I think we’re certainly close to finding out, with respect to the May 19 special election.  While recent polling shows the electorate predisposed to opposing it, the money race is extremely lopsided in favor of the Yes side, and I suspect that will not change.

Led by Governor Schwarzenegger and a strange bedfellows coalition of big business and educators, the main campaign committee now reports donations of almost $3.7 million over the last six weeks.

Tops on the donor list is former Univision CEO Jerry Perenchio, a longtime Schwarzenegger campaign donor, who dropped $1.5 million into the campaign late last month. But more recent big players are also worth noting. Last Friday, official campaign finance reports showed a $500,000 check written by Chevron and a little more than $250,000 from political switch-hitter Reed Hastings. Hastings, the founder of online video rental giant Netflix, is a former member of the state Board of Education and has a track record of contributions to both the GOP governor’s causes and to a bevy of California Democrats […]

Meantime, there’s pretty much zippo reported so far in the way of money in opposition to any of the six budget-related ballot measures. Tops in cash seems to be the campaign opposing Proposition 1E, the temporary transfer of mental health money to the state’s general budget needs. That campaign reports a little more than $120,000 on hand.

The use of the Prop. 1B bribe (I really don’t know what else to call it) to split the labor coalition, and the co-opting of the legislature through predictable fearmongering has made this a virtual clean sweep for the Governor in the fundraising battle.  

Additional support for the Yes side will be provided by the bipartisan fetishists in the media, whose “not too hot, not too cold” approach to problem solving should be completely discredited by the absolute and total mess made of California in its name, but which somehow still has some cachet.  Dan Weintraub, good little centrist that he is, decides that a spending cap will – by itself – save the state from boom-and-bust budget cycles, when the history of such measures clearly shows that they ratchet down state spending to an unsustainable level that ruins quality of life for the broad mass of citizens.

TABOR, a (Colorado) state constitutional amendment adopted in 1992, limits the growth of state and local revenues to a highly restrictive formula:  inflation plus the annual change in population.  This formula is insufficient to fund the ongoing cost of government.  By creating a permanent revenue shortage, TABOR pits state programs and services against each other for survival each year and virtually rules out any new initiatives to address unmet or emerging needs.

Declining services since TABOR’s enactment have become increasingly evident in most major areas of state spending:  K-12 education, higher education, public health, and Medicaid.

“”[Business leaders] have figured out that no business would survive if it were run like the TABOR faithful say Colorado should be run — with withering tax support for college and universities, underfunded public schools and a future of crumbling roads and bridges.”” Neil Westergaard, Editor of the Denver Business Journal

This fanciful notion that you can just sock money away for a rainy day and not then be restricted by the complete refusal to raise taxes, combined with tying long-term future growth to the worst three fiscal years (this year and the next two) in the state’s history, and the fact that the rainy day fund would have to be replenished even in DOWN fiscal years, does not comport with the facts.  We have verifiable data showing what happens when you artificially limit the size and scope of government and it’s neither pretty nor desirable – before Colorado repealed TABOR, they were last or nearly last in spending in almost every major category across the board, with disastrous real-world effects on quality of life.  The rainy day money never gets spent, it becomes another part of the budget out of the hands of lawmakers, and will only increase the deficit while crippling Californian’s ability to cope with the downturn.

But one guy making that argument on a computer doesn’t have the impact of a phalanx of glossy ads warning “Vote for this OR DIE!!!!”  Given the paid media and earned media blitz on the Yes side, we really will see how much money can buy.

In an op-ed in today’s LA Times, former LA Mayor Richard Riordan doesn’t hold back against what he calls California’s May ballot scam.  Being a Republican, some of the arguments are of the familiar anti-tax stripe.  But being a liberal Republican who endorsed Barack Obama for President, he makes some arguments from the Democratic side of things.

Then there’s Proposition 1D, with its clunky and dishonest title: “Protects Children’s Services Funding. Helps Balance State Budget.” How does it “protect” children’s services funding? By taking $1.6 billion currently committed to children’s health services and preschool and throwing it into the budget maw.

Proposition 1E, “Mental Health Services Funding. Temporary Reallocation,” is another travesty. It simply grabs $450 million that voters specifically directed to mental health services.

The May ballot leaves me with some questions for my fellow Californians.

First, to my liberal friends: Can you really support propositions that will drastically cut services to the state’s neediest — especially after legislators increased the state sales tax, a regressive tax that places a larger burden on the poor?

He then makes the discredited argument that rich people will move elsewhere if their taxes become too high.  And then he goes on about “restructuring state government,” echoing the rhetoric of Mr. Blow Up The Boxes, the guy who, uh, didn’t.  So it’s a mixed bag.

