The weekend madness in Sacramento, product of the California Republican Party and its persistent refusal to accept reality, has finally led much of what remains of the media in California to call bullshit on their obstructionism. Even high Broderists like George Skelton, who usually find a way to avoid saying it’s all the Republicans’ fault, today finally comes around in an excellent column that destroys the Republican notion that we can close the gap without new taxes:

To avoid raising taxes and still balance the books in Sacramento, you’d have to virtually shut down state government…

Ardent anti-taxers say the governor and Legislature should simply whack the “bloated” bureaucracy by 10%. Even 20% if need be. Lay off and cut pay. Pare benefits too. After all, private companies are doing it.

You could lay off all those state workers — rid yourself of their pay and benefits — and save only $24.4 billion….

OK, lose the Legislature, you say. It’s good for nothing. But it’s also not worth much when you’re trying to fill that size deficit hole. The Legislature’s 16-month cost is roughly $400 million.

So now one branch of government is critically wounded, and another is dead. And we’re still $16 billion short of enough savings….

You could cut off all state money to higher education — the two university systems and the community colleges. That would save the remaining $16 billion.

Hardly any Californian actually wants any of this. They don’t want to shut down the prison system and let hundreds of thousands of criminals out on the streets. They don’t want to close the DMV, or shut down the CHP, or destroy their children’s chances at a college education, or close their neighborhood school.

They don’t want any of that. But that’s exactly what Republicans propose to do by their insane anti-tax position. It makes clear that Republicans see themselves as not representing the people of California, but instead they merely represent John & Ken and the staff of the Howard Jarvis Association. They see their oath as to Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge and not to the state constitution. And because of the 2/3 rule, we’re all forced into membership in the death cult.

Regardless of the fate of this budget, it should now be clear to California that the Republican Party is a threat to our state’s basic survival. The next move needs to be a systematic disempowerment of these terrorists. The 2/3 rule must be eliminated at the first available opportunity. And then we go after their seats – whether through a recall or a vote in 2010.

Hopefully this time, the media will not stand in the way of removing the last obstacles to economic recovery and a stable and effective government here in California.

At the root of the Republican-induced budget crisis is, of course, taxes. Dave Cox claimed the taxes would “drag down the economy” and Maldonado is trying to save face by claiming Obama is against new taxes. And Tony Strickland had perhaps the most absurd line of the day:

“If we pass this budget,” he said, “Los Angeles and San Francisco will become the Detroit(s) of the West.”

Don’t look now Tony, California’s unemployment rate isn’t that far behind Michigan’s. The destruction of public services you insist upon – gutting food stamps, Medi-Cal, and schools – would drag California into the abyss.

The Yacht Party’s opposition to new taxes flies in the face of history. Their sainted leader, Ronald Reagan, pushed through a $1 billion tax increase in 1967 to preserve the California Dream – still the largest tax increase, by percentage, in state history. It did not ruin the economy.

In 1991 Pete Wilson, another Republican governor, pushed through a $7.3 billion tax increase. California didn’t collapse – instead we embarked upon ten years of sustained economic growth.

By saving the public services that businesses and workers depend upon to function in a modern society, Reagan and Wilson enabled California to survive temporary crises.

They have been replaced by a very different Republican Party. Today’s Republican Party, in both Washington DC and Sacramento, answers only to their far-right base – Rush Limbaugh, John & Ken, Grover Norquist. They have been thoroughly rejected by the voters, reduced to small minorities and excluded from the executive branch leadership positions (the governor’s office being an exception).

The Republican Party now exhibits the logic of a terrorist organization – willing to sacrifice anyone and everyone to their ideological purity. And it’s worth noting that they themselves embrace that description, with one Republican Congressman equating their party to the Taliban. Rush Limbaugh says he wants Obama – and thus America – to fail; John and Ken and the California Republican Party are essentially saying the same thing about California.

Let the state fail, they say. Let all the schools close, all the health care workers be fired, all the buses and trains shut down, all the construction workers laid off. Let the economy collapse, because god forbid they step down from their ideological pedestals.

