Dave Johnson, Speak Out California

Governor Schwarzenegger has talked about the need to act responsibly and pass a budget.

So the legislature is trying to do just that.  According to the Sacramento Bee,

“… the Legislature’s joint budget conference committee, on a party-line vote, adopted a plan that included about $2 billion in new oil production and cigarette taxes to help bridge a $24 billion budget gap.”

So what is the Governor’s response to a balanced approach to fixing the budget?

“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he wouldn’t sign a plan that was balanced with tax increases.”

He will shut down the state, close the schools, lay off thousands of workers, because the legislature balances the cuts with small tax increases on tobacco and oil companies.

This is known as “dancing with the ones who brung ya.”  The Republicans get elected with millions of dollars from big corporations, and that is who they answer to.  They will close schools, lay off police and firefighters, and keep elderly people from getting needed medical care or oxygen tanks delivered, just to protect the cash that is flowing to a few very large corporations.  From the referenced post,

If you look at the independent expenditure reports for the 2008 California election you’ll see a massive amount of last-minute money. …you learn that this money came from corporations like Arkansas’ Wal-Mart, Blue Cross of Ohio (Ohio?), Reliant Energy, major real estate companies, and from other PACs.

… huge amounts of money coming from large corporations like Philip Morris, ATT, Chevron, Safeway, Sempra Energy, Verizon, big insurance companies, big pharmaceutical companies, big real estate companies … and other conduits like the Chamber of Commerce.

But think about this: it isn’t “corporations” who are doing this.  Corporations are just abstract concepts, really nothing more than a bundle of legal contracts and enabling laws. It is people — a few specific people.  When you hear that a corporations did something, it wasn’t Bob in Sales or Alice in Accounts Receivable who made decisions that affect your life like this, it was really a few people at the top who have control of the resources of that corporation.  The things they do are intended to benefit them personally, not to benefit the company.  This is why so many companies are destroyed while the executives get rich and then leave a mess behind.  Corporations are not the problem, it is the use of corporate resources to influence government that is the problem.

And this time, while we try to solve a budget problem that looks like it could shut down the state, it is a really big problem.

Click through to Speak Out California

UPDATE by Brian: I’ve attached a  summary of the Budget Committee’s bill over the flip.  

The plot thickens.  The Governor today threatened to veto the work of the bipartisan Budget Conference Committee and reject any bill that, essentially, doesn’t hew to his desire to destroy the social safety net of the state.  The Democratic leadership countered that they’ll pass the bill anyway.

Democratic legislative leaders vowed today that the Legislature will pass a “share the pain” budget-balancing plan early next week – with or without tax increases — that will close the state’s spending deficit without completely shredding California’s social services safety net.

The vows by Senate President Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, came about an hour after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he wouldn’t sign a plan that was balanced with tax increases.

The rhetorical staking out of ground by the key figures in the current version of the state’s ongoing fiscal melodrama came a day after the Legislature’s joint budget conference committee, on a party-line vote, adopted a plan that included about $2 billion in new oil production and cigarette taxes to help bridge a $24 billion budget gap.

Let’s take a brief look at what else the conference committee has done.  They resisted some of the worst health care cuts, including the total elimination of Healthy Families (the SCHIP program).  They reduced education spending significantly in both K-12 and higher ed.  They reduced corrections spending by a fairly large amount.  Despite the fact that state parks pay for themselves, Democrats agreed to cut state participation in park funding, replacing it with additional fees on park admissions.  They agreed to increasing withholding by 10%, which amounts to an interest-free loans from citizens to the state.  According to Karen Bass, they agreed to 45% of the Governor’s proposals in full, and 93% in part.

So the idea that Democrats are not cutting spending is simply unreasonable and wrong.  At the same time, they rejected additional cuts to state worker salaries.  They rejected the end of Cal Works or Cal Grants or In-Home Support Services.  And some of the Governor’s proposals, like borrowing from local governments, were rejected unanimously.

