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

Regardless of your stance on Proposition 11, the redistricting reform measure, hopefully everyone can agree that it shouldn’t be used to distort reality, right? Unfortunately that’s exactly what’s happening in the media’s coverage of both Prop 11 and the budget fight. Today’s column from George Skelton is a perfect example of how the media likes to let Republicans off the hook for their failures by blaming Democrats instead – in this case for the long budget delay.

Skelton buys hook, line, and sinker – without the skepticism a journalist should normally display – the bill of goods that Arnold Schwarzenegger sells him on Prop 11 and the budget. Although Skelton acknowledges the 2/3 rule is more important, he still buys into the long discredited notion that legislative redistricting is the cause of Sacramento gridlock:

But I wouldn’t argue with Schwarzenegger’s thesis: Gerrymandering tends to reward extremism in both parties and punish compromise, locking lawmakers into ideological corners….

Republicans pledge not to raise taxes. Democrats promise a laundry list of social programs the state can’t afford.

Then they come to Sacramento and can’t compromise.

“With the redistricting the way it is done, Republicans can only win [primaries] if they’re way to the right and Democrats can only win if they are way to the left,” Schwarzenegger lamented to a Los Angeles news conference Wednesday, pitching for his budget proposal that includes a sales tax increase, billions in spending cuts and budgeting reform.

Neither Arnold nor Skelton are telling the truth, and I leave it up to the reader to determine whether this is a deliberate lie. The Democrats HAVE produced compromise after compromise. They have consistently agreed to spending cuts over the last several years and the joint Assembly-Senate Democratic budget plan this year included several billion in spending cuts, alongside new revenues. That’s exactly the solution a new PPIC poll suggests Californians want. Dems even put it to a vote – and Republicans shot it down. Republicans have yet to offer ANY alternative.

It is undeniable that it is the Republicans alone who are responsible for this budget delay. Look at the email Republican Senator Dave Cogdill sent rejecting compromise:

“The Modesto Bee wants me to raise YOUR taxes!

“I just wanted to pass on this morning’s editorial from one of our local papers. They are calling on my friend Assembly Leader Mike Villines and me to consider raising your taxes. I don’t think that’s what you elected me to do. You elected me to represent you and to fight for a commonsense budget that is not balanced on the backs of taxpayers. California is already one of the most over-taxed states in the nation. With an additional tax increase, we’d vie for number one. That is not a distinction this state needs, especially with a slowing economy.

“This state has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. A tax increase would only encourage more irresponsible spending, cause the loss of over 56,000 jobs, smother the economy, and hurt hardworking Californians. Instead of a tax increase, this state desperately needs budget reform, measures to stimulate the economy and fiscal restraint now and into the future.

Both Skelton and Schwarzenegger allude to the reasons for Cogdill’s and other Republicans’ refusal to compromise – if they do they will be subject to a primary challenge by another wingnut who will say “the incumbent voted for a tax increase,” which makes Republican legislators skittish:

Sitting in his conference room, Schwarzenegger told me: “They are saying things in here — and I never want to repeat it because what we say in this office shouldn’t be repeated — but it’s clear that their hearts are sometimes in the right direction. But they’re afraid to go back to their districts because they’d get slaughtered.

“They could never win anything again. Their political career is over.”

Schwarzenegger was referring to the Republicans he has been trying to lobby for a tax increase. But he added: “Same thing with the Democrats. They have those kind of fears.”

With Republicans running so far to the right and Democrats to the left, the governor complained, “they can’t meet in the middle.”

The first part refers to Republicans and is entirely accurate. But Arnold can’t tell Californians the truth, that this budget crisis is entirely the Republicans’ fault, so he tacks on at the end “oh yeah the Dems have the same problem.”

But they don’t. Democrats have been willing to propose spending cuts. It’s not fear of the left that has prevented them from compromising but the fact that Republicans refuse tax increases. Arnold and Skelton are not being straight with the public here.

More fundamentally, their views on Prop 11 and the budget defy logic. As has been explained countless times – apparently falling on deaf ears – “gerrymandering” is NOT the cause of Republican extremism. Most of California is politically self-segregated. There’s no way to draw competitive districts in San Francisco, Fresno, and south Orange County.

The Republican Party nationwide is characterized by a far-right anti-government zealotry that pervades the voter base and the funding sources. Prop 11 won’t change that.

Finally, Skelton again repeats the discredited canard that California has a spending problem. Instead we have a structural revenue shortfall – we don’t raise enough money to pay for basic services. Republicans know this but don’t have the guts to implement revenue solutions because they’re scared of their fellow far-right freaks. Republicans and Republicans alone are responsible for the budget delay.

