The California Democratic Party “split the baby” on the six propositions for the May 19th ballot – endorsing Propositions 1B, 1C and 1F, while not supporting Props 1A, 1D and 1E.  This shifts the dynamic for the last three weeks.  No longer can Prop 1A’s defeat be a mandate against tax increases – because the measure’s “spending cap” is why progressives oppose it.  Likewise, “no” on Props 1D and 1E is now a vote for the state to fund children’s health programs and mental health services.  And while many liberals fear the short-term “budget gap” if the measures all go down, the Party endorsed a “yes” vote on Prop 1C – which would have the most immediate impact.  The Party’s support for Prop 1B is a mandate for public schools – and while Prop 1A’s defeat would prevent 1B from going into effect, a “yes” vote could pressure Governor Schwarzenegger to stop gutting education money.  Democrats in the legislature promoted all six measures as a “budget package” to avert fiscal disaster.  But it was a rotten deal, and the strategy would leave us no better off on May 20th towards a long-term solution.  With this new dynamic, we can build momentum for scrapping the “two-thirds rule” in the state budget.

This weekend’s State Convention showcased the disconnect between the Party grassroots and the Sacramento leadership.  Our legislators cut a deal with Schwarzenegger they honestly believed was the right thing to do, but the rank-and-file was angry at sacrificing core fiscal values just to kick the can down the road.  California’s budget woes are structural, and until the state passes major reform the right-wing Republicans will keep holding a gun to our heads.  Getting rid of the two-thirds rule – as soon as possible – is the only acceptable “budget reform” for the ballot.

At the Young Democrats’ caucus on Friday night, various legislators urged us to support these flawed measures – because there would be dire consequences if they failed.  As a friend said to me while we listened to each politician, “Q: How do you get young people to disagree with you?  A: Tell them they have no choice.”  That summed up the sentiment of many delegates, who felt pressured to back something they had no power in crafting.

Some of the arguments we heard in favor of Proposition 1A were: (a) our right-wing foes at the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer’s Association oppose it, and (b) if it fails, it will send a message that the public opposes tax increases.  Of course, the latter is only true if the sole opposition is right-wing zealots and the Republican Party.  Prop 1A is a lot more than just extending a few temporary tax increases.  It gives the state – which already has layers of fiscal straitjackets on the revenue side – another fiscal straitjacket on the spending side.

After the Democratic Convention vote on Sunday, press coverage on Prop 1A started to change.  The Los Angeles Times called it a “state spending cap,” while the San Francisco Chronicle said it was a “proposed spending cap and rainy-day fund.”  Before progressives began to oppose Prop 1A, the media only focused on tax increases – even though these temporary measures will stay on the books for two years if Prop 1A fails.  That’s because the only ones complaining about 1A were Republicans like Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman, and the “tea party” crowd.

Rather than allow right-wing zealots to “own” the opposition, liberals began to articulate a fiscal agenda to drive the post-May 19th debate.  If our ultimate goal is to scrap the “two-thirds rule,” it is smart politics to influence what happens when the Governor and legislature go back to the drawing board.  Because the state will have an $8 billion deficit even if all measures pass, making the progressive case against 1A is a sound strategy.

Going back to the drawing board will mean choosing what budget priorities need to be fought for.  If the Democratic Party had endorsed Propositions 1D and 1E, it would have sent the message that children and the mentally ill are expendable.  And the combined “savings” from diverting these funds to help balance the budget is less than one billion dollars – or about 1% of the entire budget.  Non-profits who directly work with these constituencies have campaigned against the measures.  Defeating them will be a mandate to protect progressive fiscal priorities.

Nevertheless, liberals are anxious and fearful about the next round of painful budget cuts.  It’s understandable that many delegates at the Convention held up placards to endorse the measures while holding their noses.  Which is why the Democrats endorsed Proposition 1C, the measure that borrows up to $5 billion against future lottery revenues to balance this year’s budget.  Of all six measures on the May 19th ballot, Prop 1C has the biggest short-term downside if it fails.

