If anybody doubted that the tombstone on the Master Plan has been thoroughly and completely written, here’s one more (unnecessary) piece of evidence:

A University of California Board of Regents committee today approved a series of controversial increases in student fees that, if passed by the full board, will raise UC undergraduate education costs by more than $2,500, or 32%, in two steps by fall 2010.

The finance committee vote is expected to be endorsed by the full Board of Regents on Thursday. The two-day meeting is being held at UCLA, where today’s session has been marked by raucous protests with at least 14 arrests.

The first step of the fee hike, costing undergraduates an additional $585, will take effect in January. Next fall, students will see another $1,344 increase, bringing the UC education fees to $10,302, along with about $1,000 in campus-based charges. That does not include room, board and books, which can add another $16,000. (LAT 11/18/09)

Add this on top of the fact that CalGrants was substantially cut in the last round of budget negotiations and might be outright eliminated to solve the next budget crisis, and you have a system that is only accessible to all but the wealthiest students.

It is just one more sad day on our well-worn road to mediocrity.

It’s been a long time, nearly 50 years, since Governor Pat Brown‘s vision for California brought us what was so frequently dubbed the “California Dream.”  We had infrastructure that rivaled if not exceeded any in the world. We had a strong social safety net that enabled Californians to pursue careers in the burgeoning middle class. And we had the “Master Plan for Higher Education” that promised highly subsidized education for those Californians that met a basic set of requirments, and shut nobody out.

At the heart of the Master Plan, were the community colleges.  The community colleges allowed students who underperformed at high schools to get back on track for a higher degree. They were to be plentiful, high-quality, and cheap. The state was going to kick in 35-40% of the operating revenue, with a bunch of additional funding coming from the county level.  You may think that strange given the way the state works today, but back then, pre-Prop 13, counties actually had their own sources of revenue.  They could rely on the property taxes and other local taxes to provide opportunities to fund programs like the community colleges.

The community colleges were then to feed in to the newly upgraded UC and CSU systems.  At the time, UC was already on of the world’s leading research systems.  CSU would soon grow to take a very important “middle” place for students.  It was originally intended for only bachelor’s and master’s degrees, with the doctarates being issued at the UC campuses.  The various CSU campuses would focus on teacher certification and other public service functions, with the UC doing the bulk of the top-flight research. (Photo Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

And all of this was going to be free for Californians.  It was an investment in the future, and it paid off, big-time.  The quality graduates that came out of this public education system helped to grow the California economy at a pace far outstripping the rest of the nation.  Some like to call the 20th Century the American Century, well, if that was true, the last half of the 20th Century was the California Century.

But like all good centuries, they come to an end.  And with the election of Ronald Reagan, and later Deukmejian and Wilson, and to an extent, even Brown’s son Jerry, the Master Plan has been gradually chipped away.  As we stand right now, of the approximately $18 Billion UC budget, around $3 Billion now comes from the state.

All this is made even more evident today as a Mass Walkout is occuring on all of the UC campuses from San Diego all the way up to Davis, students, faculty, and staff are walking out on classes to picket the university and its administration.  And the administration is facing some tough questions of its own, particularly relating to admistrative bloat.

The latest blow to the system is the loss of about $110 million that the community colleges had been expecting from the stimulus bill. Unfortunately, the draw down requirements were not met by our 2009 budget, so those federal dollars go unspent as the community colleges cut classes and limit enrollment, a bitter irony when compared to their original goal of being the “open door” for California students.

But when you look at what used to be the grand scheme for California higher education, you can see the problem is far greater than any administrative bloat or lack of stimu-bux can really address.  While trying not to look like an apologist, instead of pointing the finger at Yudof and crew, we should be looking to Arnold and his Republican predecessors and cohorts.  

We have destroyed what was once the envy of the world, and are hard at work turning it in to nothing better than a mid-level private education system.  At least when you head to the Farm down in Palo Alto, you know you are going to get high fees and tuition. With the UC’s students are left in limbo, thinking they were going to get an affordable education.  I’ll leave you with the words of one of my professors at Berkeley, George Lakoff:

Lakoff, UC Distinguished Professor of Linguistics and author of several popular and scholarly books on the language of politics, said in a letter to UCB’s Townsend Center that “the privatization issue goes well beyond public education. It is about whether we have a democracy that works for the common good, or a plutocracy that privileges the wealthy and powerful. Privatizing the world’s greatest public university is a giant step away from democracy.”(Berkeley Daily Planet 9/17/09

With California’s Republicans fulfilling their sacred vow to Grover Norquist to stuff government into the bathtub and destroy the most basic services government was meant to provide, California’s Democrats, who–by the way–ARE in a majority, are finally standing up to this bully governor.