However, there’s no question that many of the ballot propositions, particularly 1A, would drastically cut services to the state’s neediest.  In a new report, The California Budget Project shows that 1A would not impact the continuing revenue shortfall in the state budget, and would in fact exacerbate it:

Proposition 1A would not address California’s existing structural shortfall – the gap between revenues and expenditures – that exists in all but the best budget years. The state’s two long-term budget forecasts, issued by the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) and the Department of Finance, both identify an ongoing gap between revenues and expenditures. Moreover, the Department of Finance’s forecast projects a significant ongoing gap even taking into account the continuation of the spending reductions outlined by the Governor in his proposed 2009-10 budget.

The revenue forecast amount established by Proposition 1A, which limits spending from the state’s existing tax base, would be significantly below the Governor’s “baseline” spending forecast, a forecast that assumes that the cuts proposed by the Governor in his New Year’s Eve budget release continue.  For example, in 2010-11, the first year when the Director of Finance would be required to calculate whether the state has received “unanticipated revenues,” the revenue cap would be an estimated $16 billion lower than the Governor’s “baseline” spending estimate for the same year. The gap would widen in 2011-12 and 2012-13 to $17 billion and $21 billion, respectively.

By basing the new cap on a level of revenues that is insufficient to pay for the current level of programs and services, Proposition 1A would limit the state’s ability to restore reductions made during the current downturn out of existing revenues. Had Proposition 1A been in effect during the late 1990s, for example, it would have diverted “unanticipated” revenues from the General Fund  in 1995-96 and 1996-97, years when the “expenditure forecast” amount, the test used to trigger the shift of monies out of the General Fund, was below the LAO’s 1995 “current services” forecast for the same fiscal year.

Even in years with budget shortfalls, the so-called “rainy day” fund would need to be enhanced.  Considering that we have an aging population in California, with the age group 65 and older projected to grow the fastest over the next decade, anything that dramatically lowers state spending, and nullifies the ability to restore that spending even in a good budget year, will slash services which will only grow more needed in the years to come.  

Then there are the other goodies in 1A, like the ability for the Governor to make unilateral mid-year spending cuts.  And the fact that the spending formulas are based on estimated and not actual revenues (you’ve seen this year how they fluctuate wildly).  Bet you won’t see that on the ballot language.

The May 19 ballot will feature a tiny universe of the state’s voters.  If this small a subset of the population can make these kind of drastic changes to California’s future, we should all be ashamed.

For several months, I have noticed a lack of context from the press when discussing California’s housing situation.  Sales of new and existing homes were rising, yes, but for a very good reason – all the bargains created by a spate of foreclosures.  In fact, the correlation matches up perfectly – the regions with the highest sales also have the lowest prices.  An example is the High Desert region, with a 203.1% increase in sales year-over-year, but a median price of $121,970, the lowest in the state.    The latest data on home sales shows a 41% decline in price year-over-year.  Bloomberg’s story reinforces the theory that only foreclosures are selling.  Does this mean that property values have decreased by a concurrent amount?  Not necessarily.  But it does mean that a non-foreclosed home in this distressed market has virtually no chance of selling, making it impossible to find the bottom of the market.  The price of foreclosures does affect the price of all homes, which is why stopping foreclosures is so important.

But that effort will be stymied by the continued erosion of the job market, leading to more unemployed and more people losing their homes.

California unemployment will peak at just over 12 percent late this year, setting a modern record, according to the latest forecast from the University of the Pacific.

Recovery will come slowly. Unemployment won’t sink back into single digits until late 2011, or some two years after the recession is expected to officially end, according to a forecast released Tuesday by UOP.

There’s typically a considerable lag between the beginning of an economic recovery and a drop in the unemployment rate, as companies are slow to re-hire even after business perks up.

We’re talking about two more years, at least, of significantly reduced revenue collection rates.  All the homes selling for pennies reduce the overall property tax revenue.  No projection of future revenues can reasonably be believed in this environment.  And so we’ll continue to see yawning gaps, with a governmental structure woefully equipped to deal with them.  The so-called “reform” of Prop. 1A, to hoard revenue in positive economic years to use in down years, will be inoperative for the foreseeable future, and even when the economy retains balance, the revenue forecasts for any spending cap will be increasingly based on these horrible years, leading to a disaster without end.

In years when revenues fall short, the state could use the reserve to cover spending up to the prior year’s level, plus an adjustment for growth in population and the Consumer Price Index.

But increases in the state’s senior population and health care costs have been outpacing both those measures, said Jean Ross, executive director of the California Budget Project, a nonprofit organization that focuses on the effect of budget policies on low-and middle-income Californians.

Moreover, Ross noted that under Proposition 58, the 2004 ballot measure, the state will continue to send 3 percent of revenues to the reserve, which would be subject to the tighter controls of Proposition 1A.

“It takes 3 percent off the top of the budget, and we don’t have that,” Ross said.

Ross and Michael Cohen, a deputy legislative analyst who studied the measure in depth, both said Proposition 1A could force revenue into the reserve even in years in which the state faced deficits.