I don’t even much like what the Democrats came up with.  But they did not agree to completely wipe out the social safety net, calling for moderate increases in revenue on constituencies who have been getting away with murder, pretty much literally, for decades, to pay for the externalities in health care costs that they impose on the public.  As Noreen Evans explains:

Californians expect their schools to be good, a safety net to be available to the needy, a college education to be affordable for working families, their air and water to be clean, and their parks to be open and kept up. In order to meet their expectations, we must to pursue new revenues. Today, for the greater good, we approved two new tax proposals that won’t impact most Californians.

Establishing a 9.9 percent tax on oil extracted from California would generate $830 million in FY 2009-2010 and $1.1 billion in future years. This precise proposal was part of the governor’s budget proposals last year. Increasing the excise tax on cigarettes by $1.50 per pack generates $1 billion in FY 2009-2010.

Tax increases require a 2/3 vote. Absent the pursuit of new revenues, wider and deeper cuts will be required. Getting new revenues requires a mere 6 Republican votes: 2 in the Senate and 4 in the Assembly. It is undemocratic that the votes of 6 Republicans can veto the votes of 75 Democrats.

But Arnold wants to destroy the state of California like a good little neo-Hooverist, so he said no.

The Dem leadership appears to want to have this fight for the moment, so they ought to realize one thing: Arnold will ultimately be responsible – and reviled – in a government shutdown situation.  No question about it.  Not 1 in 10 Californians can even NAME a Democrat in the legislature.  If the ship sinks, Arnold will be perceived as the skipper.  And so, if and when Arnold vetoes the bill, the Democrats should send it back – with MORE tax fairness solutions, daring Arnold to prolong the agony.  That resets the battle and draws clear lines between those who want the richest companies in America to sacrifice along with ordinary Californians, and those who want to protect the rich completely.  Unfortunately, the Dems are tipping their hand that this will not be the case.

But Bass and Steinberg seemed to be reconciled to the likelihood that the tax hike proposals would fail next week. Steinberg said that if they did, the package they sent the governor would have a reserve $2 billion smaller than he had sought.

We have a couple days to change this dynamic.  The progressive movement around the budget has stiffened spines a bit so far.  Time to make the calls and emails.

This is funny:

Schwarzenegger added that he wants a budget plan that will bridge the entire projected deficit of $24 billion, not a stopgap measure to “kick the can down the alley.”

The plan must consist of permanent solutions to the state’s fiscal problems, not one-time revenue that sparks ongoing spending commitments, Schwarzenegger said.

When Schwarzenegger was reminded that his own budget plan contains some one-time revenue proposals, such as acceleration of income tax payments, he smiled.

“Very good point,” he said. “We don’t want to add to the problem.”

The cyborg is not running on all cylinders.  He has a single-minded purpose to kill the California dream and even these extremely moderate revenue enhancements.

June 16 2009 Conference Report – Get more Business Documents  

I’ve been hearing the California crisis, and the Governor’s response, referred to as a kind of shock doctrine, used to transform the state’s social safety net and radically alter the lives of the poor and downtrodden.  And that’s entirely true.  But not necessarily through the budget cuts, which have met fierce opposition from Democrats and the nascent activist progressive movement.  No, the real shock doctrine is happening behind the curtain, with a proposal engineered with bipartisan support, that will really permanently turn the state into an experiment in Chicago Boys free-market fundamentalism, not unlike the conservative “paradises” created in developing nations, all of which are crashing, by the way.

Last year, the Governor and legislative leaders put together the Parsky Commission, a classic blue-ribbon panel led by Gerald Parsky, a right-wing investment fund manager and professional hack who has consistently been put to use by Republicans in Sacramento and Washington to carry out their radical plans.  He was George Bush’s California campaign chair in 2000 and 2004.  The idea behind this one started from a decent premise – California has a taxation problem, and needs a study group to look into how to reform it so that it’s better equipped to handle boom-and-bust economic cycles.  Supposedly, all ideas – including Prop. 13 – would be “on the table” from this commission, which would seek a more stable solution.

