(Apologies to the Thers at Whiskey Fire for stealing his gimmick of using a Guided By Voices lyric as a blog title)

I feel like there are two completely different conversations happening on the major issues of the day in California.  In one, there is an historic opportunity to provide quality health care to everyone in the state, which will be affordable and comprehensive and go a long way toward solving our numerous health care problems.  In the other, the state is completely in the fucking toilet and nobody in a position of power has the political will to do anything about it.

Now the governor finds himself in a predicament similar to that of his predecessor, Democrat Gray Davis: staring at a crippling budget shortfall that threatens to overshadow all other business in the Capitol and tarnish his political legacy.

On Monday, Schwarzenegger ordered all state agencies to prepare plans to cut spending across the board by 10% next year. Education, transportation and healthcare will all be affected. Some programs face elimination. Layoffs may loom. The state’s budget shortfall, thanks largely to the troubled housing market, has ballooned from a few billion dollars projected at the beginning of the year to $10 billion.

Experts are not surprised.

“There has been lots of talk and lots of gimmicks, but none of the state’s underlying budget problems have been dealt with,” said Ryan Ratcliff, an economist at the UCLA Anderson Forecast. “Even in the middle of a revenue boom, we kept spending more than we take in.”

Spending has increased, but the issue is structural.  There’s no way California can meet the needs of its burgeoning population under the draconian revenue and spending structure we have in place, and the Governor has made no moves to fundamentally change that, just to pass the horror show on to whoever replaces him in the most hacktastic manner possible.  Here’s Kevin Drum.

Four years ago Arnold Schwarzenegger took office in the midst of a massive budget crisis after promising voters that he would end our “crazy deficit spending.” In true Republican fashion, he did this by immediately reducing the state auto licensing fee by $4 billion a year and then insisting that we all approve $15 billion in bonds to paper over a shortfall that was now even more desperate than the one he inherited. The hope, apparently, was that nothing bad would ever happen to the economy and eventually we’d squeeze out from under the rock we were under.

I opposed the bonds at the time, and I’ve never regretted that vote since. Defeating the bonds would have caused immense fiscal pain, but it would also have forced Schwarzenegger and the legislature to actually fix our underlying problem by increasing taxes and reducing spending. Our nonpartisan legislative analyst made it clear from the beginning that Arnold’s plan had no long-term chance of success, but he just flashed that million-dollar smile and went ahead with it anyway.

And now we’ll be paying for years and years to come, with ENORMOUS pain just down the road when the bonds come due.  And we’re talking about providing universal health care?

The plan itself has significant things to feel good about, even if it is only a first step.  It includes an individual mandate, but with all of the affordability exemptions, it’s not a mandate at all.  It expands public health services as much as any reform since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid.  And there are excellent reforms like guaranteed issue and a modified community rating for cost control.  Obviously there are questions about what minimum coverage provides but the affordability requirements, capping out of pocket costs at 6.5% of income, should be a mitigating factor.

But the entire discussion is happening in some kind of alternate universe of fiscal health.  The 10% across the board cuts will impact health care, particularly any public care options; is AB X1 going to account for that?  The convoluted funding mechanism, which will need voter approval because the 2/3 system for tax increases is still in effect, includes 8 core parts, including “federal matching funds” and “reinvested state savings.”  Why don’t you just add a pony, too?  We’re heading into a time where the state could be as much as $10 billion in the hole.  The new entitlements will be the first ones crowded out by a governor wedded to anti-tax ideology.  And he hasn’t signed on to a new cigarette tax, by the way, still preferring PRIVATIZING THE LOTTERY, and the net income increase from which will be approximately zero dollars in the long term, at best.

And let’s not gloss over the ballot-box hurdle such a plan would have to scale.  Maviglio soft-sells the defeat of a tobacco tax to pay for health care in Oregon yesterday, saying that California’s different, conveniently forgetting that Prop. 86, which was, um, A TOBACCO TAX TO PAY FOR HEALTH CARE, failed miserably here just last year.  In fact, the Oregon ballot measure wasn’t the only one that a tax-averse, skittish electorate rejected yesterday.

Cost-conscious voters rejected school vouchers for Utah students, state-sponsored stem cell research in New Jersey and increased cigarette taxes in Oregon to fund health care for uninsured children.

New Jersey voters had not killed a statewide ballot measure since 1988.  The rejection was a defeat for Democratic Gov. Jon S. Corzine, who campaigned heavily for the plan to borrow $450 million over 10 years to finance stem cell research.