My guess is that this is why the AFSCME local 2620 voted to support the measure and others on the ballot, while the overall union called for rejection.  The lure of easy money might sound nice for the locals, but unions with experience with spending caps in other states know that they accompany disaster.

Simply put, the state’s in an enormous amount of trouble and has no structures to deal with it.  This argues strongly for blowing up the boxes, for real this time, and starting over, by repealing the rules that subject the budget to tyranny and building a new vehicle for reform.

I’m thoroughly unsurprised that Steve Poizner has joined Meg Whitman in an effort to out-anti-tax one another through opposition to Prop. 1A.

Specifically, the politicians don’t want you to know all the facts when it comes to Proposition 1A.  This is the ballot measure that would impose a state constitutional spending limit – a concept that is supported by an overwhelming majority of Californians.

However, if the measure passes, it will also extend the huge tax increases recently approved by the legislature. Passage of Proposition 1A means that the near-doubling of the car tax, the 1 cent statewide sales tax increase, the income tax hike and the reduction in the dependent tax credit would continue for an additional two years.  That adds up to an estimated $16 billion in higher taxes.  It’s no surprise these taxes are not supported by the majority of Californians.

That’s why our state legislators want to keep the truth from you about Proposition 1A and they’ve stacked the deck in their favor.  So when you read the official ballot description of the measure – what should be an objective description on what is being voted on – you will see no mention of the taxes.  The legislative leadership wrote the ballot description themselves and intentionally omitted any reference to the tax increase extension.  They made sure what you read is biased.

The Yacht Party has been so consumed with tax ideology, as if the only role of government is to decide what not to tax, that they fail to see the spending cap forest through the trees.  Which is fine with me, because as Anthony Wright notes, this cap would painfully ratchet down services and make any economic revival in California extremely difficult.

The revenue forecast amount established by Proposition 1A, which limits spending from the state’s existing tax base, would be significantly below the Governor’s “baseline” spending forecast, a forecast that assumes that the cuts proposed by the Governor in his New Year’s Eve budget release continue. For example, in 2010-11, the first year when the Director of Finance would be required to calculate whether the state has received “unanticipated revenues,” the revenue cap would be an estimated $16 billion lower than the Governor’s “baseline” spending estimate for the same year. The gap would widen in 2011-12 and 2012-13 to $17 billion and $21 billion, respectively.

By basing the new cap on a level of revenues that is insufficient to pay for the current level of programs and services, Proposition 1A would limit the state’s ability to restore reductions made during the current downturn out of existing revenues […]

Proposition 1A limits the amount that can be used from the reserve in “bad budget” years to the difference between anticipated revenues and prior year’s spending adjusted for population growth and the CPI. It does not allow the reserve to be used to support a “current services” or “baseline” budget, even if sufficient funds would be available in the reserve to do so. The discrepancy arises from the fact that the CPI – the inflation measure used by Proposition 1A – is designed to measure changes in the cost of goods purchased by households, not governments.

Thus, the CPI does not accurately measure the year-to-year increase in the cost of delivering the same level of public services. Specifically, the CPI does not take into account the fact that government spends a larger share of its budget on items – such as health care – for which costs have risen faster than the rate of inflation. Between 1990 and 2007, for example, national per capita health care expenditures more than doubled, rising by 164 percent, while the CPI for California, which measures inflation in households’ purchases, rose by just 61 percent.

The particular concern for health care is noteworthy. If the formulas in Prop 1A don’t take into account medical inflation, an aging population, or other impacts–like the erosion of employer-based health coverage–then existing health programs are threatened.

Read the whole thing.  These are the guts of this awful deal, what you won’t hear when you call your legislator and they use buzzwords like “rainy day fund.”  At a time when the health care system in California frays at the edges, this spending cap would ultimately stop any progressive reform on anything that costs money, bottom line.  The executive under 1A gets all kinds of new powers to make cuts, and absolutely none to raise revenues.  It’s Prop. 13 on steroids.  That’s why the Governor likes it so much.

But 1A has been structured to sidestep vigorous opposition through a series of bribes, particularly to the teacher’s union.  Prop. 1B, which would repay $9.3 billion dollars to schools starting in 2011-2012 can only pass if Prop. 1A passes.  This has led the CTA to support all six budget measures on the May ballot, severing the united front that labor used to beat Arnold’s special election measures in 2005.  Interestingly, the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) will only support Prop. 1B, and in a pique of schizophrenia, denounced 1A as a “power grab” by the Governor.

Of course, the CFT is substantially smaller than CTA.  And while the California Nurses Association’s opposition to the whole special election ballot is noble and appreciated, ultimately some of the stakeholders with money will need to enter the arena.  We leave a shameful legacy to the children of this state if the spending cap passes.