Robert Cruickshank wrote a solid piece yesterday on Calitics, advising Democratic leaders to dump the “yes on everything” strategy – and focus on Prop 1C.  “Aside from the flawed nature of the proposals and how they came onto the ballot,” he wrote, “selling them as a single package was a disastrous move. If they want to salvage anything from this sinking ship, they could tell Californians why take a chance on borrowing against the lottery via Prop 1C, and how it will help our Democratic leaders more strongly resist Republican demands for massive cuts, instead of assume those cuts are a foregone conclusion.”

The Democratic Party endorsed Proposition 1B, which would give the public schools $9.3 billion of money that already belongs to them.  But because it would only take effect if the voters approve Prop 1A, legislators have dismissed progressive groups who are “No on 1A” and “Yes on 1B” for being inconsistent.  However, it has become popular for liberals to “hedge their bets” in case the voters pass Prop 1A.  If the state is going to have a spending cap, it makes sense to secure a slice of the money for schools.

On the other hand, advocates have an alternative to Prop 1B – which is to go to court to enforce the Constitutional requirement of education funding.  But if voters pass 1B while defeating 1A, it could strengthen the hand of Democrats who negotiate with Arnold and the Republicans – because the voters have affirmed public schools.

At the Democratic Convention, newly elected Chairman John Burton urged delegates who disagree on the propositions not to let these divisions keep us apart.  The state will be in bad fiscal shape regardless of what happens on May 19th, and progressives must keep their focus on eliminating the “two-thirds rule.”  This weekend’s split decision on the various budget measures can help forge a path towards a sane fiscal policy.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francicso’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.  He was a delegate at the California Democratic Party’s convention, and gave one of the floor speeches against Proposition 1E.

As we enter the final weeks before the May 19 special election, the often blurry picture of the six initiatives and the broader politics surrounding them is coming into focus. Yesterday’s rejection of Propositions 1A, 1D and 1E by the California Democratic Party convention should not be surprising for two reasons:

1. Despite the rhetoric, none of these propositions will have a meaningful impact on the immediate budget mess. Prop 1A of course has no effect at all on revenues until 2011. Props 1D and 1E are drops in the bucket, especially considering that at minimum there is an $8 billion budget hole no matter what happens on May 19
2. Those three propositions were the most objectionable and obviously ridiculous proposals of the six. A spending cap is a huge price to pay, and Prop 1A doesn’t really offer much in return. As several folks eloquently explained on the convention floor, including Paul Hogarth, Props 1D and 1E are an indefensible attack on the most vulnerable and needy Californians. Democrats showed that they still had souls by rejecting those two measures.

With the likely rejection by voters of Prop 1A, Prop 1B is rendered moot even if it is approved (CTA looks like it will lose its multi-billion dollar gamble) and the irrelevancy of Abel Maldonado’s Prop 1F, that leaves Proposition 1C as the only thing about the May 19 election that has any suspense left to it. The February budget deal assumed $5 billion would be brought in from Prop 1C – which is optimistic at best but does mean that of all six propositions, only Prop 1C really matters over the near term.

Along with the rest of the Calitics Editorial Board I oppose Prop 1C – it’s a payday loan that is likely to leave the state on the hook for at least $2 billion out of the general fund when it becomes clear that people aren’t about to reverse the trend of buying fewer lottery tickets.

But if I can offer some free advice to the Democratic legislative leadership, they need to stop digging their hole any deeper, stop pushing for Prop 1A and start focusing solely on Prop 1C.

It’s possible that the legislative leadership could convince Californians that throwing shrinking lottery revenues to a bond market that hasn’t shown much interest in the proposal is something we have to do to prevent even worse cuts than those that are already likely to come down in June.

It would certainly help their cause if they stopped speaking as if those cuts were inevitable. Democratic legislators have tired to scare Democratic voters into backing the propositions and it hasn’t worked for Prop 1A in particular – all that fear does is reinforce the base’s anger at what appears to be capitulation to Republicans.

