Dante noted earlier today the Yes on 1A mailer that found itself in the California’s mailboxes today, and its sad-sack effort to take tepid statements made by Barack Obama and somehow spin them into rhetorical gold that would earn the support of Democrats.

Unnoted in that post, however, was another mailer that arrived simultaneously in support of 1C.  Let’s compare the two:

I’m no expert in direct mail, but I can tell you that as a Democrat, the one on the left endorsed by the California Democratic Party gets my attention.  The one on the right?  Not so much.

Ultimately, of course, this is all fairly academic: according to the current polling, neither 1A nor 1C have a bat’s chance in hell of passing on May 19th.

Still, the inability of the 1A crowd to put out as unequivocal and clear a mailer as the 1C crowd was the difference of just 22 votes on the Convention floor.  22 votes.  If the polling on the issue were any closer, that fact would make a big difference in the media war.

Let no one say that each individual activist doesn’t make a difference.

When I got home last night I was intrigued to find waiting for me in my mailbox a piece from the Yes on 1A/1B campaign (hey Brian, where’s my direct mail?).  It’s apparently directed to Democrats, because the mailer is attempting to make the case that Obama supports 1A and 1B, and you should too:

1A/1B Obama mailer

Apparently, Obama’s not-quite-endorsement of the special election propositions came at a love-fest with Schwarzenegger a couple of months ago during the President’s visit to Los Angeles, during which I barely got out of downtown before they shut down the streets.

The mail piece quotes a piece by San Francisco Chronicle political writer Carla Marinucci, which basically describes a love-in of sorts between Schwarzenegger and Obama regarding the state and federal budget crisis:

Obama praised Schwarzenegger as “one of the great innovators of state government, somebody who has been leading California through some very difficult times, somebody who has turned out to be an outstanding partner” in economic recovery.

Schwarzenegger, who has prominently broken with some of his fellow Republican governors who have criticized the federal stimulus package as an example of bloated overspending, went the full measure on Thursday, praising both the president and his stimulus plan.

“It’s the greatest package,” he said. “I’m so happy we are getting these kinds of benefits from the federal government and President Obama.” He called the Democrat “a fantastic partner” and “our leader in economic recovery.”

During the event, Obama added a nod to “the initiatives” on the ballot:

Obama, addressing a question from a member of the audience regarding cutbacks in education funding, stopped short of a formal endorsement of the governor’s six ballot measures. But he told the audience at the Miguel Contreras Learning Center that he had discussed the issues with the governor.

“That’s why it’s so important for everybody to get engaged in the various initiatives that are going to be coming up, to make sure – that what you just articulated, to invest in our kids … is reflected in the state budget,” he said.

He warned that in the current economic situation, voters who want better schools, better roads and better infrastructure should know that “you can’t have something for nothing … you can’t ask local elected officials to balance the budget” and cut taxes and improve roads. “Somebody’s got to pay for it,” he said.

The Yes on 1A campaign is trying to get you to vote their way because of a tepid nod by President Obama.  But what’s really telling is the last paragraph, not the middle one. I fully agree with President Obama on that.  Now, if only we could get him to move past giving lukewarm nods to special election propositions that will have a bunch of negative consequences, what if we actually got him to support a sane constitution for this state instead?

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

Conservatives would have Californians believe that Prop 1A is in trouble with the voters because it would extend some temporary taxes for a couple more years. That may well be true for some voters. But it isn’t the full story.

In order to get the February budget deal done, Democrats agreed to put a spending cap on the ballot. But they knew that progressives would never support a hard spending cap along the lines of what Arnold wanted in Prop 76. So staffers from the Legislature and the Governor’s office got together to write what became Prop 1A – designed to accomplish all the effects of a spending cap, but with enough sleight-of-hand and possible loopholes to hopefully convince skeptical Democrats and progressives to back it.

And when that didn’t seem to be enough, they linked it to Prop 1B, a $9 billion carrot to CTA to back the budget package, despite the very real possibility that Prop 1A (whose effects will last indefinitely, whereas Prop 1B will run out around 2014).

Grassroots progressives are beginning to see through this, as more and more organizations join the No on 1A coalition. George Skelton quotes several of them in his column today:

“We see 1A imposing a spending cap that assures that California schools remain among the most poorly funded in the country,” says CFT political director Kenneth Burt.