Several weeks back, during the deepest throes of the budget crisis, I wrote that the problems of the state are not a matter of personality but process, and you can reason that out to understand that a change in the personalities without a concurrent change in process will accomplish absolutely nothing on reforming the state and getting a functional government again in California.  This thought occurred to me again last night, as I sat in the press section during Gavin Newsom’s “conversation with California” as part of his tour of the southern part of the state.  Newsom’s description of the challenges the state faces – and his solutions – gear more to the idea that a different person, dedicated to solving the same problems in a new way, can overcome any obstacle, rather than the reality that no individual under the current system of rules could possibly thrive.  And while the San Francisco Mayor shows a recognition of the structural impossibility of California, his relative nonchalance about how to reform it shows he believes for more in himself to overcome the rules than the demonstrable history of the rules overcoming everyone in their path.

First, let’s be clear that Newsom is running with someone else’s platform.  The first policy mentioned last night as a reflection of his record is the Healthy San Francisco effort toward universal care for the uninsured in his city.  That is not his plan to tout, and the simultaneous description of it as a savior for the state’s residents while cutting $100 million dollars from the city’s Department of Public Health and programs aimed at the needy is nothing short of troubling.

“It’s not that Healthy San Francisco is wrong its the mayor’s obvious …” (Tom Ammiano) pauses. “Look, he’s running for governor and taking full credit for it. It’s not true. The labor community, my office, community activists, health people — some of the same people who are unhappy with him now — worked with him on this. When he goes out there and claims full credit, that pisses people off, especially people who are dealing with [health care in the city] every day. … The reaction is really based on the mayor boasting and overselling Healthy San Francisco.” […]

“Healthy San Francisco — I think people should be very proud of it. I think it’s going to meet its full potential. The rollout is going to be incremental and there’s going to be little tweaks that it needs. But, you know, that’s not the target […] Unfortunately, it’s getting tainted because of the mayor’s boasting and overselling of it.”

The neighborhood clinics at the heart of the Healthy San Francisco plan are at full capacity while funding is being slashed, and additional “woodworking” – residents coming out of the woodwork to seek services.  The revenues aren’t meeting the expenses, and the General Fund of the city, now facing a $590 million dollar shortfall (less per capita than Los Angeles’), has to make up the difference.  As the economy continues to slow and the ranks of the unemployed swell, those at the bottom of the income ladder are already seeing service cuts.  I would simply call it bad politics to put so much emphasis on a program you can barely claim ownership to and are cutting funding for at the same time as more services are desired.  And this is sadly part of a pattern of the whole story being left out.

But let’s set aside the issues for a moment.  As focused as I am on process, I awaited Newsom’s response to the inevitable questions about budget reform.  He asserted support for a 50% + 1 threshold for the budget process, using the line “You need two-thirds of the vote to pass a budget, but only a simple majority to deny civil rights,” referring to marriage equality.  It’s a good line, but he leaves out that he was shamed into changing his position after the initial proposal for a 55% threshold was slammed by just about everyone.  The first instinct was to half-ass reform.  There was also no explanation that there are two thresholds requiring two-thirds, the budget and tax increases, leaving his answer fairly vague, as it has been in the past.  

But far worse than this was his flippant approval of Prop. 1A, the draconian spending cap that would effectively eliminate what amounts to half of the state school budget within a few years, and his dishonest rendering of the initiative as “a rainy day fund,” without explaining how the rainy day fund is created.  On the other ballot measures like 1C, 1D and 1E, which would privatize the lottery and raid voter-approved funds for children’s programs and mental health, he gave a Solomonic “on the one hand, on the other hand” soliloquy and ended saying that he would be a bad spokesman for them.

This, then, is what needs to be kept in mind when Newsom urges a call for a constitutional convention.  We see by his stances on the May special election what he would reasonably be expected to get out of that convention – a constitution that includes a “rainy day fund” created by a spending cap, coming at it from a right-wing perspective and ultimately resulting in a fake reform.  This is essentially the position of Arnold Schwarzenegger, clueless media elites, bipartisan fetishists who assume without evidence the midpoint of any argument is automatically the best option, and most tellingly, the Bay Area Council, which makes perfect sense.

Meantime, the Schwarzenegger-sponsored political campaign in support of the six measures announced today an endorsement from the Bay Area Council, the business-centric public policy organization that is the impetus behind calls for a constitutional convention. Last week, Schwarzenegger made it quite clear that he supports the first convening of a state constitutional convention in some 150 years… a way to focus on multiple ideas for government reform at one time.

These two announcements certainly play to the idea of another “business vs. labor” narrative in California politics. Another possible fuel for that storyline comes in a $250,000 donation to the pro-budget measure committee on Friday by wealthy Orange County developer Henry Segerstrom. The donation from one of his companies is easily his largest campaign contribution in recent years, which saw smaller checks written to both the guv’s 2006 reelection efforts and to the California Republican Party.

I support a Constitutional convention because I know what my principles are.  I don’t support mealy-mouthed calls for “reform” that are essentially corporate-friendly back doors to advance the interests of the powerful over the people.