But instead of placing the blame squarely on their shoulders, look how Skelton ends his column:

Good people working in a bad system — some of it, the gerrymandering, self-perpetuated by Democrats.

He winds up blaming Democrats for Republican failures. And we wonder why the budget is so late. If I knew that I could screw around and not do my job and someone else would get the blame, I’d do it too.

I really don’t know where this came from other than the shrinking class of California political pundits just understanding common sense, but they are all gradually coming on board with the notion that what’s killing the state is the 2/3 requirement, and that until it’s fixed, nothing in the Capitol will materially change.

Most of George Skelton’s column today concerns the “dance of death” – a ritual slaughtering of budget proposals through the normal legislative process until one survivor comes out on top.  There is too much of a top-down approach in the legislature, with the Big 5 making the determination on the budget instead of the relevant committees having a crack at it.  But near the end, Skelton reveals the truth:

My nomination for additional budget reform: Eliminate the ludicrous requirement of a two-thirds legislative vote for passage of a budget. Only two other states suffer the same straitjacket. California would have had a budget weeks ago if it could have been passed by a simple majority vote. The governor still would have the final say with his paring knife.

This mirrors exactly what conservative Dan Walters said in his column the day before.  Walters wants to keep the requirement for tax votes, but he does seem to understand that without the accountability that a majority budget vote provides, there’s no way to peg the fortunes or failures of the state on any one political party.  Not only does it hinder legislators from doing their jobs, it impedes the opportunity for voters to determine the cause and effect.  It’s the “killer app” for governmental reform, and must be the first, last and only step in the short term to end the perpetual crisis at the heart of a broken system.

Now, this reform will not come easy.  Republicans will caterwaul at losing the only leverage they currently own.  The only path to this solution comes with actually getting a 2/3 majority in both chambers, and then offering the solution up for a vote in time for the next governor to reap the rewards.  The Drive for 2/3 is monumentally important (and it’s likely to be a two-cycle process) to restore functionality to Sacramento and allow legislators to do the work their constituents sent them to the Capitol to do.

Because somehow they deserve some attention.  Or to put in Skelton’s own words from his column today:

Give Republicans some sort of budget reform and business regulatory relief. Toss in more spending cuts. Then they’d doubtless help close tax loopholes and balance the budget.

The Capitol could use budget discipline, and Republicans need some wins.

They’re right-wingers, but sometimes they’re just plain right.

Look, I think Skelton is one of the better columnists covering Sacramento. Not sure that’s saying all that much now that there are like 3 people covering our state politics/policy issues, but it’s true. Occasionally he’s dead-on.  And sometimes he’s David Broder for California, which is apparently where he’s headed with this piece.

The Republicans will get wins…as soon as they win at the ballot box. That is how politics works. Wins aren’t handed out based on columnists opinions that they are “overdue” like some slumping ball player. (No, Barry Zito, I’m not looking at you.) The Republicans could care less about fiscal discipline when it comes to tax cuts and building dams, why have they become the authority on “fiscal discipline.”

By the way, one of the so-called reforms is the imposition of a two-thirds requirement. I can’t think of a bigger example of fiscal irresponsibility than holding up the state budget and revenue process than the 2/3 requirement. Every year the Republicans use their leverage over the budget process to get other “wins.” And every year, the Reps block common sense reform of the tax code. Skelton just tosses this one out the window, but you can’t pick the sane ideas ignore the insanity when determining “fiscal responsibility” titles.

By the way, the Republican Senate Caucus put up a video (WMV) on their budget website. Apparently they haven’t mastered the “YouTubz” yet, so I’ll not do them any favors by posting it.  But, check it out. See the depth of their hatred of government, and their free-rider mentality.  Basically the video outlines a day in the life of some random Californian, pointing out certain taxable events.  Apparently the CA GOP doesn’t want roads, garbage pickup, electricity, consistent and safe markets, and clean air.

And these are the people that we should give “some wins”? No, but thanks.

I know, I know, it’s too easy. But what better headline can one come up with to assess the ridiculous  and ineffective solutions proposed by Leon Panetta’s high-powered, high cost group of high Broderists to solve the budget crisis?

George Skelton’s column provides some of their early recommendations:

* Requiring new or expanded programs — whether created by the Legislature or ballot initiative — to contain a specific funding source. That could be either new taxes or money gleaned from another program that is eliminated.

* Regularly examining spending programs to determine whether they should be revised, reduced or rubbed out.

* Also regularly reviewing tax loopholes to see if they’re still needed: “Treat tax breaks like spending.”

* Creating a rainy-day fund fed by unexpected tax gushes. When revenue dwindles, dip into the fund. Or use it for one-time public works projects or even tax rebates.