And he adds, echoing what other public employee unions have complained about: “CTA went behind closed doors and cut a secret deal with the governor without talking to anybody.”

Another opponent is the California Faculty Assn. Education already “is in a hole,” says President Lillian Taiz. “Now they’re dropping a manhole cover on us” with 1A. “This is madness.”

The California School Boards Assn. also opposes 1A. Executive Director Scott P. Plotkin says a rainy day reserve would prevent schools from obtaining “adequate funding.”

What about the $9.3 billion the props would provide to schools? “That’s money we’re entitled to anyway under Proposition 98,” Plotkin says. Go to court and get it, he asserts.

Democratic supporters of Prop 1A, including legislators and their staff, have been working overtime trying to convince progressives, including yours truly, to support Prop 1A. Their argument has been that Prop 1A isn’t like Prop 76 (and they are correct), and that with a Democratic governor and a large Democratic majority in the legislature, its effects will either be blunted or simply irrelevant.

But that is asking voters to take an enormous risk with the government services they need to prosper and even to survive. Prop 1A DOES create a kind of spending cap, let’s be clear. It’s not at all certain that we’ll have a Democrat in the governor’s office in 2011 (and even if we did they may not want to raise new revenues anyway). Prop 1A immediately gives the governor the authority to make mid-year cuts, meaning Arnold could slash UC and CSU spending during an academic year, or a Republican governor elected in 2010 could do deeper damage.

Further, we have no idea yet how the idiotic redistricting plan set up in Prop 11 will affect the composition of the legislature in 2013 and afterward. Although I don’t see how California Republicans can make a significant comeback even with Prop 11’s gerrymandering, they might well be able to reduce Democratic numbers so that a 2/3 vote is not within reach even by cutting further deals.

Skelton argues that the problem with Prop 1A is its complexity, which confuses and therefore turns off voters:

The lesson: When writing a ballot measure, keep it simple. Make sure it can be easily grasped by voters.

Fast forward 36 years. The core measure on the May 19 special election ballot, Proposition 1A, suffers from a similar affliction: lack of simplicity. That’s because it has been burdened with so much Byzantine baggage that there’s no consensus interpretation of what the measure is all about….

But the product was not a prime-time package ready for the voters. The trade-offs that click inside a legislative chamber aren’t always easy to explain outside the Capitol. Voters tend to become confused or enraged.

And that may well explain how some voters approach the issue. But for many others, the concept of a spending cap that nobody really understands, and that progressives and Democrats are supposed to support on the faith that Democratic legislators will always be there in sufficient numbers to ensure this doesn’t destroy government, is just not something we can swallow.

Especially when you consider that the California Budget Project estimates that Prop 1A will lead to immediate budget shortfalls between at least now and 2012-13 (and could be as high as $21 billion that year), there really seems to be no case whatsoever for Prop 1A. Voting no on this one is an easy move for progressives to make.

Ultimately I have to wonder about the political wisdom of Democratic legislators campaigning on a “Yes on everything” platform. Schools will get their money, either via Prop 1B or via the courts. The only propositions that might affect the size of the existing deficit are Props 1C-1E, and though they have their considerable problems as well, they might fare better if they were decoupled from Prop 1A.

But that’s now what the leadership has chosen to do, and as a result, it seems likely the entire package will be shot down by voters. That wouldn’t be because of voter ignorance or confusion, either. It’d be because voters understand a bad idea when they see it.

At the Torrance Democratic Club meeting held tonight, the club voted to endorse the No position on all of the ballot propositions.  Attendees had the benefit of hearing from three speakers covering different views of the ballot propositions.  Represented at the meeting were the California Teachers Association, the nonpartisan League of Women Voters of California, and the progressive netroots (in the person of David Dayen).  Following an informative presentations by the speakers and a question and answer period, club members voted to oppose all the ballot propositions above the necessary 60% threshold to have the club endorse the No positions.  

Most of the discussion focused on Proposition 1A and 1B – and despite broad agreement that education was definitely suffering, the votes against the propositions indicated that members didn’t think this was the solution.

Among the few bright spots for California races tonight is the fact that tonight, voters said yes to more public transportation.  It was close, but it seems likely.