Ultimately, Randy Shaw has this right – the people of California could elect Noam Chomsky, Warren Buffett or Howard Jarvis, and nothing would fundamentally change until the structures that restrict anyone in Sacramento from doing their jobs are released.  And our assessment of who would be best to lead that reform should be based on deeds and not words.

If California’s future is measured by our education system, we are in deep trouble. And we are in this difficulty because the state’s Democratic Party and progressive activists have allowed right-wing Republicans to exert major control over the state’s budget.

I say “allowed” because there is no other explanation for elected officials and activists failing to put a measure on the November 2008 ballot removing the 2/3 vote requirement to pass a budget. Although state Republicans made their opposition to new taxes clear, progressives passed up a large turnout ballot whose voters would have approved such a reform. Passage of such an initiative would have avoided the billions of dollars in cuts we went on to face, with more cuts slated for future years […]

If we have learned anything from the past months, it should be that putting money into state candidates will accomplish less than passing the budgetary reforms and tax hikes needed to return California to its leadership in education and other areas […]

It’s time for the people to say “Yes We Can” to a new progressive future for California. Once the people lead, the politicians — particularly those seeking their votes — will follow.

It is senseless to discuss candidates for a race into a straitjacket, which is the current dress code for Sacramento.  Anything less than fundamental reform will not solve the enormous set of problems the state faces – and it will take more than charisma, but an actual commitment, to make it happen.

Gov. Schwarzenegger is giving a speech right now at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, the kickoff of his campaign for the state budget items in the May 19 special election.  In some remarks released earlier, it’s clear Arnold is highlighting – and is most concerned about – the spending cap.

“Our state capital is a town that feeds on dysfunction. The special interests, left and right, need the process to be dysfunctional. That is how they control Sacramento. That is how they prevent change.”

[snip]

“But now we have an agreement, passed by two-thirds of the legislature, that puts on the ballot serious budget reform, including a spending limit and a rainy day fund.

“And the very interests, the far left and the far right, that prefer dysfunction over change have already launched a campaign to confuse people and defeat the reform. But this time they are not going to succeed.”

Arnold probably sees this as a selling point, that if Democrats are against his plan, and Republicans are against his plan, then it must be just right.  But this Goldilocks centrism masks the extremism of the spending cap plan, which would ratchet down revenues and cut vital services permanently.  It also represents a serious miscalculation on the part of the Governor, who apparently still thinks his post-partisan message actually works in this state.  That’s the same political genius that has Schwarzenegger polling worse than Carly Fiorina in potential 2010 Senate matchups against Barbara Boxer.  And even Schwarzenegger’s own strategists seem to know that he cannot be the public face of the special election, lest he doom it to failure.

Opponents of the measures say their private polling has shown linking the initiatives to the governor drives down support of the measures. That has been echoed by some supporters of the ballot measures, who have also started testing potential campaign messages.

But (campaign strategist) Adam Mendelsohn said Schwarzenegger’s star power and his ability to get news coverage is still a great asset for the campaign.

“There is no elected official in this state capable of dominating coverage like Arnold Schwarzenegger. The chattering class loves to look at his approval numbers and then cast dispersions, but communicating in a campaign is a lot more complex than just looking at approval numbers.”

Uh, yeah, Mr. Mendelsohn, that’s the PROBLEM.  He’s extremely unpopular with everyone but the Dan Weintraubs of the world.  And there aren’t 17 million Dan Weintraubs living here.

The spending cap, with something for everyone to hate, is particularly vulnerable in the special election.  Republicans have been calling for a hard cap for years, if not decades, but they’ve become so blinded by the Heads on a Stick faction of their party that they cannot look past the short-term of two years of tax increases and realize what they would be getting.  But the Yacht Party infantry clearly doesn’t care: heck, they’re trying to recall Roy Ashburn, who’s termed out in 2010 anyway.  So their entire side, or at least everyone who wants to be elected in a primary, is lining up against 1A.  Meg Whitman has come out against it.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has already announced her opposition to Proposition 1A, and Whitman spokesman Mitch Zak did not rule out the possibility that Whitman would spend money against the measure.

“She’s been very outspoken in her opposition to 1A,” Zak said. “We’ve not made a decision how that opposition manifests at this point. We’re keeping our options open.”

The Flash Report is claiming that Steve Poizner will oppose the measure as well, and he is hinting at contributing funding.

They will be joined by at least some segment of Assembly Democrats.

After a long, closed-door meeting Tuesday, Assembly Democrats remain divided over the budget-balancing ballot measure at the heart of the May 19 special election, Proposition 1A, which would impose a cap and raise taxes.

“Our caucus had a very long discussion on this,” Assembly Speaker Karen Bass told Capitol Weekly. “There are a number of members who are supportive of 1A, there are several members who are opposed to 1A, and there are many others who are trying to decide. We are working through this and we will have another caucus next week,” she said Tuesday evening.