* Modernizing the tax system “to reflect the contemporary economy.” Extend the sales tax to services while reducing the overall tax rate.

* Focusing on multiyear spending plans, rather than merely passing one-year budgets.

* Granting more power and responsibility to local governments.

* Changing the two-thirds majority vote requirement for budget passage. It wasn’t suggested what the vote should be, but any change must be tied to “other reforms designed to improve performance, accountability and public trust.”

Nowhere is the structural revenue shortfall discussed. Instead Panetta and friends take Republican framing to the budget, believing that the problem is too much spending. Nowhere are the state’s pressing problems of underfunded education, health care, and public transportation discussed. It’s as if those issues don’t exist – as if this is 1985 and gas is at $1.20, a year at UC at $2,000, and health insurance plentiful and affordable.

The California Forward proposals are as backward-looking as anything we’ve yet seen, an effort to continue obsolete 20th century assumptions, an effort to avoid confronting 21st century realities.

Of course, it should come as no surprise that the group also embraces the unnecessary redistricting reform – an inherently pro-Republican proposal that should suggest where this group’s allegiances actually lie.

Skelton takes their bait in his column, and argues – against all evidence – that the problem is simply that Republicans and Democrats won’t talk to each other:

The reformers are prepared to take their proposals to the ballot in 2010 if they’re ignored by the Legislature. But they’re hoping the lawmakers will adopt at least incremental changes. A good time to start will be during this summer’s budget negotiations. The reforms could “give Republicans a little comfort on spending and how tax dollars are used,” Panetta theorizes.

But first the politicians have to start talking to each other.

Here’s a suggestion: Turn off the BlackBerrys and cellphones.

Better yet, lock them in a desk. Look people in the eye. Smile. Sit down and deal.

This is ridiculous to the point of not understanding California politics. Someone as experienced as Skelton ought to know the real problem is with ideology and the rules. The 2/3 rule allows far-right Republicans to hold the state hostage to their rabid anti-tax views, which are not representative of the state’s public opinion. It’s not gerrymandering that enables this, or a refusal to talk – but the very real fact that the moment a Republican deviates from the firm anti-tax line the Club for Growth, the Howard Jarvis Association, the CRA and even the CRP will come down on that legislator like a ton of bricks. His or her primary opponent will be well-funded and his or her hopes of re-election and higher office are over.

How does Skelton not understand this?

Skelton, Panetta, and the other high Broderists wish it were 1974 all over again. It’s not. It’s a shame what remains of our state’s media prefers nostalgic flights of fancy to realistic assessments of present-day issues.

Last fall I took the LA Times to task for framing the state budget crisis as a problem of “automatic” spending, and not being sufficiently attentive to the structural revenue shortfall that is the true cause of the budget problem.

While the LA Times has shown some improvement – George Skelton’s column today is mostly if not completely on target and the incomparable David Lazarus always has some good insights – the rest of the state’s media seems slower to follow.

Take, for example, Sunday’s SacBee column from Daniel Weintraub, California  Budget 101: What went wrong, when. Weintraub’s column purports to be a “a fuller explanation of the dimensions of the problem” – but winds up repeating the same discredited arguments, namely that this is primarily a spending problem:

But the economic issues only worsened a basic, structural problem in the state budget: Spending is programmed by law to grow each year at a rate that is generally faster than tax revenues can match. Current state law would push general fund spending to $113 billion next year if nothing is done to slow it, according to the Schwarzenegger administration. Revenues, meanwhile, are projected to decline further, to about $95 billion. The budget Schwarzenegger celebrated last summer would have bridged the gap for one year at best.

Weintraub then goes on to detail the education, health care, prisons and transportation spending that makes up that growth. But nowhere in his column would you see the following:

• Tom McClintock and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s $6 billion VLF cut
• Another $6 billion in tax cuts made to the state budget after 1993
• And of course, the start of the state’s budget problem: Prop 13.

In other words, Weintraub makes it sound like the state is in a budget crisis because it is overspending, instead of because it is undertaxing. This is especially important when we consider what the state has been spending on – education, health care, and transportation – the very things California needs to remain competitive in a globalized 21st century economy.

The aforementioned George Skelton column provides an excellent contrast, showing what a more accurate explanation of our budget problem would look like:

People, one place it [additional spending under Arnold’s administration] went was for Schwarzenegger’s car tax cut. Yes, that tax cut counts as spending — about $6 billion annually. It’s because revenue from the car tax — the vehicle license fee — had gone to local governments, not the state. The governor generously agreed to replace the locals’ lost revenue with money from the state general fund. But he never replaced the tax he grandiosely whacked. Big hole. Big mistake.

