(A quick notice of an opportunity to have a conversation with Jean Ross of the California Budget Project at 11 AM today.  We will be focusing on Prop 1A and its impact on the general budget mess. The call will be recorded and aired as the next Calitics Podcast as well. It’s something of an experiment with the podcast. If you are interested in hopping on the call, shoot me an email (brian A T calitics dotcom) and I’ll get you the call-in info.   – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

I am working for the No on 1A Campaign, however, I am not working for any other No campaign. My opinions should not be construed to be those of the campaign, especially when it comes to the remaining measures.

Sen. Sheila Kuehl knows a thing or two about the legislative process. The long-time legislator and persistent advocate of single-payer health care has published an essay on the California Progress Report opposing Props 1A, 1D, & 1E. The first essay covers only the first half of the props, with the remaining coming soon.  She minces no words on Prop 1A, and the guarantee of money for schools in Prop 1B is not enough to change her mind:

I don’t like the idea of a spending cap [in Prop 1A], even calculated on the regression model. I would prefer the ability of the Legislature to spend one-time money on one-time expenditures and calculate ongoing expenditures separately, without an automatic cap, and a growing rainy day fund. With such a cap, there will never be enough monies for the schools, even with a small portion of the monies over the spending cap going into an education fund. In my experience, all programs get short-changed when a robo-cap like this is enacted.

***

I don’t think the education funding is a sufficient reason to enact the permanent spending cap proposed by Prop 1A in the state Constitution. Other teachers’ organizations oppose Prop 1A and have indicated, since they believe the state already owes the 9.3 billion, they will simply sue the state for it. Which would, of course, create even more of a hole in the budget. There needs to be a sure hand with authority to pass an adequate budget without gimmicks, which is why I support an end to the 2/3 requirement.

She’s a little more mixed on Prop 1C:

This is the one proposition I’m tempted to support. Of the six billion current dollars estimated to come from all the propositions combined (not counting increased tax revenue three and four years out), more than five billion is estimated to come from the sale of the lottery receipts. Although I do not support increased encouragement for gambling, this income could be the least damaging.

It’s also interesting that the casino-operating tribes made sure that the measure avoids any new games that could threaten their operations.

Read the full essay here.

There has been a lot of interesting information coming out lately concerning the state of the electorate and the unlikely passage of the May 19th ballot measures. I have been spending a lot of time just thinking about what it all means. Why do the voters continue to elect nearly two thirds of their representatives as Democrats, yet give that same legislature an approval rating of 14%? Why do they continue to desire to keep, and often pass through the initiative process, more programs, yet refuse to consider increases in revenue?

Let me first say that some very astute thinkers, I believe, are on to something. Whether it’s the Two Santa Claus theory, the Household Budget theory, or just a plain failure to take leadership each brings something important to the table, but doesn’t quite get us all the way there.

I want to posit something that I think can explain how things may be the way they are now and what I think we need to do about it:  

Politics is about representation. We, the voters, elect someone to represent our interests and help to push legislation to effectuate it. Their job is to work for us and get things done.

Voters, on the other hand, are busy folks and that has only increased over time. Most of us don’t have the time or inclination to understand the wonkiness of the 2/3s rule and how the conservative veto can stop an agenda in its tracks. They just want it to get done.

This dynamic leads to one thing and I think it can explain the very dichotomy we are dealing with today. NO ONE IS GETTING WHAT THEY WANT OUT OF OUR STATE GOVERNMENT. Democrats are seeing programs cut and schools lay off teachers and our legislators are making deals with the devil to salvage what they can. Republicans can’t muster any significant changes because they just don’t have the clout and at the same time end up having to agree to tax increases in the face of their constituents ire.

Understanding this dynamic can explain everything. The average Dem or Indy voter doesn’t care about how things get done, just that they get done, but they don’t trust the legislature can make it happen. This would explain the low approval ratings. Because of this they think why should they just give over more money when they aren’t getting what they want now? This would explain the apparent unwillingness to raise revenue.

However, when the voters trust those in charge, there is a willingness to consider new revenues. I live in a very red county in Northern California. You constantly hear the refrain of “government waste” and “no new taxes.” Yet, most of the time when my local school district asks for the approval of a property tax bond, it passes. Why? Because the voters like what’s happening at the school, take pride in its successes, and trust its leadership. I think it’s the same with the state. We will see a changing dynamic in the electorate when they see a legislature get the things done that they want. Of course, without a 2/3s majority, this won’t happen.

So here’s my May 20th strategy:

It is imperative that we reach 2/3s majority in both houses of the legislature. We must no longer blow off the “red” districts as unattainable. We are within sight of that goal and it can be done. We must recruit quality candidates for every district. Once found, the grassroots and the party must assist them with training, outreach and financing. We must assist in voter registration drives and GOTV. We can no longer accept the mindset that it’s too tough so we won’t bother.

Once we achieve our goal things will change. We can enact an agenda and govern effectively. We can show the voters that things are getting done and earn back their respect and trust. Basically, we can finally do what 65% of the public has been sending us there to do.  

