David Dayen has said repeatedly that he thinks the importance of the next governor is overstated. If it is or it isn’t, it certainly isn’t really a position that I would like to take a step into.  It is a position that is almost certainly a trap for any politician that has any designs on any other office, the chances of failure given the current climate in Sacramento are quite high. While that isn’t likely to be a huge consideration for Jerry Brown, the other competitors for the job might have ambitions of using the gig as a stepping stone to something else.  But I’ve told anybody who listens that it’s a sucker’s play, IMHO. Coming out of the pig sty without mud on your face just ain’t that easy.

But consider the other big-name gigs in town.  Assembly Speakers are a transitory bunch.  On occasion you’ll get somebody in there for the better part of four years, like Fabian Nunez, who can do something to really grab the position and make a name for himself.  But typically, you have just two years to make your mark. That’s a tall order.  Karen Bass has talked about big change, but it’s just not all that clear that she’ll have the chance to implement any substantial portion of that.

But the Senate President Pro Tem typically gets a longer time to make his mark.  Senators have usually served in the Assembly, so they are known quantities when they get to the Upper Chamber.  The eyes were already upon Sen. Steinberg to replace Don Perata the moment he was sworn in.  People knew he was both a good fundraiser, and a good legislator. And Steinberg clearly wanted the job.

But, as Marcus Breton points out in the Bee today, this job turned sour for Steinberg.  Steinberg is a good person, stuck in a bad position:

It’s about a citizen politician – one of us – who is now tagged by an angry public as “one of them.” Steinberg preached transparency, but when it came to crafting a tortured state budget, he participated in a secret proceeding that everybody hated.

“There was no other way to make a $42 billion dent in the state budget,” he said Friday. “I didn’t like it, but that’s a fact.”

It’s an honest response to a level of dishonesty. It’s not burning down the village to save it, but it’s in the same ballpark. Steinberg is the guy you see around the supermarket and think: How does a nice man get anything done in a snake pit like the Capitol? His ascendancy to the highest levels of state government hinted at a different way of governing.(SacBee)

I’ve had the chance to talk to Sen. Steinberg a number of times, although I doubt he remembers me.  He really is just a nice guy who wants to keep the state running.  In many ways, he’s something of a softie. It’s really not that tough to read him, and the Republicans saw that. Steinberg really wanted to get a deal done in February, and he did what it took. Whether you agree or disagree with what came out of that week, you can’t say that he didn’t work as hard as you see a politician work.

But the underlying facts are still at play for Steinberg, win or lose on May 19, he still has a massive mess in front of him.  And there just aren’t any easy answers for him, or any other legislative leader.

I’ve obtained a copy of the email sent to every California Democratic Party member from the Assembly Speaker and the Senate President Pro Tem, trying to scare the membership into supporting the special election ballot measures.  It’s really unconscionable for them to stretch the truth this much.  They conflate apples and oranges to make it seem like an immediate $31 billion dollar deficit is forthcoming if the measures fail, which is simply untrue.  They mostly discuss what failure would mean rather than what success would mean.  And they neglect the permanent damage that would be caused by the ballot measures in favor of the temporary tax increases.  I’ll put the whole thing on the flip, but here is the excerpt that kills me.  

There seems to be a great deal of misinformation about Proposition 1A, the spending reform measure. This is NOT a spending cap, but rather a mechanism to force savings in good years to protect funding for services when our economy sours.  If California had a rainy-day fund like most other states, $9 billion in cuts could have been avoided this year. In the long-run, Proposition 1A will stabilize state spending for critical services.

Um, actually, folks, that’s what a spending cap IS.  It caps spending and puts money into a rainy day fund.  Of course, the way this cap is structured, the rainy day fund would have to take money even in DOWN budget years, due to its stringent, restrictive nature.  The line about how $9 billion in cuts could have been avoided this year with rainy day fund money is offered without the knowledge that the money would have had to come FROM somewhere, and would have meant $9 billion in cuts in years prior.  Not to mention the fact that it would have had to be replenished almost immediately.  With this spending cap – yes, Madame Speaker and Mr. President pro Tem, sorry to burst your bubble but that’s what it is – spending will be forced $16 billion dollars below the Governor’s baseline budget next years.  That’s the ENTIRE gain of the $16 billion in temporary tax increases in just one year.  And the cap goes on and on and on.