Republicans have become the party of no – no to economic recovery, no to fiscal stability, no to the very government they have sworn to uphold. Because of the 2/3 rule, we are all their hostages. The fate of California now rides on one of the most thin-skinned and petulant members of the Senate.

Democrats have bent over backwards – perhaps too much so – to try and produce a deal and stop the state from “going over a cliff”. But they’re negotiating with madmen. Unfortunately, thanks to the 2/3 rule, we have no other choice.

Or do we? Along with being an open thread on the budget, let’s use this thread to debate what the strategy ought to be going forward to deal with the Kamikaze Party and their desire to destroy our future to satisfy their small band of followers.

I work for the Courage Campaign

As Brian explained yesterday the movement to convince Bill Clinton to honor the Manchester Hyatt boycott this Sunday is growing rapidly. Today the Courage Campaign joined with Cleve Jones, who knows a thing or two about the relationship of boycotts to labor organizing and LGBT rights, to ask our hundreds of thousands of members to call upon Clinton to cancel his talk.

Bill Clinton has stated his intentions to give the talk in spite of the growing backlash. As Cleve Jones explained:

Cleve Jones, a longtime gay-rights activist who founded the NAMES Project/AIDS Memorial Quilt, said Clinton should have known he’d create controversy.

“The boycott has been in effect and very well-publicized since July,” said Jones, who also signed the letter. “He’s had ample foreknowledge of the situation.”

Supporters of the boycott plan to gather outside the hotel at 11 a.m. Sunday and remain throughout Clinton’s scheduled 12:30 p.m. speech.

The Courage Campaign has also joined with other key leaders such as Jess Durfee, chair of the San Diego County Democrats, Brigette Browning of UNITE HERE Local 30, and SD councilman Todd Gloria in signing the moveclintonspeech.info letter.

Clinton’s advisers argue that his opposition to Prop 8 last fall demonstrates his commitment to the marriage equality movement. But as we in California know, that movement has only grown since November 4, and we need our friends and allies to stand alongside us now more than ever.

Over the flip is the letter we and Cleve Jones sent to our members:

Dear Robert,

President Bill Clinton will be making a big mistake on Sunday. Unless we act now to stop him. Let me tell you why.

If you’ve seen the film “MILK”, you may know that I worked with Harvey Milk in the 1970s, including on a campaign to boycott Coors Beer for the company’s anti-gay hiring policies and belligerent stance in contract negotiations towards their workers.

The Coors Beer Boycott taught me an unforgettable lesson about the power of coalitions in the struggle for equality. That lesson is being replicated today in the successful Manchester Hyatt Boycott in San Diego.

To the the surprise of many, President Clinton is scheduled to give a paid speech this Sunday at the Manchester Hyatt to the annual convention of the International Franchise Association. To give this speech, President Clinton will have to violate a union boycott and labor dispute — the workers at the hotel lack job security and the housekeepers face onerous workloads.

But that’s not all. President Clinton will also be offending supporters of marriage equality, including myself. Doug Manchester, the owner of the hotel, contributed $125,000 in early seed money to the Proposition 8 campaign.

We can’t let this happen. President Clinton has the power to move his speech away from the Manchester Hyatt. And you have the power to convince him to do the right thing. Please sign the Courage Campaign’s petition to President Clinton immediately and we will do everything in our power to get your signatures to him ASAP:

http://www.couragecampaign.org…

It is ironic that, by showing up at the Manchester Hyatt on Sunday, President Clinton will provide comfort to Ken Starr and the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund, who are now trying to defend the constitutionality of Prop 8 before the state Supreme Court. Doug Manchester’s significant $125,000 contribution to the “Yes on 8” campaign helped pass Prop 8 — money that made Starr’s case possible.

I think President Clinton should move his speech to another hotel in the area that treats its workers — and the LGBT community — with respect. If he doesn’t, he will see me, and likely many others, this Sunday on the sidewalk in front of the Manchester Hyatt.