Of course, the fix was in from the start.  Because this panel respected the 2/3 requirement for raising taxes, it sought revenue-neutral solutions, tinkering and shifting the tax burdens rather than reforming them.  So predictably, the end result is a proposal that broadens the tax base while shifting the burden downward onto the lower and middle classes while relieving the wealthy.  The Governor’s Chief of Staff tipped her hand about this previously when she said that the problem with California’s tax structure is that it’s too progressive.

Some of the Commission’s proposals, like broadening the sales tax to include services in addition to goods while lowering the rate overall, make a bit of sense.  But the rest of it is pure right-wing fantasy:

At the 14-member commission’s penultimate meeting in Los Angeles June 16, its members appeared to narrow its potential recommendations, due July 31, to two proposals.

Both would lower the top income tax levels and, in one case, eliminate the state’s corporate tax and the portion of the sales tax pocketed by the state.

Under one proposal, what the commission refers to as Tax Package 1B, all Californians would pay a 6 percent income tax rate. The state’s wealthiest residents currently pay 9.3 percent with lower percentages as earnings fall.

The effect of the proposal would be to increase the taxes on Californians earning less than $100,000 to broaden the tax base.

The state’s 8.8 percent corporations tax would be eliminated, as would the 5 percent of the sales tax the state retains […]

A new “business net receipts” tax makes up for much of the lost revenue from the sales and corporation tax eliminations.

“Business net receipts” taxes are essentially a value-added tax.  And one estimate predicts that it would take in $28 billion dollars annually.  But everything must be revenue neutral, so in a time of crisis, the Parsky Commission would go to a FLAT TAX and eliminate the corporate tax rate, as well as possibly cutting the capital gains tax.  It’s impossible to see this as anything but a giant wealth transfer from the rich to the poor.  Simply impossible.

Useful idiots like the folks at Calbuzz prefer not to actually take sides on an issue when just splitting the difference between left and right automatically provides the best practice every time.  Their somewhat illuminating article about all of this betrays a bias toward that wise “sensible centrism” that ends up orienting toward crazed right-wing solutions every time.

The political play is to produce a tax reform bill so clean it can be introduced in both houses with assurances no one will be allowed to bog it down with amendments.  Democrats will be able to avoid drastic program cuts and Republicans can claim they’ve cut taxes.  The bill breezes through both houses on an up-or-down vote and bada bing it gets signed by Arnold and everybody goes to dinner.  No muss, no fuss, no partisan fingerprints […]

Getting a consensus recommendation from the commission, which includes conservatives like former Reagan economic adviser Michael Boskin and liberals like Santa Cruz County Treasurer Fred Keeley is by no means guaranteed. Even if commissioners do agree, their proposal will be fly-specked by lefty groups who will dislike elements that are not progressive, and industry groups, who will push for business-friendly changes.

As a political matter, forcing an up-or-down vote on a package in the Legislature would address what-about-me objections from all quarters, in the same way as the prohibition on amendments to congressional legislation produced by the military base closure commission in the 1990s finally solved that intractable problem. (Or like a Pete Wilson-Willie Brown deal from days of yore in Sacramento.)

After all, the impending bankruptcy of state government should be sufficient to show players at every point of the political spectrum not only that sweeping change is needed, but also that everyone will have to compromise to keep California from sinking into the 9th Circle of Hell.

This is “the midpoint between two points always works best” pop politics masquerading as serious thought, and what else would you expect from a duo who can spin a whole article out of a picture of two politicians smiling.  Somehow, “lefty groups” arguing against the literally insane idea of a flat tax has the same moral and intellectual equivalency of business groups trying to wiggle out of a way to pay their taxes.  A flat tax would very clearly shift the burden of taxation to the middle class, and practically every taxpayer would actually see their tax burden increase except the few at the top.  But because we’re in crisis, and everyone will have to “sacrifice,” surely we should ram through a right-wing fantasy, turning California into Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, all of whom have flat tax systems.  How’s that working out for them?

