Yee arrest shifts legislative numbers

by Brian Leubitz

It turns out having one of your members arrested for involvement in a gun running scandal hurts your approval numbers. Who’d have thunk it?

Following Yee’s arrest, voter sentiment of the legislature has turned negative. The proportion of voters expressing disapproval jumped six points from 40% to 46%, and now is greater than the proportion approving (43%), which declined three points. Thus, voter opinions of the legislature swung a net nine points in the negative direction in the days following news of Yee’s arrest.(Field poll PDF)

Now, that being said, 40% is still relatively strong compared to the dark days of the budget fights a few years ago. In September 2010, approval of the legislature hit a rather abysmal 10%. The majority vote budget and the wiggle room afforded by Prop 30 should probably get most of the credit for that rebound. But the Yee arrest, following the other Senate legal issues, drags that down. Perhaps some of that will be resolved when those members are officially gone from the chamber, but with the Yee story likely to linger in the news, don’t expect an immediate bounce at the end of the year.

Meanwhile, Gov. Brown is riding high. Field has him at an all-time high of 59%, with just 32% disapproving. Those are numbers that will be hard for any competitor to overcome in June or November. But the field of candidates that are actually in the race? The odds grow even longer. Right wing extremist Tim Donnelly leads the pack at 17% with no other candidate exceeding 3%. Neel Kashkari hopes to spend his way to relevance, but time is running quite short.

In polling, the answer you get depends heavily on the question. Obvious enough, right?

Few should understand this point better than the prestigious, independent Field Institute, whose polls on California issues often contribute to the public debate.

So why is Field polluting the discussion around revenues in California with bad questions and bad data?

We can and must do better, and soon.

The most recent Field Poll scans the horizon for support levels on prospective special-election issues

(get the poll here, and the fascinating cross-tab results here).

It’s helpful to see, in this poll, where Californians would cut to help reduce the state budget deficit. Basically, most voters would cut nothing except prisons and, perhaps, the costs of environmental regulation. Republicans would cut a lot more, except K-12 public schools.

The broad consensus is against almost any cuts that would be needed to meet the state’s widening budget chasm.

So are people willing to support new revenues? (OK, let’s go ahead and say “tax increases.”)

Not according to Field. But look at how they asked the question. Registered voters were asked to respond to: “I would be willing to pay higher taxes to help the state balance its budget.”

Even that poor wording got 43% support overall. Democrats and independent voters gave it 53% support.

But look at what’s missing in the question. The wording speaks to who would pay the higher taxes – the respondent – but how much? And for what purpose?

There’s no limit stated, no type of tax enumerated. And the purpose is as grim as they get: “help[ing] the state balance its budget.” If you have ever seen California voters talk about the state budget, they view it as a black hole rife with waste.

It’s astonishing that there’s a core of 43% willing to shovel their own money into a ditch to help “the state” fix “its budget.”

Of course there are many better ways to ask this kind of question. For instance, you could ask voters if they’d pay more to protect the specific programs and services they like. (Which is basically everything but prisons.) Linking tax increases to specific purposes helps a lot.

Or you could ask about specific kinds of taxes that don’t mainly affect the individuals responding to the poll. An oil extraction tax gets big numbers in polling for lots of reasons, one of them being who it’s targeted at (highly profitable oil companies).

An increase in income taxes on the wealthiest Californians similarly scores well because – as much as we may try – most Californians don’t fit into the top 1%, 5%, or even 10% on the income scale. (Disclosure: I managed the campaign for Prop. 63, which added a 1% surcharge on annual income over $1 million to support mental health programs.)

And if you present the facts properly, I’d bet you’d see majorities supporting a split-roll property tax, or at least a fix to change-in-ownership rules for commercial property.

We need to educate voters about the degree to which we have a revenue problem that’s been papered over for 20 years and salvaged occasionally by bogus economic bubbles. There are lots of sensible ways to raise money and not have undue impact on the people who can least afford it. If there’s ever going to be a time to find billions of dollars in steady new revenue sources, we’re pretty near the “hair on fire” phase now where that will be both necessary and possible.

Don’t believe you’d be limited to 43% support for a raft of revenue measures. Smartly designed, longer-lasting revenue solutions will have an audience – an even bigger audience if we don’t see this special election happen, or if the tax extensions fail and we flop into devastating austerity. Let’s get to work now.  

Despite receiving the lowest approval ratings on record, the Democratically Controlled Legislature still has the preferred budget plan.