With 86.4% reporting statewide, Proposition 1A appears headed for passage, with 52.3% in favor.  While the vast bulk of the uncounted areas of the state are in the Inland Empire, which is currently opposing 1A, it just doesn’t seem like there are enough votes out there to reverse the 400,000+ vote advantage that 1A currently enjoys.  Congratulations, California, on taking the next big step toward a high-speed, high-tech transportation future.

Meanwhile, in Los Angeles County, voters seem to have barely approved Measure R, which would raise the sales tax in my county by .5% (one dollar out of every 200 spent) to fund transportation projects, including a subway to the sea and a whole host of other projects.  With 97% reporting, Measure R has 67.35%.  A two-thirds majority is required to pass any tax increase, so R has a cushion of less than one percent.

Eventually, I’ll be able to get from my neighborhood to downtown San Francisco using just two trains: the Purple Line to Union Station, and the HSR.  That’s what I would call pretty cool.

Crossposted from the California High Speed Rail Blog

The Field Poll finally got around to polling Prop 1A and the results are about what I’d expected after six weeks of the Reason Foundation and the Howard Jarvis Association flooding the state’s media with lies. We have a 47-42 lead with 11% undecided. The common rule of thumb in California politics is that a proposition under 50% before election day is in serious trouble, but I’m not convinced that conventional wisdom will hold true this year. There are a number of propositions – such as 4 and 8 – that are also very closely split, and voters are showing a better understanding of the issues, with a reduced inclination to vote no as a knee-jerk reaction.

Still, the poll shows that we have a LOT of work to do between now and Tuesday. Especially when you look at the crosstabs.

Prop 1A will be decided on election day. Those who have already voted oppose it 39-51. That is very close to the number of McCain voters opposing Prop 1A, 35-56. Here in California absentee voters have traditionally leaned Republican and conservative. Those groups oppose Prop 1A – Republicans by a margin of 35-58 and conservatives by a margin of 30-64. Voters over age 65, those most likely to cast an absentee ballot, oppose it 38-53.

However, if California gets an Obama surge on election day, the outcome may be much different (preferences are listed in order of yes, no, and undecided):

Democrats: 53-30-17

Independents: 54-40-6

Moderates: 49-40-11

Liberals: 61-25-14

Obama: 56-33-11

Age 18-34: 50-38-12

If young voters in particular hit the polls in large numbers than we can win this on election day.

The Field Poll also breaks the numbers down by region, showing us where we need to focus our energies over the next three days:

LA County: 55-37-8

Other SoCal: 32-54-14

Central Valley: 49-46-5

Bay Area: 59-28-13

Other NorCal: 46-46-8

Looking at this I would write off “Other SoCal” and pour as many resources as possible into the Central Valley. Fresno, Bakersfield, and Sacramento among others ought to be pro-HSR given how much they will benefit from the system. Over the next few days local political leaders and respected state leaders – I’m looking at you, Dianne Feinstein and Arnold Schwarzenegger – need to get into the Central Valley, get themselves on local news, and promote the hell out of Prop 1A.

There is a large number of undecided voters in the Bay Area as well. They can and should be brought over to our side, likely with a strong push from environmental and transit groups. I don’t know if the Sierra Club has any money to put an ad up, or can do something to attract earned media, but that would be very helpful.

I know this site gets a lot of readers from around the pro-HSR community. So here is what I suggest our plans be for the next crucial three days:

Link Obama to HSR. Run some ads or print up some flyers or just plain talk about how Obama and Biden are strong HSR advocates. The purpose here is to ensure that Democrats and Obama voters are going to cast their ballots for Prop 1A as well.

The Central Valley is where we will win or lose. Get thee to Fresno (or Bakersfield or Sacramento) and explain to voters why this will be a godsend for the Valley. It will bring jobs and cheaper, more reliable transportation. Fresno will be under two hours from SF and LA. And it will reverse a long history of California neglecting the Valley’s infrastructure needs.

Emphasize the economic stimulus benefits of HSR. This message would play well in the Central Valley, the Bay Area, and perhaps even LA County and some other parts of SoCal. Prop 1A is a smart investment in jobs and growth. Leading economists like Paul Krugman are calling for deficit spending on infrastructure to rescue our economy. That message needs to get through.

Continue targeting young voters. CALPIRG has done excellent work here over the last few weeks but they need to be joined by other groups – Young Democrats and other groups. At San Diego State an environmentally-minded group of fraternities and sororities has been promoting Prop 1A.