Over the last decade, Eastern European countries became darlings of the far right by instituting free-market economic policies designed to break convincingly from their Communist past. The so-called Baltic Tigers-Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia-garnered worldwide plaudits for a number of free-market reforms, led by the imposition of a flat-rate income tax, especially from the American right. “The flat tax is making a comeback,” trumpeted the conservative National Review. The three nations are “leading a global tax reform revolution,” said the right-leaning Heritage Foundation […]

Too bad for them that it hasn’t worked out. Latvia, which has a flat tax of 25 percent, and Lithuania and Estonia, which have 21 percent tax rates, are all in deep economic trouble. They all have huge government budget deficits, a sign that they took in too little in tax revenue to cover their costs, primarily state expenditures to provide a generous welfare state. Conservatives might argue that they didn’t slash welfare benefits enough, but there is no dispute that the flat tax didn’t provide the expected revenue.

This is the future that would be put into place – with a no-amendment, up-or-down vote – under the Parsky Commission.  Somehow, the elected legislature of the people cannot be trusted with tax law, but an unelected, unaccountable blue-ribbon commission should be empowered to create this radical change in law with no public input.  That’s the wise and sensible solution.  Because we can’t have all this messy “democracy” mucking up the need to protect the rich and transfer wealth downward more radically than any proposal ever seen in America.  California Budget Bites has more.

It’s important to note that this all stems from the revenue-neutral demand embedded in the proposal.  Otherwise, it could never pass because it would need a 2/3 vote.  So somehow, a flat tax, elimination of corporate income taxes and slashing of capital gains taxes get thrown into the mix, something that nobody outside the fringe far right would ever endorse.  The 2/3 rule, AGAIN, prevents a real solution.

If you wonder why I oppose a so-called “bailout” for California, it’s because in addition to everything else, that attacks the wrong problem.  We need a major restoration of democracy in the state, and instead we get “solutions” that don’t reflect the desire of the citizenry.  That’s why only a local grassroots movement to finally remove the structural barriers, not a one-time cash infusion, will work.

The sole legitimate reason for opposition to federal aid to help “donor nation” California to deal with its budget crisis is that by rewarding failure and will invite all sorts of other states to line up for similar largesse.  Governor Palin is among those who have raised the prospect of such a perverse incentive.

I think that I can solve that problem (and I know this isn’t a new solution):

As a condition of aid, the Obama Administration should require Governor Schwarzenegger to resign.

To be fair, the Feds should probably also require Speaker Bass and Senator Steinberg to resign from their leadership positions, although I say that with regret, as I have little real animus towards them for their desperate attempts to deal with the current situation.  That just may be what’s required to make things look “unbiased.”

They should also require California to take serious steps to resolve its budget crisis, including requiring a a simple majority budget and a constitutional convention to address the question of taxation.  Money should be deployed in such a way that the greatest benefit comes only when the strategic solutions are implemented by voter approval.

Take that sort of hard-nosed, pragmatic line — punishing failure and demanding real reform — and I promise you that the line of other states seeking to follow suit will be very, very short.

So, with that objection out of the way, I renew my call for federal assistance to this state before, to liken economics to the fate of the Pequod, we drag all surrounding boats into the salty deep in our wake.

I’m willing to see Arnold resign as a condition of saving our economy.  Is he?

President Obama’s stimulus bill provides long overdue federal funds to communities facing hard times, but San Francisco will lose virtually all its money from Washington to Sacramento.  The City will receive an extra $92 million in federal money this year, but the state has already cut $62 million from what it gave last year.  And with Governor Schwarzenegger pushing a “cuts-only” budget to address the state’s shortfall, things are only likely to get worse.  Mayor Newsom’s proposed budget set aside $25 million to plan for future state cuts, but it could be more like $200 million.  Nearly all federal gains to the Human Services Agency have already been cancelled out by state losses, without counting Arnold’s new proposal to eliminate Cal-Works (which would cut another $100 million out of that department.)  Sacramento could decimate the City’s Health Department, and it has already killed public transportation funding.  Not only does this mean that advocates must fight for every cent in the City budget, but it forces us to pay close attention to what’s happening in the State Capitol.