The legislature's approval has hit a new low of just 15%.  While this is a shockingly small number, it is difficult to ascertain what this actually means for the state and our future elections.  Does it mean that voters simply dislike the partisanship? Does it mean they want the Legislature to be able to get a deal? And finally, does it mean that the voters would prefer a more functional, 2/3 requirementless, legislature?  (Yeah, I'm pretty sure requirementless isn't a word, but you know what I mean.)

Plan	Support
Democratic Plan	32
Governor’s Plan	31
Republican “plan”	19
None	14
Don’t Know	4

One thing is very clear from the recently released Field Poll (PDF) on the budget plans, the state is prepared for a tax increase.  Overwhelmingly, about 2/3 of the respondents, and well more than the 2/3 of the people who chose a plan, chose some form of a plan that increased taxes.  The breakdown appears to the right. The Democratic Plan indicates a return to the Reagan-Wilson tax structure and an increased top tax bracket. The Governor’s Plan refers to the sales tax proposal. And the Republican “plan”, well, that’s nothing really.

The Republicans must know ask themselves if they really wish to do this to the people of California.  A place where only 19% of the state prefers their cold-hearted “cuts only” budget. A place where even 44% of Republicans prefers a state budget that includes increased revenue.  

At this point, Californians see this for the real problem that it is.  82% of registered voters consider the budget deficit as a “very serious” issue. We can no longer simply apply, dare I say it, lipstick on a pig with a get out of town, borrow budget.  Groups on the left acknowledge as much, with major unions throwing down the gauntlet against a borrow budget.

It’s time for the legislative Republicans, or at least, say 48% of them, to acknowledge the reality of the situation. Otherwise, give up the 2/3 power and let the Democrats and the Governor work something real out.

(I wrote about this a few days ago, but I wanted to add something to the story. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Over at the Wall Street Journal, they want to talk about what the media narrative of the day: Obama Buyer’s Remorse from the Left. But here at the actual convention, there is quite a bit of enthusiasm here.  Perhaps people can be disappointed in their candidate without abandoning hope? Well, not if the media has anything to say about it.

Sen. Barack Obama‘s support of a recent overhaul of domestic spy laws that rankled many on the left still has them rankled if the opening session at the annual Netroots Nation convention taking place in Austin, Texas, is any indication. (WSJ 7/17)

I spoke to a friend here whom has given Senator Obama several hundred dollars during the primary. All in small increments, part of the small donor legion that has swelled Obama’s fundraising numbers in June to over $52 million.  She was clearly disappointed by Obama in the last few weeks, and she wasn’t part of that $52 million last month.  However, she admits that she will be back with Obama, and likely give money once again. And she’ll be back calling voters too, but perhaps prioritizing other issues right along side with the presidential election.

The small dollar donors and the netroots folks here in Austin can walk AND chew gum. It’s really quite amazing.  Matt Stoller summarizes this pretty well at OpenLeft

While it’s often impossible for consultants in DC to keep multiple thoughts in their head, it is possible for most of us normal bluggers and blug readers to get that we don’t like his vote on FISA but we want him to win the White House desperately anyway. (Open Left 7/17/08)

That was seen in the latest Field Poll where Sen. Obama solidified the left despite FISA and the surrounding hubub.

In the May Field Poll, self-described liberals favored at about an 80% clip.  That has now moved up to around 88%.  On the right, John McCain is doing considerably worse with self-described conservatives.  In May, McCain got around 70% of conservative voters. In the July Field Poll, McCain gathers only 67% of self-described conservatives. Back in 2004, Bush consistently polled around 80% amongst Republicans and conservatives.

Yet the questions are about Senator Obama’s progressive base having buyer’s remorse?  In California, it is clear if there are any idealogues that are disappointed with their major party candidate, it would be the conservatives.  Not the progressive left.  The left is focused on ending the rule of Bush and his newfound crony John McCain. The Right seems a bit wishy-washy about McCain.  There’s your buyer’s remorse.

As I walk around the convention center, I’ve been talking people about this “buyer’s remorse” concept that the media seems to be focused on.  One netroots leader said that, if anything, he saw many of his activists friends rediscovering the fact that Obama was, in fact, a politician. The Senator looked around and counted the votes, ultimately determining that this fight was not a winner. Very politician of him, perhaps, but he went forward with the motion to remove telecom immunity. Maybe “politicia” doesn’t carry qute the esteem as “hope superhero”, but Obama was still the politician they want to be the next president.