By now it has to be clear that the Democratic legislative leadership has badly miscalculated on these proposals. Aside from the flawed nature of the proposals and how they came onto the ballot, selling them as a single package was a disastrous move. If they want to salvage anything from this sinking ship, they could tell Californians why we should take a chance on borrowing against the lottery via Prop 1C, and how it will help our Democratic leaders more strongly resist Republican demands for massive cuts, instead of assume those cuts are a foregone conclusions. They could embrace demands for a majority vote budget, instead of dismissing it out of hand.

I still wouldn’t vote for Prop 1C. But if they want other Democrats, progressives, and the people of California to vote for it, following something like the above plan would assure those voters that the legislative leadership is willing to be realistic, and that they actually do have some sort of May 20 strategy that they can plug Prop 1C into. In the absence of such a strategy, Prop 1C is going down, and the leadership has nobody to blame but themselves.

Before the California Democratic Convention ended yesterday, delegates bucked the Party leadership on the May 19th ballot measures – by securing a “no endorsement” on Propositions 1A, 1D and 1E.  State legislators and Party operatives pushed “yes” on all six measures, but enough of the grassroots who stayed for the tail end of the session refused to go along.  I’ve been attending these Conventions for 12 years, and it’s clear now that activists and “reform” types run the Party – a stark contrast to how it once was.  That’s because Howard Dean and Barack Obama brought in a new wave of rank-and-file members, and now we see the impact.  College students have replaced the “professional” types that once dominated the Young Democrats caucus.  Reformer Hillary Crosby won the race for State Party Controller, and even John Burton’s election as Party Chair is a good thing for the activist wing.  Politicians must adapt to this change, and it’s clear some of them – like John Garamendi – still don’t get it.  In the race for Governor, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom was not well received at the Convention by delegates from his hometown – as he painted a rosy picture of how things are in the City.  And while Chris Daly ran as a “reformer” in the race for Regional Director, other factors contributed his defeat.

Grassroots Buck Establishment on May Propositions

On Friday, the Resolutions Committee (all of whom are appointed by the Chair) approved a “yes” vote on all six Propositions for the May 19th special election – i.e., the budget package sponsored by Governor Schwarzenegger and Democrats in the state legislature.  Under the Party’s arcane rules, this would be the default position of California Democrats – unless delegates pulled each Proposition from the consent calendar for a floor vote on Sunday afternoon (when many rank-and-file delegates had left.)  If a Proposition was pulled, a 60% vote would be required to uphold the “yes” vote – or the Party would take a neutral position.

In past years, delegates would come to these Conventions to network and hear politicians give speeches.  But the new wave of Party activists are different, and they weren’t happy with rubber-stamping these Propositions.  On Sunday afternoon, delegates took all six measures to a floor vote.  Three of them (Propositions 1B, 1C and 1F) ended up passing the 60% threshold, so the Resolutions Committee was sustained — which means the Party has endorsed them.  But delegates blocked an endorsement of Propositions 1A (the budget spending cap), 1D (a raid on children’s health fund) and 1E (divert mental health money), forcing a neutral position.  As a delegate who gave a floor speech against Prop 1E, I’m proud it got the lowest level of support among the six measures.

My friend David Dayen at Calitics live-blogged the floor debate on all the Propositions.  For a play-by-play account, click here.

Young Democrats Bigger and Younger

“The Party better get us a bigger room next year for our caucus,” bellowed one candidate for President of the California Young Democrats – as hundreds of young people packed into a room at the Convention Center.  We all know Barack Obama inspired a whole new generation of young people into politics, but seeing the CYD caucus – and remembering what it was like ten years ago – was an emotional experience.  The age cut-off for CYD is 36, and when I was in college it was dominated by political operatives in their early thirties.  I used to call it “California Yuppie Democrats.”  Today, the vast majority of members are college students – and they have a healthy dose of high school chapters.

Burton and Crosby Elections a Win for Reformers

Two years ago, rank-and-file delegates wanted an audit of the State Party – so grassroots activists could know how the money was being spent.  They complained the Party didn’t put resources in red counties – building an infrastructure to be competitive everywhere.  The Chair shut them down, so they ran one of their own for Party Controller.  Hilary Crosby beat incumbent Eric Bradley by a 54-46 margin, after running a disciplined campaign that tapped into the energy of delegates who cut their teeth with the Howard Dean effort.  Crosby wants the Party to raise money from small grass-roots donors, so it will be less dependent on big checks from institutions.