Obama brought hope to our country after decades of despair, but for Californians – who enthusiastically backed him by a wide margin – the federal stimulus won’t amount to much.  That’s because we have a two-thirds requirement in the State Capitol to pass a budget, a shrill minority of Republican legislators who refuse to vote for a single tax increase, and a lame-duck Governor whose legacy will be driving the state to bankruptcy.  The Obama Administration will be sending money to San Francisco, but Schwarzenegger will be taking most of it away.

Take the budget of the City’s Human Services Agency.  It’s bad enough that Mayor Newsom has proposed slashing $24 million in General Fund dollars, which means that for the first time it would get less than the Fire Department.  The feds are giving it an extra $20.8 million this year, but the state has already cut $17.7 million – a “net gain” of only $3 million.  Now, Schwarzenegger wants to end Cal-Works aid to families, slash payments for IHSS (in-home supportive services) even further, and eliminate the cash assistance program for immigrants.  The City already “back-filled” cuts to IHSS after the state budget passed in February.  Absorbing these additional cuts would cost Human Services a whopping $114 million.

The Department of Public Health got an extra $37 million in FMAP (Federal Medical Assistance Percentage) funds this year, but the state also cut $14 million.  Now it stands to lose 19 of the $23 million “net gain,” if Arnold has his way.  The Governor wants to eliminate the Healthy Families Program, which would mean 12,000 uninsured children in San Francisco – unless the City pays for it out of its own budget.  Schwarzenegger also wants to reduce AIDS drug assistance program (which literally saves the lives of patients), Medi-Cal reimbursements for drug treatment and skilled nursing facilities, and kill funding for Prop 63 substance abuse treatment.  Keep in mind that Newsom already plans to cut about $100 million of the City’s Health budget.  Can we afford to lose any more?

The good news is that apparently Schwarzenegger has backed down on “borrowing” up to $2 billion from local governments to pay off the state deficit.  The bad news is that he wants to steal part of the state’s gasoline tax revenue which goes to local government – to pay the “debt service” caused by all his financially reckless schemes of the past six years.  The Department of Public Works – the one major City agency that hasn’t yet seen budget cuts from Sacramento this year – could lose $13 million.  Arnold’s plan would also take $3 million out of the Metropolitan Transportation Agency.

Speaking of public transportation, the City passed a Muni budget last month to plug a $129 million deficit – by raising bus fares and cutting service.  Muni’s “state of emergency” did not happen by accident.  A large chunk of this gap happened after the Governor eliminated STA funds, which provide the bulk of state funding for public transit.  The MTA did receive $67 million in federal stimulus funds, but most of it went to “shovel-ready” capital projects (whose benefit won’t be seen for years) – while our “transit-first” city can’t afford to keep most of our buses running.

All told, the City and County of San Francisco is getting an extra $92 million in federal funds this year – most of it from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).  But due to the shenanigans in Sacramento, our state funding has taken a $62 million hit – negating more than two-thirds of what we got from the Obama stimulus.  If the Governor and state legislature pass a “cuts-only” budget as they keep threatening, City Controller Ben Rosenfield says we could lose up to $200 million.  Mayor Newsom’s budget proposal put aside some money if the state makes more cuts, but only $25 million.  Any way you look at it, it will be a disaster.

Back in San Francisco, the Board of Supervisors is considering changes to the Mayor’s budget.  The Firefighters Union (who have Newsom consultant Eric Jaye on retainer) are planning a rally tomorrow in front of City Hall against a Board proposal to cut the Police, Fire and Sheriff budgets.  Newsom’s plan increases the Fire Department budget, but some Supervisors believe that every department must “share the pain.”  Meanwhile, the Coalition to Save Public Health – a group of non-profit and City workers who provide front-line health and human services for the poor – will have their own rally across the street at 12:30 p.m.  Many of these groups are facing budget cuts.

