting an investigation into Judge Jay Bybee for his role in authorizing Bush’s torture program, it’s time to put that resolution to work.

Today the Courage Campaign has joined David Dayen and other California activists in a campaign to pressure California Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee to investigate Judge Bybee as a first step toward his impeachment. The six members are Howard Berman, Zoe Lofgren, Linda Sánchez, Adam Schiff, Brad Sherman and Maxine Waters.

Hundreds of Courage Campaign members have made calls today. Several have reported that Adam Schiff supports an investigation, while the other five are giving polite but noncommittal responses.

If you haven’t done so already, please take a moment to call at least one of the six today. Even if you don’t live in their district, as members of the Judiciary Committee they are the folks who can begin the process of holding Judge Bybee accountable, and as such they’re responsible to all Californians, not just their own constituents.

Below the flip is the email we sent to our members.

Dear Robert,

You did it — the California Democratic Party, pushed by grassroots and netroots activists, passed the Bybee resolution last week. Now let’s take the fight to Congress.

Your signatures in support of the resolution to demand Congress investigate Judge Jay Bybee — author of one of President Bush’s horrific torture memos and now a federal judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco — helped convince the California Democratic Party to pass that resolution at their convention last weekend.

We cannot stop there. Our work to remove Judge Bybee from the bench and hold him accountable has only just begun.

That point was driven home in a statement Judge Bybee released on Tuesday, where he defended the memo he wrote as a “good-faith analysis of the law.” You and I know it was no such thing. But that is going to be Judge Bybee’s defense, and he hopes it will help Congress resist the growing pressure to investigate and ultimately impeach him for his actions in support of torture.

The Courage Campaign believes Judge Bybee must be removed from office. So do the New York Times, MoveOn.org, People for the American Way and the Center for Constitutional Rights. The first step in that process is for the House Judiciary Committee to vote to launch an investigation, which is necessary before articles of impeachment can be drawn up.

There are six California Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee. Please call at least one of those Democrats right now and tell them to launch an investigation into Judge Bybee. No matter what district you live in — on an issue like torture — they represent all of us:

http://www.couragecampaign.org…

California netroots activist David Dayen has been one of the many activists leading the fight to hold Judge Bybee accountable. As he wrote at Calitics, a leading progressive blog covering California politics:

“Judge Bybee’s presence on the 9th Circuit disgraces the federal bench and saps at our moral authority in the world. Congress has a duty to step in and impeach him. We now have this (California Democratic Party) resolution as a tool.  Let’s use it to pry open the Congress and provide the opening of some accountability for these heinous acts committed in our name.”

We could not agree more strongly. It’s our job as California progressives to ensure our representatives do their job and uphold the rule of law. The more calls we generate, the more likely it is that the House Judiciary Committee will take action.

No matter where you live, please call one of the six California Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee right now and tell them to vote to investigate Judge Bybee:

http://www.couragecampaign.org…

One step at a time, we will make sure Bush’s torture advisors are brought to justice. Thanks for helping bring all of us closer to that goal.

Robert Cruickshank

Public Policy Director, Courage Campaign

Election 2010

When Gavin Newsom Met the Bloggers

2 Comments

Gavin Newsom sat down with a group of bloggers on Saturday, April 25th at the California Democratic Convention for an hourlong Q&A session. I’ve been a bit slow to write this up, but it was a very valuable conversation that at least for me helped clarify what kind of campaign, and perhaps even what kind of gubernatorial administration, Gavin Newsom will run.

Before getting into specifics, I want to make some broader observations. I have always been impressed with Newsom’s grasp of issues and policy. He clearly understands government, and understands it quite well. He isn’t as strongly progressive as I am, and certainly not as much as many of my San Francisco colleagues rightly prefer. But his experience in city and county government over the last five years has given him a good perspective on the problems with state government, seeing as the cities and counties often get hit the hardest and yet do not have the kind of policy tools to deal with the crisis.

At the same time, Newsom isn’t going to be drawn on the details, and isn’t going to promise an openly progressive administration. He seems to be running an Obama-style campaign, both in his effort to build a grassroots movement early, but also in his approach to the issues. I got the distinct impression that Newsom is going to try to avoid being pinned down on the “taxes vs. spending cuts” debate that is dominating CA politics, and try to find a way to provide reform with accountability. “I’m a pro-business Democrat who believes in fiscal responsibility,” he said, but he is open to progressive solutions as well – what Newsom seems to want to do is find a way to sell those solutions in a pro-business form.

Newsom knows that we need a new economic base. He understood that housing fueled the economy for the last 10 years and that’s no longer possible – we have to provide broadly shared prosperity. He spoke of green jobs, but still needs to articulate more clearly what the next 30 years will look like. That being said, he’s much further along in that process than Jerry Brown is, at least so far.

More details over the flip.