Pathetic.  About the only good thing here is the shout-out to eliminating 2/3 for budgets and taxes.  I appreciate that, but would appreciate some honesty about the spending cap even more.

UPDATE: Funny, Steinberg and Bass’ pal Mike Villines, who has been going around the state with them promoting 1A, has some different thoughts about what the measure would do:

Proposition 1A represents a significant victory for taxpayers at a time when our state needs it most. Proposition 1A ties the hands of legislative liberals, and it forces our budget into a fixed formula and a hard spending cap. That means, for the first time in decades, that liberals will have to make tough spending choices and cut their pet projects.

It also means the taxpayers will no longer be treated like a giant ATM machine. Consider this fact: if we had Prop 1A in place today, our state would not be $31 billion in the red. Instead, our state would have a much more manageable $5.4 billion budget gap. That means that during the worst economic recession since the Great Depression, Proposition 1A would have ensured that our budget gap was manageable. That’s the proof that Proposition 1A protects taxpayers.

Villines is wrong about this being a good idea, but he happens to be right on the numbers.  With a spending cap, approximately $27 billion MORE would have had to been cut in the years leading up to the current budget.  That’s more than half of the entire education budget.

Did you guys think we wouldn’t notice the diametrically opposed arguments, depending on the constituency?

Dear Fellow California Democratic Party Member:

At this month’s California Democratic Party Convention in Sacramento, you will be asked to take a position on Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E and 1F that will appear on a special statewide election May 19.  We strongly urge you to support this package to provide California the short-term revenues to get through these difficult economic times, as well as the long-term reforms to stabilize our budget process and protect funding for vital services.    After months of difficult negotiations, we made some of the toughest decisions elected officials could ever make.  We closed a $42 billion budget shortfall that threatened to send California into fiscal collapse – halting thousands of jobs, devastating critical education, health, children’s and senior services, and plunging our economy into deeper meltdown.

The tough choices we made will begin the long process of getting California back on track and providing long-term stability to the programs and services we all value.

Make no mistake: the final budget agreement contains important victories that hold true to our shared Democratic principles.  In particular, we negotiated four years of desperately needed revenue increases, worth $12.5 billion this year alone.  We cannot overstate the significance of this achievement.  By doing so, we were able to protect education, health care and safety net services from even deeper cuts.

We were also able to stave off Republican demands to roll back hard-fought environmental and worker protections.  And, through Proposition 1B, we will ensure that schools are repaid over time for the painful cuts they have endured because of this budget crisis.

But the package and revenues we negotiated will all be for naught if we don’t pass Propositions 1A-1F in May. Unless Prop. 1A is approved, California will lose $16 billion in revenues from the sales, vehicle license and income taxes beginning in Fiscal Years 2011-2013.  Prop. 1A also provides the mechanism to restore $9.3 billion in funds to schools.  And without Propositions 1C, 1D, and 1E, we will lose another $7 billion in funding.

Losing $23 billion in revenues, on top of the $8 billion deficit projected by the Legislative Analyst, will result in renewed demands for catastrophically deep cuts to schools, hospitals, essential children’s services and senior programs for the foreseeable future.

There seems to be a great deal of misinformation about Proposition 1A, the spending reform measure. This is NOT a spending cap, but rather a mechanism to force savings in good years to protect funding for services when our economy sours.  If California had a rainy-day fund like most other states, $9 billion in cuts could have been avoided this year. In the long-run, Proposition 1A will stabilize state spending for critical services.

Passing Propositions 1A-1F is the first step in restoring our state’s fiscal health and voter confidence in state government.  This is essential for us to move forward with our shared priorities such as expanding healthcare to all Californians, further reforming the budget process to eliminate the destructive 2/3 requirement for budgets and taxes, protecting against climate change, and ensuring necessary education, health and social services for the people of California.

We hope you will join us in supporting Propositions 1A-1F.

Note: I will be hosting the morning show on KRXA 540 AM from 8-10 to discuss this and other topics in California politics

In the aftermath of last week’s delivery of layoff notices to 26,000 teachers and news that the budget is already $8 billion in the hole it makes sense to continue to look at serious revenue solutions to close a 30-year shortfall. Unless, of course, you are a Republican:

Assembly GOP leader Mike Villines of Clovis (Fresno County), one of three Assembly Republicans who voted for taxes in the latest budget package, said taxes to close additional budget shortfalls can’t be on the table.

Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth, R-Murietta (Riverside County), who became the Senate minority leader last month after a coup during the marathon budget session, said passing any more taxes or fees “would add insult to injury to California taxpayers.”

It seems highly unlikely that Republicans will support new taxes without a major public movement to demand that they do so. And if Californians understand that new revenues are the only way to protect schools and health care services from even more crippling cuts then they might be willing to make those demands.

As reported by the SF Chronicle several Democratic legislators have proposed various measures to raise revenues, most of which are very sensible:

AB87 (Davis)/SB531 (DeSaulnier): Fees for shoppers who use plastic bags.

AB89 (Torlakson)/SB600 (Padilla): Increases the cigarette tax.

AB390 (Ammiano): $50-an-ounce tax on marijuana, which would be legalized for recreational use.

AB462 (Price): 1 percent income tax for individuals who earn more than $1 million a year, to fund public schools and universities.

AB656 (Torrico): Oil severance tax to help fund the state’s community colleges and universities.

AB1019 (Beall)/SB558 (DeSaulnier): Tax or fee on alcohol.

AB1082 (Torrico): Sales tax on pornography.

AB1342 (Evans): Cities and counties would be allowed to raise income taxes and vehicle license fees.

SB96 (Ducheny): Increases the income tax rate on the state’s wealthiest residents while lowering the rate for some middle-class taxpayers.

California remains one of the few oil-producing states that does not tax companies for taking that oil out of the ground, and Torrico’s bill would change that. Ducheny and Price are on the right track with their tax-the-rich proposals, probably the best way to quickly raise a significant amount of money to help close the budget gap. Tom Ammiano’s marijuana proposal is interesting and deserves serious consideration.

Of particular importance is Noreen Evans’s bill to give local governments more of their own tax power. Republicans, who generally loathe democracy when it comes to government finances, do not want to give Los Angeles and San Francisco the power to raise their own taxes in such a broad way, even though many cities (like New York) possess that power and even though it could help ease the state’s own financial burdens by letting localities make up some of the difference. This is a bill that definitely ought to pass.

I also think Democrats would be wise to get behind efforts to tax the wealthy. That dovetails nicely with President Obama’s own federal tax proposals, and is probably one of the revenue answers that Californians can rally behind at this time. Doing so would help expose Republican obstruction for what it is – a naked defense of wealth and power. And if Democrats are to be serious about building a long-term movement to break anti-tax politics in this state, higher taxes on the rich are a necessary starting point.

Darrell Steinberg, after the brutal February budget battle, doesn’t seem inclined to make that fight:

“Frankly, our focus ought to shift to tax reform,” he said. “That means seriously addressing the volatility in our tax system. That means realigning the relationship between state government, local government and school districts. Whoever is providing the service ought to be able to raise revenue.”

Last month’s passage of the $12.5 billion tax package as part of the budget “was an exception to the rule because of the magnitude of the problem,” Steinberg said.

I think he ought to be more supportive of exploring the wealth taxes, but he is clearly indicating support for the kind of ideas Noreen Evans is talking about – giving local governments the power to help fix their own problems. If a local school district wants to impose an income tax to support schools, why not let them do so?

That’s a question we ought to force Republicans to answer publicly and often.

The latest poll numbers for the Governor and the legislature are pitiful, although clearly the electorate has hit Schwarzenegger more over the recent budget crisis.

Overall, just 33% of California adults give Schwarzenegger a positive job rating, barely above the record low of 32% that he hit in 2005 after pushing a package of failed ballot measures in a special election. As recently as January, Schwarzenegger’s favorable job rating was at 40%.

Faring worse is the state Legislature: Its 21% approval rating matches the record low it set in several previous polls.

There are a number of other questions in the poll regarding the right to choose and birth control, which you can see here (Short version: Californians still support the right to choose, though parental notification gets narrow support.  I would imagine that how the question is asked accounts for that, although this will probably give hope to the forces that have lost parental notification on the ballot three times in a row to try yet again).