“The public understands the state has serious financial issues that must be addressed first,” Corzine spokeswoman Lili Stainton said.

No state has more serious financial issues than California right now.  And voters are listing the economy as a greater concern than Iraq at this point in time.  Ballot-box budgeting ends up producing results that are popular but not necessarily effective.  Painful solutions regarding revenue and spending are the only way to dig us out of the mess the so-called leaders in Sacramento have created, and voters aren’t entirely likely to be informed and sanguine enough to pull the trigger on that.

This is why I continue to maintain that universal health care ideas on the state level are doomed almost by definition, and particularly in a state with the looming budget troubles like we have here. 

The history of state health reform initiatives (and there’s quite a history) is a tale of false hopes and great disappointments. The deck is stacked from the start, and the house-in this case the insurers, the providers, and other agents of the status quo-always wins. The new raft of reforms may prove different, but they probably won’t. Universal care advocates must be realistic about that, and think hard about how to convert the energy in the states into a national solution before the current crop of novel experiments fail-because fail they almost certainly will […]

One of the great things about state governments is that they have more freedom than the federal government does to test new policy ideas. But it pays to look honestly at what the results of those tests actually say. And in this case, the results are pretty clear: states are no good at delivering universal health care.

No one can doubt the role Massachusetts and California have played in reinvigorating the debate over national health care. And if the reforms currently percolating at the state level help provide momentum for a national health care system in the next few years, all the effort will have been worth it. If they don’t, however, they may ultimately prove detrimental. If high-profile efforts like those in Massachusetts and California can’t be properly implemented, or are launched and then collapse, they’ll become powerful weapons in the hands of protectors of the status quo.

There is a world in which bad policy ideas can actually be worse than now policy at all.  We have to tread very lightly and ensure that doesn’t happen in California.

While the turnout model for a June non-Presidential primary is unknown, this should cheer people who don’t want to see California’s electoral votes stolen by an unbalanced dirty trick.

When voters are read the title and summary of the proposed initiative, a solid majority opposes the measure – 53 percent would vote NO if the election were held today and only one out of five voters (22%) support the initiative while a quarter of the electorate (25%) is currently undecided. This is one of the lowest levels of support we have ever seen in our polling for a statewide initiative in California.

It doesn’t sound like this is a tilted poll designed to get a certain result.  It sounds like the months of harping on this both through the netroots and in the media are having an impact.  They may yet get this dud on the ballot, but we’ll crush it on Election Day.

Of course, we wouldn’t even be talking about this if it weren’t for the splitting of the primary races allowing for a low-turnout election in the middle of the summer to be an inviting target for Republican dirty tricksters.  The real reason for moving up the Presidential primary was not just to keep up with the Joneses and “make California heard” in the Presidential process – if that was the goal they’re failing miserably – was to ensure that termed-out lawmakers could serve again in the Legislature, by putting the term limits change on the February ballot in time for them all to run again in June.  And now that initiative is starting to falter.  So the Legislature created the conditions for any number of pernicious Republican ballot measures because they wanted to stay in power – and now they may not even accomplish that.

Here are some notes from a few stories I’d been meaning to get to all week.

• Frank Russo had a good recap of the initial hearing from the three-judge panel charged with finding a solution to California’s prison crisis.  This panel may result in the early release of thousands of prisoners to reduce overcrowding.  The panel does not appear to be able to be swayed by political expediency (unlike the Legislature for the past 30 years), saying  “This is a judicial and not a political process.”  It is clear that the torturous conditions in California jails and the inability to deliver even basic medical care violates the Constitution and will be dealt with swiftly.  Even the Correctional Officers union has come around to the point of view that reductions in the prison population are needed.  Only a cowardly, leadership-challenged political class refuses to face reality.

(more on the flip):

• Here’s a fun tale of health care at the Tribune Company, parent of the LA Times and local TV station KTLA:

The Tribune Company has come up with a new tactic to cut costs and annoy the hell out of its employees – again. It seems that everyone on the staff at the L.A. Times (and so I assume KTLA) has to prove that their spouses and children really are theirs, and thus eligible for medical benefits. Though wasteful and mildly insulting it sounds easy enough, but apparently it’s not. They call it a “Mercer Audit” and its demands have some staffers in an uproar.