Looks like Bass will have a lot more colleagues to boot out of committee assignments.  You’ll remember that she punished the three Democrats who actually voted against the spending cap on the floor back in February.  Now a good bit of the caucus is revolting.

The caucus did vote to support 1B through 1F, and that’s probably because they know that there’s going to be more cuts coming down the road, and voters opposing the revenue-enhancing items on the ballot will make their job harder.

But, she added, “I’m hearing that we are going to have a $4 billion dollar (revenue) hole, so if the ballot measures don’t pass, then it becomes  $9 billion or $10 billion hole.”

As I said, the crisis continues.

So I’m seeing the anti-tax groups, progressive advocates, the big money in the GOP, half the Assembly Democratic caucus, all against 1A.  On the pro side, Arnold, George Skelton, and Steve Westly, who says 1A will “instill much needed fiscal discipline”.  Yeah, poor people and the blind, get some fiscal discipline, you scumbags!

The wildcard remains the unions, who with even a little bit of financial backing could tip the scales on 1A.  SEIU and AFSCME have delayed formal positions until later this month.  But the Administration is trying to intimidate them into going along with it.

Here’s why it matters to state workers: Last week, the Association of California State Supervisors asked administration officials if the governor would still lay off employees, or if he would abandon the plan since lawmakers have passed a budget.

(Remember, state workers’ twice-monthly furlough is just part of how the governor wants to cut costs. Layoff warnings went to 20,000 of the state’s least senior employees last month. Half could lose their jobs, officials have said.)

The administration’s answer, from notes taken by an association representative: “We hope the five budget-related propositions pass … . If the propositions do not pass, we will be in a worse situation, with more furloughs and layoffs.”

This is despite the fact that 1A would have NO IMPACT whatsoever on the immediate bottom line; in fact, passing it would hurt the budget for state workers more than defeating it.  “Vote like your job depends on it… because it does.”  That must be the working motto.

The question is, will the intimidation work?  Obviously, the fact that the tax increase extensions in 1A are practically hidden on the ballot is going to arouse anger amongst the Heads on a Stick crowd.  And progressive advocates are sticking to principle that an artificial spending cap has failed wherever it’s been tried and is wrong for the state.  In the mythical middle you have the vain Mr. Schwarzenegger, desperately trying to stay relevant.  Ultimately, this is a referendum on him.

UPDATE: And here we go.  The League of Women Voters just announced they’re opposing 1A, along with 1C, 1D, and 1E (selling the lottery and moving money from voter-approved funds for children’s programs and mental health).  This is big if it’s a harbinger of how other groups will line up.

There is actually another major hearing going on in the state today, in Sacramento Superior Court.  Various plaintiffs are suing to change the title and summary on two of the ballot measures in the May 19 special election, on the grounds that they were fraudulent and misleading.  And there’s already been one victory today.

The May 19 ballot measure to temporarily take money from a 2004 mental health initiative has a new overview that will be presented to voters, after a settlement to a legal challenge was reached this morning.

The challenge to Proposition 1E’s ballot title and summary, and its ballot label, was centered on charges by opponents that the Legislature wrote a “false and misleading” overview, in order to make Prop 1E’s redirection of some $450 million in mental health funds more palatable.

The new summary makes it more clear that earmarked mental health funds will be taken away from the voter-approved Prop. 63 and used to balance the state budget.  Earlier, the weasel words “provides temporary flexibility” were used.

The other dispute is over Prop. 1A, the state spending cap.  John Myers is Twittering from the courtroom, and the plaintiffs are making the same clear and obvious points about the legislature’s treachery in this matter that George Skelton made this morning.  The title makes no reference to the spending cap OR the extension of tax increases that was part of the deal, and the summary only alludes to the taxes near the end of the description as part of the fiscal analysis.  The summary uses words and phrases like “rainy day fund” and “overspending” and “reform” in ways clearly designed to persuade the voter.  Defense lawyers claim that the fleeting reference to revenue in the fiscal analysis is all that is needed, and anyway voters “already understand all the underlying budget issues” so there’s no need for any changes.

As I’ve said, this now is starting to look more like a cover-up, which is very bad for a legislature and a Governor who aren’t seen by the voters as trustworthy, and in at least the Governor’s case, for good reason.  If the aftermath of the ruling is a court order that the legislature deliberately wrote the title and summary in a way to obscure the truth about what Prop. 1A would do, there’s your fodder for commercials for the next 2 months.  And it’s a potentially fatal blow.

We’re awaiting a decision…

UPDATE: So here’s the answer – the judge would like some of the more misleading language removed, but isn’t inclined to add in big bold letters “THIS MEANS YOUR TAXES ARE GOING UP.”  This obviously can be exploited by whatever campaign coalesces around the No side – the “hidden tax,” et al. – but it won’t be on the ballot beyond the bit in the fiscal analysis.  We’ll see what the final language will read.