What I want to focus on for the moment is those appalling numbers for our political leaders.  Given that, as well as the public tendency to vote down ballot initiatives, you’d think the last thing they’d want to do is put the public faces of lawmakers on the budget items in the May 19 special election.  You’d be wrong.

Gov. Arnold Schwarznegger, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and ex-Senate leader Dave Cogdill will join hands today for the first campaign event before the upcoming budget special election.

The trio — alongside other advocates for the package — will host a press conference this afternoon at a Sacramento-area child development center.

Now, maybe Darrell Steinberg has some grand design where the limits in the spending cap part of the package can be overcome.  Or maybe he’s perfectly content with ratcheting down spending and making it impossible to revive it no matter what the economic situation.  Whatever the reason, it seems like terrible strategy as well as bad policy.

On the flip side, SEIU editorializes against the spending cap in Capitol Weekly:

One of the most troubling aspects of the budget deal to us is the budget cap, which promises to make the cuts permanent by making it virtually impossible to restore them in better times. For SEIU members that translates into year after year of higher caseloads for social workers who help children endangered by neglect or abuse; ongoing cuts to healthcare for families struggling with unemployment or low-wage work; a future of shrinking support for families who have children with autism or cerebral palsy; ongoing cuts to hundreds of state services from parks to oversight of hospitals and nursing homes, and ongoing cuts to home care, higher education, K-12 schools, and other vital public services.

We know that we are not alone in our concerns. In fact, Californians do not support the inevitable result of a budget cap – each of these cuts is deeply unpopular; yet legislators have already voted for the cap without a single hearing on the cap’s effects, without explaining its effects to their constituents, and without asking for detailed analysis from the Controller, the Treasurer, or independent outside experts.

This is not the way such a serious measure should have been considered or passed. It reflects poorly on the Legislature as a deliberative and transparent body.

With the Governor trying to get in on the Constitutional convention, and offering a vision of reform that trades majority vote for the spending cap, essentially one horrible outcome for another, it’s beyond clear that, if the spending cap passes, it will be locked in for a very long time no matter what other reforms are undertaken, and with a baseline spending level “established during one of the, if not the, worst budget crisis in the state’s history,” as the author writes.  This would cripple the state in a fundamental way.

The weekly Democratic radio address (which ought to be a YouTube address, come on guys) called for an end to the 2/3 requirement for budget and tax increases.  This is the first time in my memory that so many lawmakers are openly talking about revising 2/3.  It’s not a new problem – 28 of the last 32 budgets have been late due to legislative squabbling, with the fights becoming more protracted than ever over the past decade.  And every economic downturn, no matter how slight, sets off a crisis.  Assemblyman John Perez made it clear:

The budget would not have taken so long and would have not included non-budget related issues like an open primary if California did not have the unusual requirement of a two thirds vote for budget approval.

Reforming this two-thirds requirement should be a priority for all Californians.

Perez did not reference whether the new requirement should be the arbitrary 55% number, which is what the current initiative being circulated states, or a simple democratic majority.  We’ve learned where a number of Democrats stand this weekend:

• Darrell Steinberg decided not to mention 2/3 hardly at all in his op-ed in the Sacramento Bee.  That’s a lack of leadership.  No elected official should be speaking in public and pass up the opportunity to advocate for majority vote.  He instead opted for a Broderist call for working together and the awkward tag line “Smarter going forward.”

In comments to David Greenwald, Steinberg did call for repeal, but failed to pick a side.

“The answer in my view is to take this two-thirds supermajority requirement. We are one of three states in the country that allows a small minority of members to hold up the progress…. It doesn’t really work for California; it worked this time barely because of the magnitude of the crisis… We need to take the question this two-thirds supermajority to the ballot. I feel even stronger now than I did when I started on December 1.”

• Karen Bass is also talking about 2/3, but she is looking at the arbirtrary standard:

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, has proposed one that would allow lawmakers to approve budgets with 55 percent majorities if they do it by June 15. After that, it would take two-thirds votes.

It’s not necessarily that this kind of measure would definitely not pass because all the thrust of majority democratic rule is lost, but that’s certainly a factor.

• In that same article, Loni Hancock calls for a simple majority:

Hancock has introduced a constitutional amendment that would require only simple majorities to approve budgets.