They’re demanding documentation (a birth certificate or marriage license, I guess) with a deadline of days from actually giving employees notice.  I’m sure in the boardroom this is considered “sound business sense.”

• At our Calitics Quarterly event, I talked with Digby about her contention that the GOP is targeting California as the big blue state where Rudy Giuliani can break through and get the paradigm-shifting win they need.  It’s true that the big hitters in the state have all come out for him – although the Pete Wilson endorsement garnered all of three reporters to the announcement.

• Continuing on this theme, a new SUSA poll shows head-to-head general election matchups for all of the top three candidates on either side, and in California, it shakes out like this: against Romney or Thompson, all the Democrats win by between 15 and 33 points.  Against Giuliani, Clinton beats him by 20, but Obama wins by only for and Edwards by only 2.  Wow.  Of course, Giuliani is still riding the name ID coattails.  However, his clear penchant for wanting to be competitive in California is evidenced by the fact that the mystery fundraiser for the dirty tricks initiative was the chairman of Giuliani’s northeast fundraising operation.

• Rik Hertzberg had an interesting footnote to the possible demise of the dirty tricks initiative:

Why would Schwarzenegger want to shoot down a proposal that has the potential of delivering the White House to his party next year?

My guess is that he isn’t losing any sleep over the probability of a G.O.P. Presidential rout, which would make him the indisputably most important Republican in America. His current port tack, on issues like health care and climate change, suggests that he knows which way the wind is blowing.  Doubtless he would rather be swept along than swept away.

Then there’s this. Anybody remember the first Republican debate, on MSNBC back in May? I’ll bet Arnold does. He was in the front row at the Reagan Library when Chris Matthews asked the ten candidates if they would support changing the Constitution ever so slightly to make naturalized citizens eligible for the presidency. The vote onstage was eight to one against. (The one was Giuliani; McCain said he’d “seriously consider it,” which I count as an abstention.) Eight to one, in other words, in favor of crushing the ultimate and perfectly legitimate dream of the distinguished Governor of California.

If I were Schwarzenegger, I wouldn’t lift a finger to help these bozos.

• Finally, tonight at midnight, the UAW Local 2865 contract runs out.  While the United Auto Workers settled their contract dispute with GM, Local 2865, which covers over 12,000 academic student employees at UC campuses (TAs, for example) has made little headway with UC.  You can read all about it here.  The whole idea of student employee unions gets lost in the shuffle, but they are being royally screwed, and are planning to file lots of unfair labor practices charges, in addition to keeping negotiations going and reserving the right to strike.  We ought to support their efforts.

I remember this refrain over and over again from everyone who demanded that California move up its Presidential primary to February 5.  The most populous state should have a say in the nomination, everyone said.  The candidates will have to start talking about “California issues,” they said.

Chris Bowers has a post showing the number of public appearances made by all of the Presidential candidates thus far this year.

Iowa: 1,240
New Hampshire: 571
South Carolina: 268
California: 238
D.C.: 174
Florida: 146
Nevada: 111
New York: 103
Texas: 93
Illinois: 73
Michigan: 55
Virginia: 38
Georgia: 37
Pennsylvania: 37
Massachusetts: 36

There have been more trips to Iowa and New Hampshire than to every other state and territory combined.  And I wish Courage Campaign was still doing their ATM Watch, because they would clearly see, as Bowers mentions…

…looking at upcoming events in California, one can see that over 60% of all scheduled appearances in the state are fundraisers, and virtually every non-fundraiser campaign appearance in the state is accompanied with a fundraiser.

over…

When California moved up their primary, I was adamant in saying that this move would do nothing but enhance the power of Iowa and New Hampshire.  And that’s exactly what’s happening.  By putting this giant electoral prize on February 5, close to the early states, you make it imperative for candidates to be in front early to have any chance to win the nomination.  Any strategy to tread water until Super Tuesday will fail, and by the looks of the appearance schedule all of the candidates know it.

Furthermore, this June primary with no Presidential race and no statewide candidates on the ballot will almost surely have a very low turnout, and Republican dirty tricksters are falling all over each other to take advantage of that, with the electoral college split and other nefarious initiatives.  Was it worth it?  Did everyone get what they wanted?

The only way to change the primary system is to actually change the system, with a complete overhaul.  Change the way California practiced it was pointless, debilitating to democracy (a nine-month general election campaign will not be beneficial to anyone), and dangerous for the future of the state if some of those pernicious ballot measures squeak by.