At the end of the day, however, everyone at the local level is fighting to minimize devastating cuts that are inevitable.  The real fight is in Sacramento, and advocates must pressure the Democratic leadership to insist on revenue solutions (like an oil severance tax, or restoring the income tax for high wage earners to Reagan-Wilson levels.)  State Senate President Darrell Steinberg and Senator Mark Leno are hosting a live Internet townhall tonight on the state budget at 6:00 p.m.  Submit your questions at Leno’s website, and if you’re in front of a computer this evening you should watch.

Democrats have their back to the wall in Sacramento, and they need support just to keep pushing harder.  But we will never truly resolve this mess until the voters pass a constitutional amendment eliminating the two-thirds requirement to pass a state budget.  This is what has blocked progress in the state, and has given us a Mississippi budget.  That’s why the answer I want to hear tonight is what political strategy the Democratic leadership has to make this change a reality.  We must generate mass public outrage to get rid of it.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

Remember when Arnold wanted to sell all the state properties? And remember how that selling the properties won’t actually help the budget mess? Well, it turns out Arnold has noticed that his idea of, um, about a month ago was pretty dumb:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday said this is the wrong time to consider selling state assets — less than a month after he proposed doing just that.

During a news conference in Escondido, the governor responded to a question about his proposal to sell the Del Mar Fairgrounds and other state properties. He announced the proposal in May as part of his revised plan to address a $24.3 billion budget deficit.

He acknowledged the timing was poor. The commercial real estate market is just one part of California’s economy that has been pummeled by the recession.

“And it’s also not always the best time right now, when we are in a financial crisis where people pay you much less for those properties, to go out and sell them immediately,” Schwarzenegger said. (AP 6/14/09)

So, basically, 4 weeks ago, you were young and immature, and, um stupid.  Thing is, that a bunch of bloggers around here, in addition to Asm. Evans, said it was a dumb idea back then.  The question is then, a) who comes up with all of these bad ideas and b) why do they make it out of the Horseshoe?

What’s up with Arnold trying to make Dan Quayle look brilliant?

Suggestions on the budget crisis are coming in from just about every possible source.  Right-wingers across the spectrum are calling for their favorite cuts.  It’s like an all you can eat buffet of cuts to Nortquistian-government slashers.

But over on the progressive side, a slew of reasonable plans are emerging from a variety of organizations. The California Tax Reform Association has a detailed list of suggestions that include a litany of “waste, fraud, and abuse” in the tax code, improving collections of existing taxes, and adding a few taxes that are broadly supported.  The entire report is just a few pages, but provides a very good guide on how we proceed. Many of these suggestions are majority vote, so the question is once again Arnold’s willingness to bend to reality.

Idea	Support	Oppose	D/K
Cut Police	23	74	3
Cut K-12	25	73	2
Cut Health Care for the poor	26	72	2
Increase Tobacco Tax	75	N/a
Increase Millionaire’s Tax	74
Oil Severance Tax	54

The fact is that Lenny Goldberg and the gang at CalTaxReform have provided a list of at least $10 Billion for this fiscal year that broad majorities of the public supports.  At any rate, I think it’s fairly clear that far larger majorities support raising some of these revenue items over the idea of slashing, say, K-12 education.  And just in case anybody doubts that, let’s take a look at two numbers from the April 30 Field Poll. As you can see, far larger percentages of Californians favor raising at least some of these taxes in order to avoid painful cuts to some of the biggest parts of the budget.

Many are advocating for the repeal of the corporate tax cut, and there are some great grassroots groups pushing on that front.  Some grassroots folks are working on FixTheBudgetNow, which is pushing a variety of solutions.  And the good folks at CREDOMobile are pushing a 5 pronged plan for a portion of the deficit:

1. Reverse three expensive tax concessions to businesses.

2. Tax the extraction of oil.

3. Update the administrative rules governing the assessment of commercial property.

4. Impose a sales tax on medical marijuana.

5. Tap the rainy-day fund.

These are all ideas that have been discussed to some extent.  The interesting one here is the tax on medical marijuana. Asm. Ammiano (D-SF) has proposed legalizing and taxing marijuana, but this would cover only that which was already legal. CREDO is encouraging their members to sign their petition online.