In response to questions about the May 19 propositions, Newsom made some strong points against Props 1C, 1D, and 1E – “I can’t support balancing the budget by asking poor people to buy more lottery tickets” for example. His “first instinct was to oppose” Props 1A and 1B, but concluded that there was no alternative, no answer to the “what then?” question. Newsom speaks often of San Francisco’s “rainy day fund” as part of his effort to pass Prop 1A, but otherwise isn’t openly campaigning for them.

Of course, Newsom does recognize there are indeed alternatives. He supports a Constitutional Convention, is open to a split roll property tax (excluding commercial property from residential property tax protections). He believes the sales tax should be modernized.

David Dayen asked about prison reform, and while Newsom showed he understands the unsustainable nature of the prison policy – and believes the drug war to be a failure – he didn’t talk about sentencing reform or embrace Prop 5 as David had specifically asked.

Adam Bink of Open Left asked Newsom about immigration, and specifically whether Newsom would pull a Gillibrand and abandon his progressive stance on immigration, including sanctuary policies, in order to win statewide. Newsom said he would not do that – that he “would be ineffective if he said one thing privately and another thing publicly.” He supports immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship and isn’t afraid of “cable networks” that attack him for this position, and Newsom also said we must “celebrate diversity, not just tolerate it.”

Becks of Living in the O asked about the gutting of state transit funding. Newsom’s response was “we are a wealthy state” and we should be able to fund transit. He gave a strong push for high speed rail, comparing Europe’s advanced trains with California’s much slower and weaker rail infrastructure. Newsom understands that we must “move beyond freeways and airports and sprawl” and knows HSR is a way to do that. Of course, this isn’t really an answer to Becks’ question about restoring STA funding.

Ultimately, Newsom is positioning himself the same way Obama did – someone who says enough things progressives can get behind without openly promising a progressive administration, and saying it in a way that can attract moderate voters. It’s smart politics, and might be enough to win him the Democratic nomination, maybe even the general election.

But it’s also vague on the details, and Newsom can only take a vague but informed set of answers to the issues so far. I can’t imagine Jerry Brown will be merely proposing 1978 vintage solutions forever, and Brown has long demonstrated his ability to make quick and bold policy statements. Newsom will have to eventually articulate his solutions to the budget mess, to providing an economic base for our future, and ultimately a vision for the next 30 years.

Newsom’s vision will probably never be my vision. But it could be close enough, and will likely be enough for most progressives to embrace. Newsom is doing everything he needs to do to win the 2010 election, and so far, is setting a higher bar for Jerry Brown, maybe Antonio Villaraigosa, to meet.

Uncategorized

Marginalizing Progressives on May 19

5 Comments

When John Burton took the podium at the California Democratic Convention last weekend he reminded the delegates that no matter their positions on the May 19 propositions, we all needed to remember our shared party and political identity and not let the May 19 election unnecessarily divide us.

That’s the attitude I’ve tried to take in my writing on the election. No matter what happens on May 19, on May 20 progressives and Democrats are going to have to unite to save California from a Zombie Death Cult salivating at the prospect of privatizing public education, destroying unions, and eviscerating environmental protections.

Unfortunately, some in the dying print media see fit to try and marginalize progressives in order to make the May 19 propositions seem inevitable and necessary. (Steve Maviglio has been pursuing this strategy as well, to little apparent effect.)

Take the San Francisco Chronicle’s opinion page, which today apparently is filled with exhortations to vote for the initiatives. (I say “apparently” because the Chronicle is no longer delivering to the Central Coast). Here’s Debra Saunders’ view of the progressive attitude toward May 19:

Likewise, hard-core Democrats seem to think that if the five measures fail, there will be a golden age as Democratic leaders go after the requirement that two-thirds of the Assembly and Senate raise taxes. Folks, that is not going to happen – not when the latest Field Poll showed 58 percent of Democrats supporting the two-thirds mandate. Democrats may send big spenders to Sacramento and complain about spending reductions, but they still don’t want to pay for all that stuff. They want someone else to pay – and there aren’t enough smokers and millionaires to get there.

I don’t know where she’s getting this idea that we who oppose the propositions think it will create some magically positive outcome – sounds like a strawman to me. We are well aware of the difficulties involved with eliminating the 2/3 rule and in pursuing wealth taxes (which the Field Poll showed are massively popular with all voters). But we don’t believe the difficult tasks ahead will be eased by straitjacketing the budget through Props 1A and 1C.

John Diaz, also in the Chronicle Opinion section, makes much the same argument as the right-wing Saunders:

The passions against the state budget measures in the May 19 special election are running hottest among the ideologues of the far left and far right.

Both extremes are determined especially to defeat Proposition 1A – the creation of a “rainy-day fund” – yet for reasons that are polar opposites.

Liberals warn that the measure would force the state to keep pouring money into that new fund, instead of resuscitating government programs, even when the economy is booming. Conservatives regard the spending restraints in Prop. 1A as far too squishy – plus, its passage would extend $16 billion in temporary increases in the state’s sales tax, car-license fee and income tax.