Throughout this recent highly expensive special election that the Republicans forced upon us, it was obvious that Californians were not buying the lies any longer. Much has been made about how we brought this on ourselves by all the initiatives and bond issues that we’ve passed. This totally misses the point.

California’s initiative system was put into place precisely BECAUSE the state legislature was bought out by the railroad monopolies.  Roll this picture forward a century and we have a state legislature that is now bought out by the current corporate elite and their minions of lobbyists that descend on a capital now devoid of most media coverage.

Initiatives exist because the state legislature does NOT respond to the needs of the citizens, or, rather, our needs are placed a distant SECOND after the corporate masters’ requests are fast-tracked through.

And, initiatives ALWAYS have problems. First, there is the language that is often poorly written, or ambiguous, and sometimes not even constitutional. Then there’s the summary blurb written by the Attorney General’s office. GOOD LUCK if that bears any resemblance to what is actually IN the initiative. Usually, there are significant parts that are NOT in the summary–the Trojan horses that haunt us later.

Not to mention that the forces for and against the initiative immediately reduce whatever it is into bite-size slogans that are then bandied about the pathetic corporate media that we have left and stuck onto the mailing pieces and slate cards that go to the most likely voters. The few who still bother. Only 12% came out May 19th. After the budget, PLEASE get on with a serious reform of the initiative process!!

Meanwhile, back at the negotiating table, the telegenic (he thinks so) gov has proposed a “reality show” starring himself and the four leaders from the Assembly. Just great!!! We SO want to see our macho narcissistic terminator posturing about some more!!!

During these last weeks, as Arnold holds his breath and turns blue while reciting his “No New Taxes” chant, I’ve been reading Ethan Rarick’s book “The Life and Times of Pat Brown: California Rising” (U of CA Press).  Gore Vidal has always admonished the U.S. as having amnesia about its past. In California, I think it’s probably NOT amnesia, because that would assume that Californians knew, or were taught, their history in the first place. Not likely. Or at least not for most. So, back to a time of giants–

“The governor walked over from his suite of offices and took the podium in each chamber, first the assembly and then the senate, greeted both places by clamorous standing ovations. After the noise died away, Brown said that his first legislative session as the state’s chief executive had been ‘the most exhilarating six months’ he had ever experienced. He pointed especially to the antidiscrimination bill that created the Fair Employment Practices Commission. It was, he said, a ‘great symbol of human progress– an achievement of enlightenment and understanding.’

There was much to be proud of. He had already signed into law 1,109 bills and had at least 1,000 more waiting on his desk. The increased aid to schools was only the second such boost since World War II. More than nine thousand poor, disabled people were provided with state-funded health care. For the first time, standards were set for air quality and for pollution from cars. Safety regulations for farm labor trucks were increased. Consumer protections were stiffened. Disability benefits were raised. Unemployment insurance payments were increased and the time limit for benefits lengthened, at least during periods of high unemployment.  State workers got a pay raise.

All of it was funded by the biggest California tax increase in a quarter century, which was perhaps the most important accomplishment of all, since it provided money desperately needed by an ever-growing state with ever-growing public demands. This was not necessarily an obvious outcome. Republicans and business groups complained that the proposed tax increases were too steep. Brown said no. Cautious legislators suggested that the tax increases be phased out after two years. Brown said no. The legislative analyst urged steeper budget cuts and an increase in college tuition. Brown said no. Again and again, in other words, the governor and his allies fought to keep intact an ambitious fiscal program that raised taxes–mostly on rich people, corporations, and cigarette smokers– in order to pay for important and expanding public programs. ‘Responsible liberalism,’ as it turned out, was an activist’s creed.”

Wow!! Contrast that with our so-called leaders today. And, Democrats who supported the recall and who wouldn’t support Phil’s bid to deny Arnold his second term need to re-examine their allegiances if they’re okay with what’s happened as a result of their poor judgment. We DO have a state in financial crisis for many reasons, not the least of which is the Republican intransigence over paying for the services often most needed by their own constituents. They need to be given a new framing: Paying taxes is patriotic!

I think back to those times of Pat Brown and his incredible leadership and wonder what he would do with this mess. I wasn’t in California during his time in office, but I was fortunate enough to know him as our party’s patriarch during Gov. Jimmy Carter’s campaign in ’76 and for several years after. There is NO WAY he would allow the type of cuts Arnold is trying to force onto Californians. Our Democratic leaders must find a way, and if it’s impeaching the governor, then let’s get on with it.