Speak more about the environmental benefits in the Bay Area. Voters there are the most likely to be motivated by the considerable environmental and global warming-fighting benefits of HSR. If the Sierra Club has any last-minute resources to deploy, that would be very useful.

We can win this thing if we drive a big Obama turnout on Tuesday, ensure that people vote their entire ballot (or at least as far as the first proposition!) and that they vote YES on Prop 1A. The internals of the Field Poll look good for us, IF we can accomplish the turnout task. Let’s get to it!

Crossposted from the California High Speed Rail Blog

The latest canard that high speed rail opponents are trying to use to defeat Prop 1A is that the Authority failed to deliver a legislatively-mandated, updated business plan. Dan Walters made this the centerpiece of his HSR denial column today.

On the surface it sounds bad. But as the facts demonstrate this is a case where Republicans – and Democratic Senator Alan Lowenthal, who oughta know better – have set up high speed rail and Prop 1A to fail.

On August 26th AB 3034, after a weeks-long delay, was finally signed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. That bill directed the California High Speed Rail Authority to create a new business plan…by September 1. Giving the Authority merely five days to come up with the new plan.

Why the delay? The bill was passed out of the Assembly on May 29. From there it languished in the State Senate. Alan Lowenthal put out a nonsense study trying to cast doubt on the plan, but it was Sen. Roy Ashburn who played the central role in delaying AB 3034 into early August. By the time the Senate passed AB 3034, however, Arnold Schwarzenegger had started in on his temper tantrum, refusing to sign any new bills until we got a new budget. Arnold relented on AB 3034 – but had the bill bent sent to Arnold sooner, it would not have been subject to Arnold’s tantrum, and there would have been time to produce it.

But it gets worse. As you know, the state budget delay this year was the worst on record – three months long. The state Constitution mandates that a budget be approved by June 15 and implemented on July 1 – the beginning of the new fiscal year.

The Authority’s staff consists of 6.5 employees. Not a huge amount of staff to put together a business plan, actually, especially when you give them five days and then withhold a budget from them.

HSR deniers have now tried to use the delayed business plan to claim that Prop 1A and HSR are flawed. Today the State Senate held a hearing about the business plan, likely designed and timed to hurt Prop 1A’s chances. You can see the complete video here and the YouTube of the key exchange above. At the hearing Quentin Kopp explained that the plan will be ready around November 8, after proper work goes into its production and review by Goldman Sachs.

Roy Ashburn tried to attack Kopp over the delay, asking “You and your Authority are in violation of California law as we sit here today. If you were in my chair, what would you say?”

Kopp’s reply:

If I were sitting in your chair I would use temperate language. Did you ever read the state Constitution? Did you ever read Article 4, Section 12? Do you know what it says? It says…the Legislature shall pass the budget bill by midnight on June 15 of each year. You’re in violation of the law. Consider the outcome should a taxpayer bring a suit to recover the money that you eventually drew between June 15 and September 23 of this year. Consider the fact that people don’t work without being paid. Consider the fact that my executive director hasn’t been paid since January of this year. Consider the fact that when you finally appropriated the money the contractors who expect to be paid can finally begin work on the business plan. I’ll tell you why people should believe me. Because I have an impeccable reputation for honesty, integrity, and independence.

Ashburn could not reply to that point. He avoided it and tried to repeat his same points. But the smackdown was delivered, and Ashburn is exposed as a fraud. The state legislature, led by Republicans like Ashburn who held this state hostage for three months, refusing to do their Constitutional duty to pass a budget because they were demanding unspecified cuts, have absolutely NO place to be criticizing ANYONE else in the state government for not following the law. Ashburn is full of it and kudos to Kopp for calling him out on it.

Kopp drank Roy Ashburn’s milkshake. I think we’re done with this whole “business plan” nonsense, aren’t we?

Crossposted from the California High Speed Rail Blog

Not content with denying to Californians the numerous tangible benefits of high speed rail, Prop 1A opponents have retreated into a revival of Herbert Hoover’s economic policy in order to try and defeat the most important project Californians have considered in nearly 50 years. Their argument is that in an economic crisis, we should turn to austerity instead of following the tried and true path of deficit spending on infrastructure that provides short-term job relief and long-term economic value.