And that sentiment has been repeated over and over again.  Temporary frustration yes, but nothing sufficient to shake the core confidence in the Democratic nominee. Yesterday, in a conversation with Harold Ford at the lunch keynote, Markos of DailyKos once agian noted the difference between the two candidates. While Obama isn’t perfect, Obama is so much more aligned with our issues that there is no question whether we must work to ensure that Senator Obama is our next president.

FISA is important, yet it is not the only important item. Wow, who knew?

The Field Poll has been surveying Californians’ attitudes on Prop 13, and the broader issues of taxes and spending. What they’ve found is that Californians don’t want spending cuts, prefer spending cuts to new taxes – but also are willing to support new taxes if they’re the only way to prevent health care cuts.

Frank Russo offers an excellent in-depth look at the poll, which suggests that the public is willing to cut prisons (even though we have to INCREASE spending by at least $7 billion), and supports higher alcohol, cigarette, income, and sales taxes top protect health care.

Reading these poll numbers against the Field Poll’s Prop 13 numbers, which indicated ongoing support for Prop 13 and a belief that the state’s problems stem from spending and not tax problems it seems clear that there is a massive disconnect among California voters. They cling desperately to the belief that government waste and overspending is the problem of deficits, otherwise they might have to honestly and openly explain that their support for tax cuts is a desire to get government-sponsored tax shelters at the expense of everyone else in society and our state’s economic competitiveness.

Frank Russo argued the Field Poll numbers might provide a “road map” forward for the legislature. I agree, although that map suggests confrontation will be the first stop on the trip. Something has to give – Californians cannot maintain their low-tax environment without crippling spending cuts they say they don’t want. Republicans will take that to mean a stubborn refusal to increase taxes is popular with voters; they’ll not be inclined at all to seek new revenues.

What is really needed is a strong and persistent argument from Democrats – in Sacramento and in the grassroots – that our state has a structural revenue shortfall – that our problems really do stem from a lack of revenue, that a state ranking 46th in per pupil school spending doesn’t have any revenue to cut. We need to not shrink away when Californians insist that our problems are on the spending side – those Californians are wrong.

It’s especially important to begin with fellow Democrats. The Field numbers suggest that many Democrats are ardent defenders of Prop 13 and believe spending cuts are preferable to tax increases. These Democrats should be the target of a broad-based and long-term campaign to show them the error of this thinking – that their Democratic values are not compatible with these thoughts on budgeting.

It won’t be easy, but it is necessary if we are to fix this state.

(Nice to have the Senator here. Now go do as he says! – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Recently the Los Angeles Times ran an editorial, “For Citizens Only,” on the California Dream Act (SB 160) which misrepresented facts and promoted a policy position out of step with reality and mainstream opinion in California. 

Just one week after the LA Times declared their objection to increasing access to higher education for all Californians, the California Public Policy Institute (PPIC) issued a definitive analysis citing a critical gap in the number of college grads the state will produce.  PPIC warned that California will not meet the economic demand for highly skilled workers with current immigration and graduation rates; they recommended swift action on the state’s behalf to intervene. Additionally, a Field Poll in April 2007 noted that 83% of Californians support creating programs to legalize the status of undocumented immigrants indicating a far more open attitude toward immigrants than the LA Times expressed in their editorial.

The California Dream Act is an appropriate step to address our state’s workforce needs and is in alignment with voter sentiments toward immigrants. As the paper of note in California’s largest immigrant city, we expect more from the Los Angeles Times. 

Please help us express our dissatisfaction with the paper’s position and presentation of facts. It is critical that we set the record straight on SB 160 and make the paper aware of our concerns.

We are asking you to take three simple steps: 

–  Read our response to The Times editorial here:  “Let All Students Dream”  We are trying to earn a spot in the “Most Viewed” stories on the website, so be sure to use the link provided to view the response. 

–  Write a letter to the editor at The Times, expressing your concerns with their position or support for the bill 

–  Forward this to your network of friends, and ask them to do the same. 

As the focus on the topic of immigration intensifies in the coming weeks – both at the federal level and in our own state as the Legislature takes up our three immigrant related bills – we must not let misrepresentations or narrow perspectives cloud common consensus.

If you need additional information on SB 160 contact Eric Guerra (SAC) or Marvin Pineda (LA).  If you would like to help respond to the LA Times editorial or get the word out in support of SB 160 contact Christy Wolfe. 

Please take action today, and thank you for your support.