Here’s the latest on the ballot propositions (Remember, you can find the Calitics endorsements here).  

• Prop. 1A & Prop. 3: The California Budget Project put together an analysis of these two bond measures (for some reason they left off Prop. 12).  It’s a decent enough overview, but of course the CBP is aggressively neutral, and the questions they raise have answers they refuse to list.  For example, they ask:

Will high-speed rail gain access to rail corridors used by commercial and commuter trains? High-speed  trains likely will require access to rail corridors – so-called right-of-way – currently used or owned by commercial or commuter train operators. The growth in freight transport at California’s ports and increased ridership on California’s commuter rail lines may mean that high-speed trains may have difficulty gaining required rights-of-way in certain highly trafficked corridors.

Or maybe not!  Let’s not bother to delve into this any further!  

That’s kind of the tone the whole paper takes.  These projects could be laudable!  Then again, they cost money!  Good luck, California!  One would think that some hard numbers about the role of public infrastructure investments during economic downturns or the need for job creation engines or how to reach emissions reductions targets without mass transit improvements could have entered the picture.

• Prop. 2: You know that an issue has gone mainstream when Oprah devotes an hour to it.  Prop. 2 will essentially get an hour-long infomercial on daytime talk today, and that’s as good as gold. Their ads, starkly displaying the effects of animal cruelty, are powerful and effective as well.  But in addition, I hope that Prop. 2 advocates make the argument about a comprehensive food policy that understands the externalities of eating meat ought to be built into the product itself:

It will be argued that moving animals off feedlots and back onto farms will raise the price of meat. It probably will – as it should. You will need to make the case that paying the real cost of meat, and therefore eating less of it, is a good thing for our health, for the environment, for our dwindling reserves of fresh water and for the welfare of the animals. Meat and milk production represent the food industry’s greatest burden on the environment; a recent U.N. study estimated that the world’s livestock alone account for 18 percent of all greenhouse gases, more than all forms of transportation combined. (According to one study, a pound of feedlot beef also takes 5,000 gallons of water to produce.) And while animals living on farms will still emit their share of greenhouse gases, grazing them on grass and returning their waste to the soil will substantially offset their carbon hoof prints, as will getting ruminant animals off grain. A bushel of grain takes approximately a half gallon of oil to produce; grass can be grown with little more than sunshine.

This is about stopping brutality, but also about intelligent food policy that would decrease risks and burdens on the environment and public health.

• Prop. 4: A very effective ad from the No on 4 team has returned to the airwaves:

Two years ago, opponents of a parental notification initiative on abortion put out a chilling ad. It depicted a soap bubble floating in the air in a seemingly tranquil setting of a residential backyard. The bubble drifted by windows of a house, where angry voices and rumbling noises suggested violence taking place inside.

Now the bubble commercial that opponents used to defeat Proposition 85 is back. This time, with identical treatment and text, it is being used in the campaign against another parental notification initiative, Proposition 4.

The commercial neglects to mention provisions in the initiative that allow a minor to petition a juvenile court judge to waive the parental notification requirement. It ends (with only the proposition number changed) by saying Prop 4 “would force girls to notify an abusive or violent parent that they are pregnant, and this puts them in real danger. Please think outside your bubble and vote no on Prop. 4.”

The ad is here.  The commercial neglects to mention that provision because it’s a crap provision – the minor has to accuse the parent of mistreatment and claim that she fears physical or emotional abuse, which is really a great position in which to put a minor.  And the idea of a 17 year-old going to a judge is just nonsensical.

• Prop. 5: Why look at this!  The US Sentencing Commission is considering alternatives to prison for nonviolent drug offenders.

The commission’s consideration of alternatives to incarceration reflects its determination to persuade Congress to ease federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws that contributed to explosive growth in the prison population. The laws were enacted in the mid-1980s, principally to address a crime epidemic related to crack cocaine. But in recent years, federal judges, public defenders and probation officials have argued that mandatory sentences imprison first-time offenders unnecessarily and disproportionately affect minorities.

Don’t these people know that sentencing commissions with expert experience in the issues shouldn’t be trusted to carry out guidelines and recommendations on sentencing?  This of course should only be left to politicians who worry about attack ads claiming that they’re soft on crime!  After all, look how well that’s worked in California: 1,000 straight laws over 30 years increasing sentences, overcrowded prisons, costs of incarceration outpacing education and billions of dollars needed to fix an unconstitutionally cruel prison healthcare system!  Clearly, the legislature has this covered, right?  So there’s no need to vote yes on Prop. 5, because that would be too “risky.”  What we have now is working so well.

• Prop. 8: This being the biggest and most expensive initiative on the ballot, there’s a lot of news here.  Fresno priest Father Geoffrey Farrow took a stand against Prop. 8 recently and it resulted in his firing.  His is a heroic story of someone coming forward at great personal cost to commit to equality and tolerance.  That is the meaning of courage.