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s official call for a special session covered the topics of health care and water, but not redistricting, as was suspected earlier.  So, with no bill coming from the legislature yesterday either, redistricting is apparently dead for this legislative session.  The major players appeared to agree on the broad principles of a reform, but the devil was in the details, specifically the makeup of the independent redistricting commission and whether Congressional districts should be included in that redistricting (Nancy Pelosi says a big no to that one).  Dan Walters explains how this proposal’s absence from the February ballot may impact the other major initiative on it:

Democratic leaders, it’s evident, are mainly interested in persuading voters to modify term limits via a measure on the Feb. 5 primary election ballot and entertained redistricting reform only because Schwarzenegger, a longtime advocate of reform, indicated that he would not support, and perhaps oppose, the term limit measure were it not accompanied by a redistricting measure […]

The decision to abandon reform may be good news for those who didn’t want it, including Pelosi and most Democratic Party interest groups, but it may also make it more difficult for those same interests to persuade voters to change term limits because it raises the possibility of opposition from the popular governor.

Schwarzenegger was noncommittal Tuesday about what position he would take on changing term limits but it’s highly unlikely that he’ll endorse the measure, and he may oppose it. And with polls indicating that voters are somewhat ambivalent on term limit modification, Schwarzenegger’s position could be critical to the outcome.

I don’t totally buy that Schwarzenegger is a kingmaker in the initiative process – how did he do in 2005 – but clearly his opposition wouldn’t help.  I can’t see him ACTIVELY campaigning against it, however, especially with his former advisor Matthew Dowd on the term limits reform team.

I remain skeptical that redrawing districts with any geographic specificity would change the partisan makeup of those districts in any meaningful way.  People self-segregate and the broad changes in regions happen because of demographic shifts, not boundary-drawing.  It’s notable that the vaunted Texas redistricting “scheme” (which actually was correcting an earlier gerrymander) has produced just half the results that were expected.

Perata declined to take up the issue in a special session because it’s not an urgent issue.  He’s right.  In fact it would be dysfunctional to use 2000-era data to redraw districts in 2008.  This should be taken up with a new governor after a new Census in 2010.  And Pelosi shouldn’t be so stubborn – many of her compadres don’t need a 70% cushion in their districts, and furthermore it would be impossible to make places like the Bay Area or Lo Angeles vulnerable.  Plus it’s symbolically good for democracy not to have the legislators pick their voters.

As expected, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have placed a vote on removing our troops from Iraq on the February 2008 ballot.

(as an aside, it wouldn’t likely matter in this case, but there is no veto override in California, which it seems to me vests an unbalanced amount of power in the executive)

Here’s Arnold’s statement on the veto:

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 924 without my signature.

All Californians want the safe and swift return of our troops. That said, public opinion polls have confirmed again and again that Californians are sharply divided, as are all
Americans, as to when and how our troops should be withdrawn. We do not need an advisory ballot to understand this deep divide.

The decision to engage in or withdraw troops from war is a federal issue, not a state issue. Few decisions are more difficult for Members of Congress and the President. All
Californians have the right and the means to speak their mind on matters of such national importance.

In fact, California moved up its presidential primary to February 5th to give California voters a greater voice in selecting their party’s presidential candidate. There is no louder message Californians can send to Washington on the Iraq war than who should lead our nation.

Placing a non-binding resolution on Iraq on the same ballot, when it carries no weight or authority, would only further divide voters and shift attention from other critical issues that must be addressed.

For these reasons, I am returning this bill without my signature.

Far from being a “squeeze” for Schwarzenegger, in my view this was utterly predictable and his rhetoric is consistent with his post-partisan reinvention; furthermore, he’s right that it’s a federal issue, and all of us who screamed about “nonbinding” Iraq resolutions shouldn’t be particularly angry that we won’t get to vote on a nonbinding one ourselves.  It’s obviously silly to veto a ballot measure because it would “divide” voters.  Any election divides voters!  But the rest of the statement is on pretty solid ground.

To truly impact the Iraq war, we need to put pressure on our legislators who actually have a vote, as they’re doing in Fresno with Bush Dog Jim Costa.  If we get every Democrat in the state on board with a “no funding without a timeline pledge, we force the Republicans to round up their own votes if they want to pass a blank check.  I’m assuming your representatives have already heard from you on this one.  They should hear from you again.