Each side seems convinced that an election-day crash of Prop. 1A would send a shudder through Sacramento that would magically produce a groundswell for (the left’s dream) the end of the constitutional requirement for a two-thirds vote to pass a budget, along with a surge in support for new taxes; or (the right’s dream) a mandate to slash spending and not even think about raising taxes.

“Always beware when the far right and the far left go to bed together,” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who crafted the propositions with legislative leaders, said in a telephone interview last week.

Ah, if Arnold said it, then it must be true! Diaz builds the same strawman as Saunders, that the “left” wants to kill the propositions out of some misguided belief that doing so will magically bring about the progressive millennium.

Instead we are well aware that we already are at the point of fighting with the right over whether we will raise revenues or destroy government. That fight will happen regardless of the outcome of the May 19 initiatives, since we’re looking at a $9 billion deficit no matter what happens on May 19. We know that the public isn’t yet where they need to be on the issue of supporting government programs for economic growth and collective security, but that’s because nobody is willing to actually and openly make that argument.

Instead we recognize that the first step forward is to kill Prop 1A in particular. Delaine Eastin, who has forgotten more about public education in this state than most of us will ever know, put it well:

“It leaves us in the hole forever,” warned Delaine Eastin, former state superintendent of public instruction, who predicted the public would defeat all propositions in a wave of “righteous wrath” against legislators who didn’t have “the backbone” to raise taxes.

Diaz, Saunders, the Chronicle editorial board – none of them really grapple with this issue. And that’s why they don’t understand progressive opposition to the May 19 measures. Instead they choose to read it according to their usual script of “centrism is always good, especially when it’s actually conservatism”.

Californians are going to reject these measures. And progressives will be ready on May 20 to offer an alternative. Will the Chronicle?

Uncategorized

Another Day Older And Deeper In Debt

12 Comments

April is the state’s big revenue month, as personal income taxes flow into the Franchise Tax Board and refund checks flow out (leaving me a whopping $200 richer). Unsurprisingly, this April’s receipts were significantly below expectations:

April, by far the largest tax collection month for California, ended in a whimper, coming up more than $1.8 billion short in personal income and corporate taxes.

California was about $750 million short of projected tax collection after March, and April’s shortfall puts it $2.5 billion behind for the fiscal year ending June 30.

So we’re already $9 billion in the hole. If Propositions 1C, 1D and 1E fail, as it looks like they will, then the deficit could grow to $16 billion.

The size of the May 20 deficit suggests the need for Democratic legislators – the same people who constantly ask “what’s YOUR plan?” of progressive opponents of the flawed May 19 propositions – to answer that question themselves. A $9 billion deficit doesn’t seem like a good time to straitjacket ourselves further with a spending cap and a “rainy day fund on steroids” via Prop 1A, or blow a $2 billion hole in the budget by selling more lottery bonds than there are lottery revenues.

And so today Dan Walters asks the same question I asked a couple weeks ago – What’s Plan B?:

More taxes? Rejection of Proposition 1A, the linchpin measure, would not only short-circuit the taxes enacted in February but probably make any additional levies politically impossible. Democratic leaders could try again to enact taxes without Republican votes but would face a legal challenge and political fallout. A massive bailout from Washington? Unlikely.

This is an immense mess, partly caused by the recession, partly caused by years of fiscal irresponsibility. And it may be the day of reckoning that Capitol politicians had long avoided, compounded by the obvious anger of voters….

Wholesale slaughter of state spending may be their only option. This is a pivotal point in California political history, a fiscal Armageddon.

This is where the absence of a coordinated progressive and Democratic pushback against the demand to cut spending and the ideologies that underlay it is so vital. Instead Democratic legislators have cast the post-May 19 spending cuts as somehow inevitable, instead of rallying the base to fight those cuts. Had that rallying effort been done I am convinced that there would be greater support from Democrats and progressives for the May 19 propositions.

Walters also implies that there actually is a Plan B, which we at Calitics have been pushing for some time. The May 20 strategy, as I see it, involves at least these pieces:

  • Majority vote budget
  • Wealth taxes
  • Reverse corporate tax cuts
  • Push repeal of the 2/3rds rule
  • Immediate and meaningful prison reform
  • Legalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana

Walters speculates that with record low approval ratings the legislature isn’t in any position to lead these kind of changes. Here I disagree. I think their low ratings are precisely because they haven’t yet offered these kinds of solutions.

The other argument is of course that none of the above are possible because of Republican obstruction. But that’s begging the question. It is long past time to challenge Republican obstructionists. This is a party that has hardly any public support any longer. They are vulnerable to attack.

The best place to start is higher income taxes on the wealthy. 75% of voters support those taxes, according to the recent Field Poll. Democrats should pick a big fight on that starting on May 20. Force Republicans to use the 2/3 rule to kill those taxes – and you’ve got yourself on hell of a winning issue for 2010. Or you actually force Republicans to climb down and back those taxes.

The point is that no matter what happens on May 19 we’re going to have a massive deficit and therefore a fight on our hands on May 20. Let’s come together as progressives and Democrats, no matter our views on the propositions, to prepare to win that battle.