That is exactly where Harvey Milk would want me — and you — to be. While you may not be able join us there, I hope you’ll add your signature right now and ask President Clinton to do the right thing before Sunday:

http://www.couragecampaign.org…

Thank you for helping the Courage Campaign and UNITE HERE build a broad-based coalition for equal rights and economic justice in California and across the country.

Cleve Jones

UNITE HERE

Also posted at Bear Flag Blue

As the rumors fly about the budget “deal” and whether any Republicans will actually vote for it, it seemed like the best move was to actually call up Republican offices and ask. sean mykael of Bear Flag Blue took the lead on calling the 15 Republican State Senators and we got some…interesting responses.

There were 5 outright “No” responses, from Sam Aanestad (SD-4), George Runner (SD-17), Bob Huff (SD-29), Dennis Hollingsworth (SD-36) and Mark Wyland (SD-38). Robert Dutton (SD-31) is leaning no.

Most responses fell into the “no position, haven’t seen any details, but we oppose taxes.” This includes Tony Strickland (SD-19) and Mimi Walters (SD-33) but also Jeff Denham (SD-12). Abel Maldonado’s office (SD-15) repeated the “no position, haven’t seen details” line but didn’t make note of the tax issue. So it’s possible that means he might stop putting chairs over children.

UPDATE by Brian: I’ve just heard from Denham’s folks. He’s going no.  I suppose that the quest for the losing nomination for LG is on!

And then there was Dave Cogdill, who as David Dayen noted yesterday refused to commit to the deal he negotiated. The only thing his office would say is “everything is on the table.”

This whole thing is a ridiculous joke. Just as in the Congress with the stimulus, Sacramento Republicans demand all kinds of things, from gutting of environmental review to more corporate tax cuts, that they can never get otherwise – and yet they refuse to vote for the bill anyway.

And the underlying reasons are similar. Both in Sacramento and in DC, Republicans have two related goals in mind: First, break the economy so that their large corporate allies can more thoroughly dominate the market; and Second, prevent effective government action on economic recovery to as to have a hope of escaping permanent political oblivion.

Republicans in CA and DC are in the same political position – voters have rejected them, but they have just enough power through procedural quirks (the 2/3 rule, the cloture rule) to obstruct things. If Republicans can use that to prevent economic recovery, then they might have a chance at reversing their series of losses by blaming ongoing economic weakness on the Democrats.

It’s a cynical, suicide cult strategy. But that’s what modern Republicanism has become.

The full list of Republican Senators and responses are over the flip. Of course if any of them or their staff want to send along priceless statements like the one from Dennis Hollingsworth, just drop me an email (click on my username).

• Dave Cox (SD-1): No position, hasn’t seen details.

• Sam Aanestad (SD-4): Will vote no

• Jeff Denham (SD-12): Will vote no

• Dave Cogdill (SD-14): Won’t answer. Will pass along a message. “Everything is on the table at this point”

• Abel Maldonado (SD-15): No position, hasn’t seen details.

• George Runner (SD-17): Will vote no

• Roy Ashburn (SD-18): No position, hasn’t seen details.

• Tony Strickland (SD-19): No position, hasn’t seen language. Opposed to taxes.

• Bob Huff (SD-29): Will vote no “unless there’s some drastic change”

• Robert Dutton (SD-31): From what he has seen so far, leaning no

• Mimi Walters (SD-33): Not in favor of taxes, “will vote accordingly” (which is easy when your kids go to private schools)

• Tom Harman (SD-35): Hasn’t seen details, will not favor higher taxes

• Dennis Hollingsworth (SD-36): Will vote no

• John Benoit (SD-37): Will not be voting for tax increases (not sure what that means exactly – are you in or are you out?)

• Mark Wyland (SD-38): Will vote no

Thanks again to sean mykael for calling these offices!