Peter Schrag has an article out about the lies of Yes on 8.

The ad, on behalf of Proposition 8, features a law professor from Pepperdine University who cites a federal appellate court decision in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal. The decision affirms a lower court ruling denying parents of a couple of young children the right to be notified when gay marriage is discussed in their classrooms.

“Think it can’t happen?” says the professor. “It’s already happened.”

But the insinuation about what might happen in California is wildly misleading. It relies on a set of leaps likely to land the leaper in a logical ditch. In the case of one of the kids, the court said, “(T)here is no evidence of systemic indoctrination. There is no allegation that Joey was asked to affirm gay marriage.”

If you want to see bigger lies than that, check out this deeply insulting ad targeted to the Chinese community.

On the lighter side, here’s a slick amateur ad for No on 8 playing off the ubiquitous Mac/PC spots.

• Prop. 10: Speaking of lying in campaign ads, have you met T. Boone Pickens?

The ad capitalizes on popular sentiment for clean, efficient and secure energy – and no new taxes. What goes unadvertised might stir the public’s distaste for special interest-driven initiatives, particularly those that increase state debt.

Nearly all $13 million in campaign contributions so far has come from Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens, who stands to profit from its passage. Pickens is founder of Clean Energy Fuels Corp. of Seal Beach, the nation’s largest supplier of natural gas for fleets of vehicles, including Sacramento city and county garbage trucks.

More than half of the $5 billion would be spent on rebates to companies and consumers that buy environmentally friendlier vehicles. And most of that rebate money is dedicated to heavy-duty trucks and vans, the kind of fleet vehicles that Pickens’ company supplies.

Welcome to a probably not-so-regular feature, offering the latest news on the ballot propositions.  The Calitics Editorial Board will be out with their endorsements on these initiatives sometime next week.

• Prop. 1A: A lot of good stuff on this race at Robert Cruickshank’s California High Speed Rail blog.  For instance, Arnold has come forward with his support:

There is far more economic opportunity in fighting global warming than economic risk….We shouldn’t let the budget crisis hold back good things for the future. 20 years from now you can’t look back and say “well they had a budget crisis so we didn’t do it.” Just because we had a problem with the budget does not mean that people should vote “no” on high speed rail. Our rail system in America is so old, we’re driving the same speed as 100 years ago, the same system as 100 years ago. We should modernize, we should do what other countries do…We should start in this state, we should show leadership.

Absolutely, especially when you consider that initiatives which reduce emissions routinely save money and improve quality of life.  A recent study showed that HSR would be a tremendous economic benefit to the Central Valley, with $3 billion in direct benefits and the creation of over 40,000 new construction jobs.  You can add that to the reduction of billions of pounds of CO2 annually, which would be significant in that region at a time where interest groups are successfully suing the city of Fresno for its failure to curb pollution and protect the environment.

In other news, The LA Times has come out in favor, and check out this neat little graphic anticipating the train route.

• Prop. 2: You can see it by clicking on the ad on the side, but, you know, Piggy Wonder deserves some main-page love.  Joe Trippi is apparently involved in the Prop. 2 campaign, which would help stop animal cruelty; I got an email from him promoting this video.

• Prop. 5: The LA Times has a series of profiles on all the propositions, and here’s their edition on Prop. 5, which would finally increase treatment for nonviolent offenders like drug users instead of warehousing them at our overstuffed prisons.  Opponents are smearing this by saying its true intent is to legalize drugs, but the failed Drug War is the great unmentionable sinkhole in state and national budgets, and a smart policy emphasizing rehabilitation is desperately needed, especially in California.  The No on 5 people must have better spinmeisters, however, as most of the newspapers in the state have come out against the measure.  Right, because the policymakers have done such a stellar job in sentencing law, we should just leave it to them.

• Prop. 8: An update on those million yard signs that were “in route” from China to the Yes on 8 campaign: they’re still not here.

It seems that the signs, some of them outsourced overseas, didn’t all arrive in time for the September event. And many still haven’t reached supporters of the measure that would amend the state Constitution to ban gay marriage.

“It takes longer to get a million than we thought,” said Sonja Eddings Brown, deputy communications director for the Protect Marriage coalition […]

Brown tried to spin the production glitch as a positive thing for the campaign — a sign, so to speak, of the overwhelming demand for lawn signs by voters who wanted to participate in “the most unprecedented and largest grass-roots effort ever attempted in California.”

Oh that’s just a FAIL.

Meanwhile, when the most reactionary editorial board in the state, the Orange County Register, comes out against your proposition, you know you’re having a tough time selling it.  As for the right-wing boycott of Google for opposing Prop. 8, the website orchestrating it advises its supporters to follow the fate of the proposition – on Google News.

I think I’m going to miss this initiative, it’s been hilarious so far.