(Some history worth noting from the last time we tried to fix the 2/3 requirement. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Crossposted at the Health Access WeBlog

There’s renewed interest in reforming the budget process, from “consequences” for legislators for not passing a budget (like having them lose their pay for every day the budget is late), to changing the abnormally high 2/3 threshold to pass a budget and taxes (so that a minority of legislators don’t have a veto over the entire process).

As Aurelio Rojas reports in the Sacramento Bee, a previous initiative attempted these and other reforms, but that effort, Proposition 56 in March 2004, only got 36% of the vote. But it is also important to remember context, including a recall election a few months earlier in October 2003 where Californians had a chance to vent their anger and believe that a new Governor was enough to fix the problem, and competing budget initiatives that had bipartisan support, which hindered attempts at making the case for the need of additional reform.

This is not revising history four years later. This is what we wrote the day after that election. (Yes, we were blogging back then!) I added emphasis, in part, to show how much things have, and haven’t changed since March 2004:

While health care was not on the ballot, this past election has significant impact on health care, and the shape of the budget debate moving forward. Propositions 57 & 58 passed by a wide margin, while Proposition 56 failed.

SETBACK ON 56: The defeat of Proposition 56, to be clear, was a setback for health care advocates. The reforms were needed to stop the ongoing cycle of late and irresponsible budgets, and to change the dynamic of the budget process that has gotten us into our current crisis. Advocates will have to find different ways to keep legislators accountable to budget decisions, including decisions to cut health programs. In the long term, the lack of reform continues to make it difficult to win the broad reforms needed to meet the health care needs of all Californians, and the ultimate goal of quality, affordable health care for all.

ELECTION ANALYSIS: A combination of factors conspired against Proposition 56. With no real contest in the presidential primary contest, it was a remarkably low turnout election, with an electorate seemingly exhausted from the historic recall election just a few months ago. The recall and change in Administrations also changed the dynamic of the race: much of the voter demand for change had dissipated. The reform agenda in the Budget Accountability Act was overwhelmed by the focus on Propositions 57 & 58, which were similar sounding and were also billed as the solution to the state’s budget crisis. Among the choices, Proposition 56 was the only initiative that had a funded opposition, which was successful in raising questions about the provisions. When voters are confused about an issue, they tend to vote “no.” And in this case, they felt they did their part to address the budget problem by supporting 57 & 58, something that was supported by most political leaders.

This is not to say that a new effort at budget reform and accountability will be successful, but just to indicate that the results in early 2004 are not predictive: Prop 56 was a victim of uniquely bad timing.

Maybe George Skelton took my post last week to heart, or maybe the self-evident truth smacked him upside the head, but in today’s column Skelton calls for eliminating the 2/3 rule:

It’s a good bet that 51% of the Legislature would have voted for a budget by now — maybe even had one in place for the July 1 start of the new fiscal year. But 67% is required.

Only two other states have such a monstrous hurdle. And both are better positioned to deal with it because, unlike California, their legislatures are lopsidedly dominated by one party….

State Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), a hero of fiscal conservatives, long has favored allowing a majority budget vote.

“The two-thirds vote for the budget has not contained spending, and it blurs accountability,” McClintock says. “If anything, in past years, it has prompted additional spending as votes for the budget are cobbled together.”

The rub is that while McClintock is willing to support a majority vote for a budget he is not willing to support majority vote for taxes. That is the one that really matters. If we had a majority rule for the budget but 2/3 for taxes, it would do nothing to change the current budget standoff as Republicans would still use their numbers to block a tax increase and therefore block a budget.

The column has some good quotes from Steinberg and Bass, who are showing welcome interest in fixing the odious 2/3 rule:

Both incoming Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) say they’ll consider developing a 2010 ballot initiative to permit majority-vote budgets.

“I’m telling you, I’m very serious about it,” Steinberg says. “We can’t keep doing this. This is ridiculous. It’s unproductive.”

Bass figures there would be plenty of financial support for a ballot campaign from labor unions, healthcare providers and others who rely on public funds and are frustrated by incessantly tardy budgets.

“This budget crisis we’re in is a perfect example of why we need to be like 47 other states,” Bass says. “I’m not sure what we have in common with Arkansas and Rhode Island. . . .

“We would have had a budget by the constitutional deadline, June 15.”

Both Bass and Steinberg need to move on a fix for the 2/3 rule. But since that won’t happen until 2010, we need a solution to THIS budget crisis – a solution which will require voters to hold Republicans accountable for their hostage tactics.

Lest we let Skelton off easy today, he still shows he believes in the Media’s First Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Republicans:

Don’t blame Republicans either. They’re being asked by the governor to break their pledges — however misguided they were — not to raise taxes. Moreover, most are philosophically opposed to taxing people more — particularly during a recession — and are sticking to their principles. That’s supposed to be an admirable trait.

Nonsense. The 2/3 rule isn’t a problem unless one party makes it a problem. The Republicans are using the 2/3 rule as a weapon to destroy this state and make its residents suffer. Don’t let them get away with it.