I will be on KRXA 540 AM at 8 to discuss this and other topics in California politics

Kevin Yamamura of the Sac Bee provides us with the most detailed look yet at the proposed budget deal:

The plan includes $15.8 billion in spending cuts, $14.3 billion in taxes and $10.9 billion in borrowing, according to a budget outline obtained by The Bee. The state also anticipates billions in federal stimulus money, which would reduce each component of the solution if California receives more than $9.2 billion.

Of course, thanks to the United States Senate, it’s not entirely likely that California will receive $9.2 billion, and it’s also uncertain whether the state can redirect the stimulus as proposed. The full details from Capitol Alert:

Gives K-12 education $5 billion less than it was otherwise entitled.

Eliminates two paid holidays for state workers, with the final number of furlough days per month through June 2010 still subject to negotiation.

Cuts UC and CSU by 10 percent.

Eliminates cost-of-living increases for recipients of CAL-Works and SSI-SSP.

Cuts the corrections department’s medical budget by 10 percent.

Eliminates funding for local public transit agencies.

On the tax side, the plan increases sales tax by 1 cent on the dollar, vehicle license fees from current 0.65 percent of vehicle value to 1.15 percent, and gasoline taxes by 12 cents a gallon with proceeds to pay off transportation bonds. Income taxpayers would pay a 2.5 percent surcharge on tax liability – 5 percent if federal stimulus comes in under $10 billion. Reduces tax credit for dependents from $309 to $99.

Taxes would be increased for two years, and an additional one to three years if the spending restriction measure is approved on the ballot.

Other new “revenues” include taking from voter-approved taxes for mental health and early childhood programs.

The whole thing would have to go before voters in a whopping five-measure package: borrowing from the lottery, changing Proposition 98, approving the spending cap, and taking funds from Proposition 10 (tobacco tax for early childhood programs) and Proposition 63 (tax on millionaires for mental-health programs).

Some of that isn’t awful, and some of that is truly insane (eliminating funding for local transit agencies is an act of madness, and cutting the prison medical budget even further is just going to cause more problems and costs for the state down the road when the feds get involved). But the key question now doesn’t seem to be “what’s the in the deal” but “who will vote for it?” Back to the Yamamura article, Speaker Karen Bass is a bit more cautious in describing the state of things:

“I’ve been in this position now, it seems like every week for the last five weeks,” she said. “And, you know, we get back in the room and something blows up.”

So far the uncertain votes are so-called “moderates” like Lou Correa (Dem, SD-34) and Abel Maldonado (Rep, SD-15), and conservatives like Dennis Hollingsworth (Rep, SD-36) (see update below on Hollingsworth). What this axis looks like is the same axis of stupidity that sank the best parts of the federal stimulus – centrist Dems and their allies across the aisle.

The problem of course is that the deal itself isn’t really worth defending and it’s hard to generate much activism for it. But the individual Senators themselves are a, shall we say, target rich environment for especially in Maldonado’s case, putting chairs over children. The goal now is to lean hard and heavy on these recalcitrant Senators, while beginning to ramp up public sentiment in favor of taxes to protect services. (Yes, we should have done that sooner, and I’m as guilty as anyone for not doing so).

Update by Robert: Dennis Hollingsworth’s communications director emailed me to clarify there’s no “uncertainty” regarding that pillar of the Yacht Party: he opposes the deal. I thought this part of his statement was worth quoting:

If this passes with Republican votes, there will be no reason for any Californian to vote for a Republican in the future. The people sent Republicans to Sacramento to be a blockade against tax increases. Once that wall crumbles, there will be no end to the expansion of taxes and spending. The people will rightly figure they can vote for Democrats and at least stand a fair chance of getting their entitlements and programs along with tax increases. As Republicans, we will only remain as the party that gives them tax increases and no programs.

In other words, Californians want Democrats to give them schools and health care and roads and buses and economic growth – but Republicans are there to make sure none of those horrible things happen!

And they wonder why their party has such a hard time winning statewide elections.