###

(bold emphasis mine)

Today’s LA Times has an interesting series of op-eds by historians and authors examining how past governors dealt with budget crises. It’s an interesting look not only at how those governors all helped build the prosperous state that we’re living off of today, but also how the real problem with the budget isn’t a lack of pragmatism or deal-making, but ideology. And since the articles were commissioned by California Backward they are particularly important in shaping how we will respond to this crisis.

The profile of Pete Wilson by Greg Lucas and Ronald Reagan by Lou Cannon both argue that pragmatism and a willingness to deal is the key to budget success. Lucas’ portrait of the contentious 1991 budget negotiations is designed to make us wistful even for Pete Wilson’s leadership (if you forget 1994, that is). Wilson understood that tax increases were going to be necessary to balance the budget AND to get Democratic support, so he outflanked them by proposing his own increases and then spending the summer cutting the deals necessary to get Dems to agree and to turn enough Republicans, one by one, to his view.

Cannon’s portrait of Reagan emphasizes similar qualities – that despite their “novice amateur” abilities, Reagan and his advisors knew that a tax increase was necessary to balance the 1967 budget and avoid crippling cuts. Reagan did so, and therefore helped continue California’s remarkable 20th century economic expansion by supporting the government services that growth depended on.

What both these portraits miss – alongside Jim Newton’s profile of Earl Warren, an unconvincing effort to see Arnold as a latter-day Warren, is the role of ideology in the budget. Warren, Reagan and Wilson were able to negotiate budget solutions because they did not define their Republicanism by a virulent anti-tax conservatism – even in Reagan’s case, and Reagan had spent the 1960s leading the right-wing takeover of the California Republican Party.

They also governed at times when Democrats had spines. This was particularly true in 1991, where Democratic intransigence and demands for a better deal were all that forced Pete Wilson to propose and stick to his tax plans. Most of those taxes survived until the late 1990s, when led by Tom McClintock, the state legislature – including Democrats – voted to spend that tax money on foolish and short-sighted tax cuts rather than putting it in a rainy day fund or investing in infrastructure. During Arnold’s term Democrats have caved in to his demands so often that Arnold no longer sees Democratic demands as worth taking seriously.

The ascension of Tom McClintockism within the Republican Party goes to the heart of the budget matter, showing that it is about ideology, not deal-making. How can today’s Republican cut deals on taxes when the Howard Jarvis Association, CRA, and other right-wing groups are ready to destroy a Republican legislator’s career for doing so? The only Republican not in thrall to those folks, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is instead in thrall to Milton Friedman’s shock doctrine theories.

So it was very welcome to read Ethan Rarick’s profile of Pat Brown. Rarick is the author of the excellent California Rising: The Life and Times of Pat Brown. In his profile Rarick refuses to emphasize Brown’s leadership qualities and instead focuses on the underlying ideological and structural contexts. He was the only author to mention the 2/3 requirement. And he understood the importance of ideology:

More important than procedural changes, however, are ideological ones.

In Brown’s day, the country remained in the grip of the so-called New Deal consensus, a mood far more receptive to the idea that government played a constructive role in our society and had to be amply funded. Brown used to say of himself, “I’m a big-government man,” a phrase that would nowadays be uttered by no politician, left, right or center.

It’s true that Republicans tended to be more skeptical of government than Democrats, but they were neither unanimous nor intransigent on the point….

So I’m quite sure I know what Pat Brown would do if he were governor today, or at least what he would want to do and try to do. He would trumpet government’s positive role, insist that those who benefit the most from our society should pay the most, and set about enacting policies to create a public sector that was funded both fully and fairly. In short, he would raise taxes, especially on the rich.

But the real question is not what Pat Brown would do. Given the differences in ideological climate between his day and ours, the real question is: Would we let him?

It’s an excellent set of points he makes. I wonder though if California Backward will even listen to him. A group composed of centrist high Broderists is much more likely to prefer a call for more deal-making that will nevertheless produce conservative solutions to a rousing defense of the policies that made California great, and an attack on the conservative policies that have produced this budget crisis.

(I wanted to bump dday’s post on this back up. If you are running, put a comment in on the thread. In some of the big districts, there will be plenty of competition. In others, not so much. Also, if you are in one of those districts, go attend and support your fellow Calitics readers! – promoted by SFBrianCL)

I am running to be part of the Democratic State Central Committee (DSCC) in the 41st Assembly District of California.  The election’s in ten days, and yesterday I joined with 11 other Democrats to agree to run as a bloc called the Progressive Slate.  The goal is to make the California Democratic Party (CDP) more responsive to the grassroots and more effective in the state.  And the Progressive Caucus is at the center of efforts to reform the state party in California.

