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.

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.

(Carole was an Assembly candidate in AD-38 last year, a red district, and she nearly took it. – promoted by David Dayen)

I was one of the activists who spoke against the Props on Tues night at LACDP.  I am from AFSCME, not SEIU although SEIU has also come out against the Props 1A, 1D & 1E.  I am responding to David’s blog on the LACDP’s courage not to succumb to the pressures of our Legislators to pass the May 19 election Props. In reviewing the responses to his Blog,  I wanted to make some points.  

(edited to put the rest on the flip for space)

Regarding Prop A, the worst part of it is the Constitutional amendment for Spending Caps and the Rainy Day Fund. Spending Caps and the Rainy Day Fund will be a permanent part of the constitution and even if we are able to overturn the 2/3rds it will take a proposition to undo Spending Caps  I do not fault our Democratic legislators for this deal.  As long as we have the 2/3rds, Repubs have the power. It’s like being on the playground and seeing your class leaders slammed up against the fence by some bully thugs with guns and our leaders calling to us to “give them your lunch money, give them what they want.”  My heart goes out to them and I know they are telling us that things are going to be a hell of a lot worse if 1A doesn’t pass but I will not/can not be bullied by those Repub thugs into voting for Props that so blatantly violate our Democratic values and that will institute permanent, structural changes to our constitution that will be extremely difficult to undo.

That’s why we need to let the chips fall where they may, as much as I hate to say it, about this budget/May19 election.  Look, the Props are based on a budget deal based on a $42 billion deficit.  We are now at $55 billion (I think that’s the figure) because we didn’t get the Stimulus $ projected, Income Tax revenues are way down, etc.  So even if the Props pass the Legislators are still to have to go back into negotiation.  These Props are horrible. And any deal that will be made will be horrible but we will not be approving a permanent structural change that we will live to deeply regret and we will not be going down the slippery slope of slowly dismantling Prop 10 and 63.(1D and 1E)

   Prop 1A – The structural changes with Spending Caps/Rainy Day Fund will hamstring us forever – especially if we don’t overthrow the 2/3rds.Just look at how Prop 13 has damaged us.  (BTW The 2/3rds is part of Prop 13 which is how the Right will fight us next June when we will have a Prop to overturn the 2/3rds) If our budget is frozen at a 10 year average, what happens if gas goes up?  Does that mean that there will not be gas for Social Workers to do home visits to protect children/the elderly?  Does that mean that governmental agencies won’t be able to buy toner much less replace equipment? And what about the deluge of Boomers entering old age?  Does that mean we won’t be able to provide services that will keep them in their homes? Much less continue to fund our schools.  etc, etc,etc.  Obviously this is just a way for the Repubs to “shrink government so small….etc”  Another ploy by the corporate forces to dismantle government.

Prop 1B – a pay off to CTA -( have you been hearing their ads?) to support the Props.  What a crock!  The CTA is putting in $1mil (or is it $2 mil? I’ve heard both) for media to get the Props to pass. This deal The Gov made w/ CTA.  The schools will get a bundle if 1A passes. Also the building trade unions who are desperate for work because of this economic Depression have come out for the Props. This ploy by the Gov to get CTA and the building trade unions to support the Props (and put money into the media campaign) is an effective way to split Labor.  Labor and the LACDP came out “neutral” on 1A because they can’t side with one big labor force against another (just like what happened with the Indian Gaming Prop and the Clean Money Prop a couple of years ago.)  The Gov is also looking for $25 mil from his corporate buddies to do a media blitzkrieg this month on a “Vote Yes” campaign.

Prop 1C- Ha, ha, ha – wanna buy some junk bonds on potential future earnings of the lottery when lottery revenue is down? And what about the high interest the State is going to have to pay to get people to buy these bonds??? (6.85%?)

Prop 1D – Repubs came in to negotiation with the intention of dismantling Prop 10 – the First 5 program, which has been very, very successful in early intervention, parent education and strong anti-tobacco info.  Paid for by a $.53? tax on cigs.  I wondered why the Repubs were getting so much money from the tobacco industry last year when I ran against Cameron Smyth. Now it’s very clear.  They intend to dismantle this program. Our Dems were able to keep it down to a small amount this year but unless we overturn the 2/3rds they will keep chipping away at this program as well as Prop 63 (1E) until they are both gone.

Prop 1E – The Repubs also wanted to totally dismantle Prop 63, the Mental Health Services Act, passed overwhelmingly by the voters in 2004 paid for by taxing 1% of their taxable income over $1million.  The MHSA is doing what then Gov. Reagan promised in the ’70s when he deinstitutionalized untold thousands of mentally ill people onto the streets and promised “the money will follow.”  Well, the money never did follow and that is one reason we have 73,000 homeless people – a large proportion of them mentally ill, sleeping on the LA streets.  The MHSA has 4 components – 1.homeless mentally ill, 2. elderly mentally ill, 3. TAY (Transitional Age Youth) mentally ill, and a strong Prevention components that works with the schools, etc to prevent mental illness.

It is VERY successful. For example the Skid Row Homeless Outreach program has an 83% success rate and they have seen a 40% reduction in incarceration.  That means the MHSA program which costs $16,000 a year for full services – meds/housing/day treatment/case management, etc. is saving the taxpayer millions because it costs about $94,000 to incarcerate a homeless mentally ill person in that largest of mental hospitals in the world – the LA County Jail!!  If the Repubs are able to dismantle this program little by little (see Prop D) we will have increased incarcerations, emergency services and hospitalization. A penny wise and pound foolish idea if there ever was one!

BUT the Repubs must do their corporate master’s bidding and work to dismantle this program as well at Prop 10.  Again, without overturning the 2/3rds they will succeed because THEY WILL CONTINUE TO CALL THE BUDGET/REVENUE SHOTS!  And do not be fooled by the contention that the pittance “borrowed” from 1E will be used for EPSDT Children’s Mental Health programs.  The money “borrowed” from 1E and 1D will go into the General Fund – there is no control about how it will be spent.  Also the pittance “borrowed” from 1D is 1/2 of 1% of the $42 billion shortfall and 1E is 1/4 of 1% of the $42 billion.  You have to wonder why the Repubs picked on these two programs !!!!!! (Duh! Just follow the money as always)

Prop 1F – actually it is a symbolic pittance and even most of our Legislators go along w/ it.

So this is why I cannot vote for these Props.  I won’t be blackmailed, bullied, extorted and threatened by the Republican thugs that must be laughing mightily  behind their closed doors smoking ceegars with the Gov that they have us over a barrel.

This is why we really have to push, scream and insist that CDP and Labor put the money up we are going to need to get the 2/3rds prop passed in 2010. (And also the Clean Money Prop that will also be on the June 2010 ballot)And get John Burton to lean on wealthy Dems to join the fight.

So please vote “NO” on the Props on May 19, especially 1A, 1D and 1E.  Also please see Dave Jones excellent article on the structural changes that need to be made to correct our budgetary problems. http://www.speakoutca.org/webl…

Regards,

Carole Lutness, LCSW CADC

AFSCME 2712

661-755-3772

P.S. BTW – My union, AFSCME Local 2712, the Psychiatric Social Workers is paying the LA County Department of Mental Health my salary to fight the Props.  I’m doing a lot of educating and organizing around LA if anyone would like me to speak to their groups or would like to join our Stop the Cuts and No on 1D & 1E coalitions. Please come to the “Stop the Cuts/Defeat the Props” rally on May 13 at the Gov’s office in LA at noon (300 S. Spring St).  Bring signs, etc.  Make sure he can hear us!! ([email protected], 661-755-3772) Thanks