Although a budget deal has been rumored for a few days now it has yet to actually materialize. Still, the Sac Bee reports on the outlines of a widely rumored agreement (h/t to surfk9):

Multiple legislative sources said Tuesday that it would raise revenues temporarily by these means:

— Increasing the state’s sales tax by 1 cent on the dollar.

— Increasing gasoline taxes by 12 cents per gallon.

— Raising the state’s vehicle license fee from the current 0.65 percent of a vehicle’s value to 1.15 percent, with 1 percent going to the general fund and local law enforcement getting 0.15 percent.

— Increasing the personal income tax across the board, either by assessing a surcharge on tax liability or increasing the tax rate.

The sales tax, personal income tax and vehicle license fee components would be in effect for either two years or five years, depending upon the fate of a ballot measure to restrict spending.

If voters approve the spending limit, the three revenue-raising components would be in effect for five years. If they reject the measure, the revenue would die after two years.

It was not clear Tuesday whether the proposed gasoline tax increase also would be tied to the ballot measure or how long it would remain in effect.

It’s worth noting that this proposal fits the Republicans’ lawless nature. It’s outright extortion – vote for our spending cap or the tax hikes die – and that ballot measure would likely violate the single-subject rule. Republicans are consistent in one thing – they know the public hates them and hates their ideas, so the only way they can impose their far-right ideology on the state is at gunpoint. This proposal shows that the only difference between the Mafia and the California Republican Party is Sicilian accents.

Democrats ought to have been more vocal about the Republicans’ tactics and refused to go along with them (though there’s still time to ask Jerry Brown to investigate Republican lawlessness, and even John Garamendi joined the Facebook group). It’s not clear whether the non-budget items the Republicans illegally demanded are part of this proposal or not.

What the Republicans are trying to pull here is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t move. If we kill their catastrophically bad spending cap, then we return the state to budget crisis by killing the taxes. But if we accept the cap, we advance their Hooverite, aristocratic agenda.

I wonder if that’s actually how it would work out though. I would enthusiastically campaign against the spending cap ballot measure and I doubt that it would be so difficult to get 51% of Californians to vote no – especially once they learn that tax hikes go away if they vote no. We would then have more time to make our case to voters for revenues and government spending. We’d have more time to target and ideally defeat Republicans in November 2010, taking us to 2/3. And hell, if we’re really lucky the economy might recover enough to where the budget isn’t so bad and we’re not saddled with a spending cap holding us back.

I have to believe that the Republicans are at the end of the line on all this. Obama’s successful framing of the federal stimulus will soon impact California politics as voters realize that mass layoffs of government workers, including teachers, is a monumentally stupid idea and that government spending is good and good for you. Anger at Republican obstruction in DC can be easily translated into anger at obstruction in Sacramento.

In short, Democrats have no reason to feel pressured to accept a bad deal. They just need to hold their ground and explain to the public what is really going on. The public is fed up with Republican lawlessness, whether that manifests itself in this deal or in the killing of their horrific spending cap.

Yesterday’s Media News Group papers, including the Monterey Herald, ran an article purporting to provide “the answer to where California’s tax dollars went” – why we’re in a budget crisis. Their answer: California overspent.

A MediaNews analysis of state spending since Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger took office in late 2003 found that he and the Democratic-controlled Legislature have spent money well beyond the rate of inflation and California’s population growth – $10.2 billion more.

Yet the programs that received most of that money are priorities that Californians broadly support or have demanded at the ballot box: tougher prison sentences for criminals, health care for uninsured children and an aging population, and a cut in the “car tax” that they pay every year to register their vehicles.

The problem, according to a report last week from the state auditor, is that Republican and Democratic politicians in Sacramento have shirked their responsibility for the past decade, papering over shortfalls that started after the dot-com bubble popped in 2001.

Like homeowners paying off one credit card with another, they used accounting gimmicks and more debt, rather than raising taxes or cutting spending, to balance the books.