I want to explain the reasons why I’m running, and a little back of background about this race, and finally how you can help.

I’ve lived in California for the last eight years.  I’m a fairly active and engaged citizen, one who has attended plenty of Democratic Club meetings, who has lived in the most heavily Democratic areas of the state in both the North and South, who has volunteered and aided the CDP and Democratic candidates from California during election time, who (you would think) would be the most likely candidate for outreach from that party to help them in their efforts to build a lasting majority.  But in actuality, the California Democratic Party means absolutely nothing to me.  Neither do its endorsements.  The amount of people who aren’t online and aren’t in grassroots meetings everyday who share this feeling, I’d peg at about 95% of the electorate. 

I mean, I’m a part of both those worlds, and I have no connection to the state party.  I should be someone that the CDP is reaching out to get involved.  They don’t.  The only time I ever know that the CDP exists is three weeks before the election when they pay for a bunch of ads.  The other 23 months of the year they are a nonentity to the vast majority of the populace.

And this has a tremendous impact.  The state of California is hardly deep blue.  It’s had Republican governors for 80 out of the past 100 years.  The last time the Democratic Party meant anything to California’s citizens was in the time of Alan Cranston and Pat Brown in the 1950s and 1960s, when the Democratic Club movement began, and when the state party was most involved with the grassroots.  At the time, the party was committed to progressive values and offered a real politics of contrast to move the Democratic brand in the state forward.  This has receded in the past 30 years.

This is the only reason that I’m running as a delegate; because I want the CDP to be something more than an occasional admaker.  I want to have a state party that is not as in thrall to big money.  I want a state party that isn’t involved in laundering $4 million dollars in corporate money from AT&T to the speaker of the State Assembly as payback for getting a cable and video deregulation bill passed.  I want a state party that actually gets behind Clean Money instead of officially remaining neutral on the legislation because they don’t want to upset their big-money donors.  I want a state party that spends more money on voter outreach and contacts than on a couple ads.  I want a state party that contests everywhere rather than trying to get out the vote in their traditional enclaves.  I want a state party chairman that actually fulfills this agenda instead of paying lip service to it.  I want the CDP to send me an email once in a while, and act like an entity that can make a difference in people’s lives, instead of an umbrella organization for incumbency protection.

The problem is that this is going to be an uphill battle.  The way the CDP works is that its delegates come from three separate sources.  There are the Assembly District caucuses, where 12 Democrats (6 men, 6 women) are chosen to serve as delegates.  That accounts for about one-third of the total delegates.  Another third comes from the County Committees, which is weighted by population for each county.  The final third comes from elected officials in California and nominees for state offices, as well as their appointees.

Obviously, a lot of these are insider positions.  And the only process for adding delegates that’s open to the public, the AD caucuses, is a deliberately closed process.  In fact, the rules have changed.  In 2005, progressives were very successful in gaining seats through the caucuses and becoming delegates.  In response, the CDP completely changed the process.  In 2005, any registered Democrat who showed up at the caucus could stand as a candidate.  Now, you must apply in writing beforehand.  In 2005, the caucus was open to the public.  Now, there’s a $5 POLL TAX to “defray costs of the caucus.”  In 2005, voters heard all the speeches from the various candidates before voting.  Now, they can come to the polling place, vote and leave.  Never mind that practically nobody knows about these elections unless they seek out the information.  That wasn’t good enough.  The new rules set up barriers to entry and make it easier for machine-type political forces to shuttle their voters in for five minutes and ensure their victory.  This is why we are running as a progressive slate; to multiply our power by 12, by ensuring that the people we get out to vote cast their ballot for the entire slate instead of individual candidates.

Only two Democrats in the entire state of California were able to defeat incumbents last November: Debra Bowen and Jerry McNerney.  Both of them harnessed the power of the grassroots and used it to carry them to victory.  They also stuck to their principles and created a real contrast with their opponents on core issues.  The only way that the California Democratic Party can retain some relevance in the state, and not remain a secretive, cloistered money factory that enriches its elected officials with lobbyist money and does nothing to build the Democratic brand, is by building from the bottom up and not the top down.  By becoming more responsive to the grassroots and more effective in its strategy, we can ensure that California stays blue, which is not a given.  This is a long-term process that is in its third year, and will not happen overnight.  But it’s crucial that we continue and keep the pressure on.