Today’s SF Chronicle examines the turmoil within the “Yacht Party” – the state Republican Party is mired in debt and facing deepening internal divisions. As Carla Marinucci explains:

The troubles of the GOP in the nation’s most populous state – which backers of Sen. John McCain insist could be competitive in the fall presidential election – come at a crucial time. The California party convention is Feb. 22 in San Francisco, and conservatives and moderates will debate the platform and whether independent voters should be allowed to cast ballots in state GOP primaries.

But the most urgent concern for many Republicans is the appalling financial condition of the state party, which is now overdue on repaying a $3 million loan provided in 2005 by Larry Dodge, chief executive of the American Stirling Co.

The surest sign of a party that is deeply divided is when blame gets passed around, instead of folks stepping up to take responsibility (although one wonders when the last time the Yacht Party ever demonstrated responsibility to the state’s voters, finances, and basic rights). Sure enough, we have Jon Fleischmann, who runs some website whose name I forget, explaining that it’s all Arnold’s fault:

“The understanding of the California Republican Party was that the loan would be repaid today – and if it isn’t, that’s concerning,” Jon Fleischman, vice chair of the Southern California GOP, told The Chronicle on Friday.

“The governor made a commitment to resolve the debt. It was incurred re-electing him – and he stood before our convention and said he would take care of resolving it,” Fleischman said. “If we’re still dealing with the debt from Gov. Schwarzenegger’s last campaign, it makes it difficult for us to move forward on the McCain campaign.”

Naturally, Arnold’s people deny responsibility for this debt (as they have with the state’s budget deficit):

But an adviser to Schwarzenegger, Adam Mendelsohn, said the governor is not responsible for settling the loan.

“This is an issue between the California Republican Party and Larry Dodge in terms of finalizing and resolving the debt,” he said….

Sources inside the party said Schwarzenegger negotiated successfully with Dodge months ago to forgive the state party’s debt, and Dodge indicated he would be willing to make substantial additional contributions – if changes were made to party operations.

Among those changes being considered is whether or not to let DTS voters cast a ballot in Republican primaries. As we saw on February 5, DTS voters packed the polls in enormous numbers to cast a ballot in the Democratic primary, and many of those voters will vote for the Democrat again in November. Republicans might have a chance at peeling off some of those voters if their primaries were open, and while the PR effect of their closed primary is negative, most Republicans seem happy with it anyway:

But Spence said conservatives believe otherwise – and will make their views known at next week’s convention.

“I think California Republicans support having Republicans choose Republican nominees,” he said. “There’s been no evidence that allowing (independents) to vote in the primaries has benefited us in a general election.”

Since conservatives captured the California Republican Assembly in the early 1960s as part of their long march through the institutions, they have seen the state party as their exclusive vehicle. Ideological purity is what they prize, and most conservatives remain convinced – against all available evidence – that Californians will come around to their way of thinking.

Whatever the reasons behind this inner turmoil – ideological differences, personal pique, money matters – what’s most important for us is that this gives Democrats perhaps the best opportunity in decades to grab seats from the Yacht Party in the legislature. Earlier this week Fabian Núñez spoke of three seats they were targeting – AD-15, AD-78, and AD-80.

If anything this is probably not ambitious enough. As we saw in 2006, most of the House races Democrats won were not on the establishment radar at this point in the cycle – including CA-11. Dean’s 50-state strategy helped Dems take advantage of the wave that year. Here in California we need a 58-county, 120-district strategy.

A broke and divided Republican Party, forced to defend yacht owners and the screwing of sick children and students, is a sign that Democrats need to take the offensive. Back the Republicans up against a wall, and take advantage of what is going to be a massive Democratic turnout in the November elections to make a bid for 2/3. It’s time for CA Democrats to be bold for a change.

As you know, Perata has called for a panel to suggest fixes to the budget process. I’m wondering where you stand on these ideas, follow me over the flip

For the record, I don’t support all these

1. Go back to the constitutional process of adopting a budget (each house adopting its own version of the budget through the subcomittees, then the budget committees, and then the full house votes, and then a conference committee resolves the differences between the two budgets) and do away with the Big 5

2. No spending a dollar more than you’re taking in

3. Restore the governor’s ability to make mid-year cuts (maybe with certain restrictions)

4. Reduce the threshold to a simple majority, while keeping a 2/3 for a tax increase and restoring the 2/3 requirement on any extortion unless: it is for a good or service requested by the user, does not exceed the cost of the good or service, is not required to obtain any governmental action, or is to mitigate externalities caused by the user. Also restoring 2/3 for “revenue neutral” tax increases

5. Require all budgets to contain a 5% reserve

6. No issuing bonds if the minimum payments exceed 6% of the general fund spending

7. Repeal all unfunded mandates on local governments

8. Repeal Props 49 (Arnold’s after school programs) and 63 (Steinberg’s mental health proposition) and all other spending mandates except for education

9. Zero-base budgeting: begin every year’s budget at zero and require all expenditures to be justified anew

10. Allow bonds to be issued  only for the costs of construction or acquisition of tangible physical property that has an expected useful life at least equal to the amount of time in which the bonds that are sold to finance that construction or acquisition will be paid off

11. Repeal or amend Prop 13? If amend, how?
12. What other ideas do you have?