It’s a classic case of journalistic truthiness – some facts and accurate analysis wrapped inside a totally misleading frame. But in making this analysis, and emphasizing that the growth in state spending came from core programs – education, health care, and prisons – they have actually reinforced the argument I made nearly a year ago that we have a structural revenue shortfall. As I explained it:

The real problem is that since 1978 this state has cut nearly $12 billion in taxes. This was done during economically prosperous periods, particularly the 1990s. And that lack of revenue has piled up over the years – the state has fallen further and further behind to the point now that our state’s governor is seriously proposing ending public education as we know it.

The MNG story is framed as one of “foolish politicians recklessly overspent our money! if only they’d been more careful!” But within the story itself the truth does emerge:

Schwarzenegger’s first act as governor, signing an executive order to cut the vehicle license fee by two-thirds, blew a large hole in the state budget. It saved the average motorist about $200 a year but would have devastated the cities and counties that had been receiving the money. So Schwarzenegger agreed to repay them every year with state funds. That promise now costs the state $6 billion a year, or $2 billion more than the rate of inflation and population growth since early 2003.

MNG claims there was $10.6 billion in “overspending” – but $6 billion of it, or more than half, was Arnold’s idiotic VLF cut. The article, which conveniently stops its history at November 2003, doesn’t include the other $6 billion in tax cuts that have been implemented since 1993 – cuts that would have allowed state services to be funded at the bare-bones levels we’ve seen during Arnold’s reign.

More criticism of the article over the flip…

The article also gives fuel to the wingnut fire that spending should remain within “inflation and population growth.” Although the authors acknowledge that an aging population is responsible for much of the growth in health care costs (meaning that using inflation and population growth as a metric to judge spending is even more idiotic than it first appeared), it’s not at all clear that they’re correct that state spending exceeded inflation and population growth. John Laird certainly doesn’t believe that:

“If you factor out voter initiatives and court suits, the remaining part of state government grew at or less than inflation and population growth,” said John Laird, a Santa Cruz Democrat who served as Assembly budget committee chairman from 2004 to 2008.

The authors don’t stop to peruse that statement, and instead barrel right ahead with these numbers:

· California’s general fund under Schwarzenegger’s tenure has grown 34.9 percent – from $76.3 billion in the 2003-04 fiscal year to $102.9 billion in 2007-08.

· But over that same period, population growth and inflation together grew by only 21.5 percent.

· If state spending had grown only at that rate, it would have reached $92.7 billion last year. Instead, Schwarzenegger and the Legislature spent $10.2 billion more.

These numbers were directly challenged here last week by OC Progressive, who cited the Legislative Analyst Office:

Total state spending over the decade 1998-99 through 2008-09 … Total spending grows over this period from $72.6 billion to $128.8 billion-an average annual growth rate of roughly 6 percent…

  * After adjusting for inflation, real spending has grown by roughly 18 percent over the entire period, or an annual average growth rate of roughly 1.7 percent.

  * Real per-capita spending-which adjusts for both inflation and population growth-would increase by about 2.2 percent over the period, for an average annual rate of 0.2 percent.

The other key point to keep in mind is that the spending increases that occurred after 2003 were largely restorative in nature – putting back funds that had been cut in 2002-2003 to deal with the prior budget mess.

With the basis of the “omg CA overspends!” argument shown to be built on false logic and bad evidence, all we’re left with is ideology. If anything government spending needs to increase as President Obama so well explained at his press conference last night. Government alone can lift the state out of a severe economic crisis, and that means more spending.

Advocating for less spending – which is the goal of the MNG article – is an inherently Hooverite stance. Americans don’t support it, but it has some power here in California. Progressives need to aggressively push back against this frame, otherwise we could see a hard spending cap and the death of California as we know it.

Voters have it right – they want high levels of government spending. And contrary to public opinion, they are willing to support taxes to pay for it. But the 2/3 rule, whether in the Legislature or in local tax votes, makes it nearly impossible to raise the necessary revenues.

Eliminate the 2/3 rule and voters will be make the right choices.