Today we have numerous articles and media outlets starting to push back against the New Hoovers. From newspaper editorial pages to leading economists there is a growing consensus that we must use deficit spending – in our case, bonds – to spur economic growth through infrastructure projects.

Speaker Karen Bass is calling for infrastructure projects to be part of a California economic stimulus that she hopes to offer later this year to deal with the worsening economic crisis.

Even conservative observers and federal deficit hawks are seeing the need for deficit spending, as the conservative Washington Times reports:

Conservative Financial Times columnist Samuel Brittan said the fears that short-term stimulus spending by governments will raise deficits miss the point. Even the $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan approved by the U.S. government – part of a more than $2 trillion international bailout of banks by governments around the world – does not change the equation.

“Maxims about debt that might be prudent for families can be the height of folly for government,” he wrote.

British economist John Maynard Keynes is credited with the basic insight, arguing that the Great Depression was prolonged because Western governments insisted on balancing budgets, raising taxes and cutting spending at a time when private economic activity had ground to a halt.

Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan research group, said both candidates must put together a credible long-term plan to deal with the exploding deficit, but that the government should be priming the pump in the short term.

These conservatives are joined by Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, who writes in today’s column:

And to provide that help, we’re going to have to put some prejudices aside. It’s politically fashionable to rant against government spending and demand fiscal responsibility. But right now, increased government spending is just what the doctor ordered, and concerns about the budget deficit should be put on hold….

All signs point to an economic slump that will be nasty, brutish – and long….

And this is also a good time to engage in some serious infrastructure spending, which the country badly needs in any case. The usual argument against public works as economic stimulus is that they take too long: by the time you get around to repairing that bridge and upgrading that rail line, the slump is over and the stimulus isn’t needed. Well, that argument has no force now, since the chances that this slump will be over anytime soon are virtually nil. So let’s get those projects rolling.

The growing unanimity of opinion on the need for deficit spending for infrastructure projects is striking. Krugman, MacGuineas and Brittan join leading economic figures like Nouriel Roubini and Lawrence Summers in calling for bold action to mitigate the deepening economic crisis.

They are joined today by the Fresno Bee editorial in favor of Prop 1A which clearly understands the need for infrastructure stimulus, and directly refutes some of the fiscal arguments against HSR:

Sadly, much opposition has come from people who say they like the idea of 220-mph trains zipping up and down the state, but don’t think we can afford it right now, in a time of budget disaster and economic crisis.

That sounds prudent, even reasonable, but it ignores an important fact of American history: Many of our most important public works projects have come in times of deep economic distress — and they have been crucial elements in our recovery in those times.

Recall the Great Depression, when voters in the Bay Area passed bonds to build the Golden Gate and Bay bridges — projects that lightened the impact of the Depression on that region and were critical to the postwar economic boom. Shasta Dam was built during the Depression, and remains a linchpin of the state’s water system.

The closing paragraph of the editorial is a powerful, stirring statement that deserves to be quoted in full:

The high-speed rail project is immense, and that can be daunting. The current economic situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. In the past, Californians have risen to such challenges with vision and determination. Voting “yes” on Proposition 1A is a declaration that we still possess those qualities, and have not surrendered them to a timid faith in a status quo that is no longer sustainable.

I’ve never seen it put so well. The Fresno Bee clearly understands that our state’s very future is at stake and that Californians should be able to meet that challenge just as we have done in the past.

And what about the arguments that the financial crisis makes this a bad time to float bonds? The Sacramento Bee reports “unprecedented demand” for California’s short-term bonds:

California has secured commitments for nearly $4 billion in short-term loans thanks to unprecedented demand from individual investors Wednesday, averting a need for federal assistance and allaying fears of a cash shortage….

California secured orders for $3.92 billion in short-term bonds from individual investors Tuesday and Wednesday, 98 percent of its original $4 billion goal, according to state Treasurer Bill Lockyer….

This week’s bond sale reassured state officials that traditional lending markets would suffice.

Translation: capital markets WANT state bonds. If we float Prop 1A bonds they will be quickly gobbled up by a hungry market desperate for a safe investment.

All the HSR deniers have left is what was at the core of their belief all along – opposition to passenger rail:

“This is like losing your job and then using your credit card to put in a new swimming pool to help provide work for others,” said [Kris] Vosburgh [of the Howard Jarvis Association] of the jobs argument.

Have fun with that ridiculous “swimming pool” analogy in the comments…