“California needs to have a normal democracy like every other state in the nation except Rhode Island and Arkansas,” she said.

That’s a talking point.  55% is mush.

The point is that we have the Democratic leadership finally talking about the main impediment to the perpetual budget crisis.  Without two-thirds, you can fix a tax system that is too closely tied to boom-and-bust economic cycles.  Without two-thirds, you can end the virtual bribery of Yacht Party and moderate lawmakers.  Without two-thirds, you can end the Big Five process that facilitates official secrecy and backroom deals and use a deliberative process involving the committee structure and relying on the input of the entire caucus.  And without 2/3, you won’t have to hear from high Broderist windbags tinkering on the margins with proposals that make them feel good but will do absolutely nothing to solve the problem.  It’s kind of hilarious that the LAST proposal in George “Can’t We All Get Along” Skelton’s long list in today’s column is this:

* A simple majority vote for budget passage; 55% at most. Scrap the two-thirds vote requirement.

After the Yacht Party putsch, Darrell Steinberg called a vote on the $14.4 billion dollar tax package, and the new leader Dennis Hollingsworth said, “I honestly don’t know how the vote is going to turn out.”

Well, it didn’t turn out.  Cox, Ashburn, Cogdill and even Correa all abstain.  Maldonado votes no.  Not good.  Lois Wolk isn’t there because she’s sick, so this had no chance of working anyway.  We’re in uncharted waters now, unless the lockdown is theatrical and Cox will vote for a newly drafted bill in the morning.

UPDATE by Brian: Sen Wolk returned to vote aye on the budget, but it seems the Republicans didn’t change their abstain votes. It’s always worth giving the two Senators in question a call. Senator Abel Maldanado (R-Monterey County, 916-651-4015) & Senator Dave Cox (R-Fair Oaks, 916-651-4001). While you’re at it, it might be worth giving Sen. Correa (D-OC, (916) 651-4034) a call as well as he abstained from one of the votes last night too.

President Pro Tem Steinberg has brought the Senate into session but there’s no breakthrough to report.  Steinberg had a conversation with Dave Cox, who is seeing lots of his constituents in Sacramento County get pink slips today, and he is encouraged that something will get done today:

“We’re going to get there today,” Steinberg predicted. “I can’t tell you exactly who (will vote for the budget package). We all know who the candidates are. …Today has to be the day.” […]

Steinberg did not elaborate on his meeting with Cox, who was once thought to be the deciding vote but has since said he could not in good conscience vote for the tax increases.

“Dave and I have known each other for almost 20 years, and we have always had a good relationship,” Steinberg said.

On Monday, Steinberg first said he would put up the tax bill at 10 a.m. this morning and keep the roll open — for hours, if necessary — to pressure the final vote.

“There are caucuses and conversations that led me to hold off until noon,” he said.

Anthony Wright and John Myers at Capitol Notes are still Twittering from the chamber.  Myers reports on a talk with the Governor’s press secretary about Abel Maldonado’s ransom note wish list:

McLear: guv willing to look at ways to “augment” budget deal if it gets the 2/3 vote… But won’t comment on specifically adding Sen. Maldonado’s requests… Guv does support, though, both proposals: open primary, legis pay.

I’m more and more convinced that Maldonado is the Governor’s sock puppet.  Arnold has been talking about the same “good government” reforms for quite a while, in particular open primaries.  It’s not that these reforms are completely nutty – no pay for lawmakers without a budget and no legislative pay or per diem raises in bad economic times is fine, I guess – but they are pointless compared to what is needed.  Clearly making Yacht Party lawmakers feel bad or hitting their salaries isn’t going to upend the anti-tax jihad.  And the only definitive outcome of open primaries to this point is a confusingly long ballot and decreased participation, not automatic moderate candidates.  These aren’t germane, and they are just a way to hold up the process to extract more concessions.

You can read the letter that 20,000 state employees got today here.  These are real lives that the Yacht Party is messing with.  And they’re wasting taxpayer dollars by delaying the process in about 10 different ways.

Thanks to everyone around the blogosphere linking to us in the past couple days as we report this out.  In addition, I’ll be on the Bay Area’s KPFA morning show with Aimee Allison tomorrow at 7:00am to discuss the latest.