Even Dan Walters, the dean of California conservative columnists, has recognized the role tax cuts have played in the budget shortfall:

The 2000 decision to spend most of a one-time, $12 billion tax windfall on permanent spending and tax cuts that could not be sustained, leading to the state’s chronic budget deficits, is another [wrongheaded move].

And to his credit, Walters has argued for higher taxes, although as part of a holistic budget reform package that contains some problematic ideas.

The fact is that if we are to finally end 30 years of budget crisis, we have to find new revenues. The notion that any new taxes cripple economic growth is absurd – both California and the federal government hiked taxes between 1990 and 1993 and it didn’t prevent the 1990s economic boom. The investment in education and mass transit helps create more investment while saving commuters, students, and workers money; and universal health care (or even a modest expansion of government-provided care) creates significant savings for businesses and employees.

A focus on spending, however, blinds us to the structural revenue shortfall and leads Californians and their politicians to assume the only way out is to slash spending – which would make the cost of doing business in California, and the cost of living here, significantly higher.

Without solving the revenue problem, we will never cure this chronic budget crisis.

The Royal and Ancient Hermetic Order of the Shrill has a new member, and he’s particularly amped up about some of the little goodies tucked away in the state budget, which is once again too heavily constructed on the backs of the poor:

Anyway, it was about the time of the wine-tasting that the legislative leaders hatched their plan to roll California’s most vulnerable.OK, maybe I’m guilty of a cheap shot. But it’s no more a cheap shot than picking the pockets of the poor in order to bring spending and taxes closer into balance.

The victims list includes 1.2 million impoverished aged, blind and disabled, plus 500,000 welfare families, mostly single moms with two kids.

Skelton is particularly shrill about the delay in the cost of living adjustment (COLA) for seniors on state and federal assistance, and the cuts to public transit, which for many who can’t afford cars is the only recourse to get around (although we need to sever that link between class and public transit, and soon).  Skelton is particularly disappointed in some so-called progressive leaders:

It was a sign of scandalized Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s loss of political clout that he didn’t personally fight for the transit funds, as he has for other L.A. causes in the past. “He has been AWOL,” says one leading Democrat. “He’s been wounded.”

Democrats, however, haven’t exactly been fighting for the aged, poor and disabled either. Republicans wouldn’t be expected to. But Democrats are supposed to be the defenders of the destitute. Instead, they suddenly surrendered to Republicans last week after vowing to hold their ground.

Any budget is going to be a mixed bag under the 2/3 requirement.  But it does appear to me that winners and losers were very clearly chosen based on their political clout.  The blind, the elderly, the poor, they all don’t donate to campaigns the way that teachers do (no slam on teachers, just reality).  Drug offenders who saw a cut in Prop. 36 treatment funds don’t host fundraisers at the halfway house.  Where you stood in this budget depended upon where you sat, and if you didn’t have a place at the table, forget it.

Maybe that has to do with the donations rolling in for the term limits initiative.  Or maybe it’s just easier to dismiss those who have little voice and little chance to mobilize.

While George Skelton’s latest column, which Brian linked to below, contains a fascinating revelation regarding a political lesson the governor learned from his wife — all I’ll say is weiner schnitzel is involved — the part that really caught my eye was some interesting analysis on Skelton’s part on the subject of Schwarzenegger’s ambitions (or not) beyond the governor’s mansion.

He starts out by summarizing the conventional wisdom: that Arnold will challenge Sen. Boxer in 2010.

Does the centrist governor envision personally taking his bipartisan message to the U.S. Senate in 2010, when he’ll be termed out? Top advisors are spreading the word that he might run against Democratic U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, who’s up for reelection that year.

But then goes on to debunk it. Follow me…

I figure it’s all spin. The advisors fear that people will start regarding Schwarzenegger as irrelevant if his political career seems to be nearing an end – as if anybody with the power to sign and veto bills can ever be irrelevant. Also, they want to keep those special-interest donations flowing into his political kitty.

Interesting point. Certainly when Arnold appeared on Meet The Press after the election, I was convinced the guy is running for higher office. But maybe he was just really only selling his own relevance. Or it could be a combination of the two pending a decision down the road.

“My next move will be totally in Maria’s hands,” he says. “Not mine. Because I promised her the next move will not be without her having a big say. I think it’s incredible how much time and effort the family has put in with me doing this. So I’ve got to respect that.”

And Skelton’s instinct as to what her decision will be?

Regardless, nobody I’ve talked to can picture Schwarzenegger as just one of 100 senators, and a junior member at that. Moreover, his wife wouldn’t be happy. Washington’s a long way from Brentwood.