While it’s tempting to view John Burton’s election as Party Chair as a return of the “old guard,” anyone who knows the former State Senator understands it’s a very good thing for progressives.  “There’s nothing old-fashioned about helping the poor,” said Burton in his victory speech, as he made it clear that the Party’s activist wing will have a powerful ally.  Burton’s nomination was moved by the President of California Young Democrats, and seconded by the head of Take Back Red California – two growing constituencies.  It was a signal Burton understands where the Party has to go.

Garamendi Puts Himself Ahead of the Party

Along with East Bay blogger Sean Mykael, I spent a good part of the Convention talking to delegates about how John Garamendi has picked the wrong district to run for Congress – a selfish move that is destructive to the Party.  The Lieutenant Governor has injected himself in the 10th District’s special election, when he should be challenging District 3 incumbent Dan Lungren in his native Calaveras County.  Bill Durston, who lost to Lungren in 2008 by five points, told me it would make “so much sense” – and others like Charlie Brown (who ran in the 4th District) agreed.

Garamendi has stubbornly told everyone he won’t do it, and even told me there was nothing I could possibly say or do to change his mind.  But I sense some insecurity.  Rumors abounded Friday night that the “Draft Garamendi” flyers we were passing out was a plot by Mark DeSaulnier – one of the candidates in the 10th District who would benefit from that move.  I had to explain it was a just a couple of “angry bloggers” who don’t necessarily have a horse in the race.

Garamendi’s move is offensive because it (a) wastes an opportunity to grow the Party in a red district, and (b) kills the chances of candidates in the 10th District who are “rising stars,” but lack name-recognition.  I met one of these candidates this weekend – Anthony Woods, a 28-year-old gay African-American Iraq War veteran.  Woods was discharged from the military because of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and then got a degree from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.  He has a compelling story, and deserves a fair shot in the special election.

If the Party was still made up of hacks subservient to a politician’s personal agenda, John Garamendi would get away with this.  But with an influx of reformers and activists who don’t take no for an answer, “stay the course” will give him headaches down the road.

Newsom Paints Rosy Picture of San Francisco

When I arrived Friday, Gavin Newsom’s campaign for Governor had an army of college- age kids holding signs at a street corner.  I asked if any of them were from San Francisco, and none of them were.  I suggested they might not feel that way if they lived there.

Applause in the San Francisco section was light when Newsom gave his Convention speech on Saturday.  That’s because you would have no idea just by reading it that the City has a $500 million deficit, the Mayor has offered no specific revenue solutions – and has been largely absent from the City while he’s campaigning.

Newsom presented San Francisco as a solution to the state’s health care woes – without giving credit to Tom Ammiano, and failed to mention the City’s Health Department is getting horrible budget cuts.  He also didn’t give Ammiano credit for the Rainy Day Fund that averted layoffs in the City’s public schools.  And he touted the City’s “green” record, while our bus system has been starved because it’s an ATM to solve the budgets of other City Departments – up to $80 million.

Why Did Daly Lose to Longo?

In the race for Region 4 Director, Chris Daly branded himself a “reformer” from the Party’s activist wing – but lost badly to incumbent August Longo.  Daly partisans argued afterwards that a lot of progressives stayed away – for fear of offending unions who campaigned heavily against him.  About 40 out of 140 eligible voters did not cast ballots, and I noticed a few faces who weren’t there.  But my guess is it was only a handful – not enough to explain the 77-28 margin.

It’s clear the union angle had a big impact.  I had breakfast with two San Francisco delegates yesterday morning, whose politics made me presume they were for Daly.  Both of them voted for Longo, and labor was what did it for them.  But another factor may have been State Senator Mark Leno.  Not only did Leno speak for Longo at the meeting, but he also allegedly made personal phone calls to delegates on his behalf.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.