At this point, Legislators are getting calls from anyone and everyone. But, it is important that this process is more open than the previous attempt, so it seems to me that the ideas should keep on coming. The hard part will be solidifying on one coherent plan in order to move forward in the negotiations.

Yesterday, the interwebz were abuzz with news that Arnold was threatening to shut down the state government.  Today, he has a little action item to go along with that:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday followed up on his threat to block a high-interest loan that could be needed to keep California government running if he and state lawmakers fail to balance the budget soon.

The governor revoked the state controller’s authority to take out such an emergency loan, a day after saying he was willing to bring state government to a “grinding halt” should budget talks stall. A loan would cost too much, he said, and give lawmakers an excuse to procrastinate. (LAT 6/12/09)

While it isn’t completely clear that a) Arnold will stand firm on this revocation and b) that he has the authority to really block the loan.  That being said, the Democrats are taking this quite seriously.  

Asm. Noreen Evans (D-Sonoma Cty.) and Sen. Mark Leno (D-SF/Marin) both responded harshly. Evans called the plan “hallucinatory and irresponsible” while Leno took the tack of pleading to the Governor’s better graces.  As of yet, neither approach has yet swayed the Governor.  

At this point, you never know what kind of games Arnold is playing at, and that’s precisely what he has in mind.  But at a deeper level, he’s playing with people’s lives.

During the special election, I had the opportunity to work with the SEIU state council to reject the Governor’s crazy Prop 1A.  Even after the election, they, along with other coalition partners, have been working to fight the Governor’s talking points of cuts-only budget.  The coalition presented facts showing that Californians do not want the drastic cuts that Arnold was claiming they did. In fact, they are willing to raise a bit of revenue.  But, there is always another fight in this budget mess.

Today they released a new TV ad along with a website, CommonSenseForCA.org. This message needs to go out far and wide: A Cuts-only budget is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to be last in the nation in education spending or to slash HIV/AIDS funding. It is not ok to take away Health Families coverage. There are options available to us, options that are supported by wide majorities of the state.

As the ad says, the Legislature and the Governor need to apply some common sense before they set the state back any further.

UPDATE: Apparently SEIU will be spending a million bucks to air this around the state. Well, that will bring some attention. SacBee.

There are some moments when you just notice the absurdity of some of the arguments we are stuck on. Let’s try this one from the servants of Howard Jarvis’ Corpse that appeared in the Bee today:

“You still have more revenue coming in than any other state in the union,” David Wolf of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association told the committee. “You just can’t justify continuing to raise taxes.” (SacBee 6/9/09)

Really? This is what they are going with? California is a vastly larger economy than any other state. Of course we have more revenue than any other state. What exactly is the point of this statement, and why was it published in the story. We cannot pretend that this is merely a spending problem. making revenue untouchable.

“I get the politics of this,” Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, said, “but I don’t think we as legislators should be silent and feel we can’t talk about certain things when it’s the big elephant in the room.”

If we don’t talk about revenue, then quite simply the will just won’t materialize.  It’s not going to come from simple Republican mistakes or something crazy like that. We have to actually create the will through serious messaging work. Mark Leno and other progressives are doing that, but so far the greater conversation has been played on right-wing terms

And instead of actually being “post-partisan”, Arnold is simply playing old-school special interest politics and rejecting all calls for additional revenue. No taxes on Chevron when they pull oil from the ground. No taxes on sports tickets, nothing new on tobacco or alcohol.  Guess what the common thread is in that list? Yup, those would be the donors to his special election campaign.

The Governor and the Legislative Leaders need to be honest here, if everything is on the table, then everything must really be on the table. No more of this third rail politics shit, where people can’t discuss the real problems.  Let’s have an honest debate, you know this time with facts that are actually relevant.