In 1998 California voters approved Proposition 10, taxing tobacco sales to pay for educational and health care programs for children under age 5 whose families are otherwise unable to afford those services (the First Five program). And in 2004 voters approved Proposition 63, levying a 1% surcharge on incomes over $1 million to finally reverse decades of deliberate underfunding of mental health services. These programs have been VERY successful and both programs have stable long-term funding.

Only in the twisted logic of the May 19 special election could that be seen as a bad thing.

Propositions 1D and 1E on the May 19 ballot are raids on the Prop 10 and Prop 63 programs, respectively. As the LA Times explained in their article on the propositions today:

The early childhood and mental health programs became prime targets for budget negotiators working to solve the state’s $42-billion deficit. They were sporting a budget surplus of about $2.5 billion each at a time when health and welfare programs funded the old-fashioned way — through the state’s general fund appropriations — were being stripped.

Backers say those surpluses were a fiscal mirage, because the money had been committed to future programs or was being saved for tough times.

Let’s be clear here – because Props 10 and 63 were a successful method of creating important programs and paying for them, they are now seen as viable targets for attack. The LA Times goes further and uses this as an occasion to criticize ballot box budgeting:

But the measures, Propositions 1D and 1E, also represent ballot-box budgeting coming back to haunt the California electorate.

Though they often complain that statehouse lawmakers spend like drunken sailors, the state’s voters have in recent decades repeatedly performed in much the same manner. Time and again they have approved propositions that critics say have combined to straitjacket the state’s budgetary process.

“The voters have been as responsible for this budget mess as anyone else,” said Larry Gerston, a San Jose State political science professor. “Election after election they have authorized money for this or that. And it ties the hands of the Legislature at budget time.”

I don’t buy this. True, I tend to reject the “ballot box budgeting is bad” argument generally speaking, but in particular it’s not appropriate for this situation. Especially when voters are being asked to do more ballot box budgeting. Voters haven’t “tied the legislature’s hands” by things like Prop 10 or Prop 63. What they’ve done is say “we like social programs, we like taxing people to pay for them, and since you have proved unwilling or unable to do it, we’ll do it instead.”

To criticize ballot box budgeting without explaining why it happens – because Prop 13 gutted the state’s ability to pay for core services and created the conservative veto through the 2/3 rule – is to miss the point almost entirely.

And it enables things like Props 1D and 1E, which seem designed to punish voters for having successfully funded important programs.

One-time program raids are not a solution to the budget mess anyway. Nothing the LA Times has included in this article does anything other than convince me a NO vote on Props 1D and 1E is the right move for our state.

For the purposes of full disclosure again (I posted a message a few weeks back), I work for a non-profit consumer rights organization called the Consumer Federation of California. We are currently doing everything we can to defeat the “reprehensible scam” being perpetrated on California voters under the guise of Proposition 10.

So yes, I’m going to post this on other sites and forums because we are being outspent by Pickens and his fossil fuel corporate funders by over 100 to 1 in this campaign, and our ability to get the word out is limited. And yes, I will try and check back in this time to participate in any discussions this post might generate.

Now to the issue at hand: Has our ballot measure process been totally corrupted by big money interests? That’s the question we’re asking ourselves in the No on 10 campaign, as we saw oil tycoon and former swift boat funder T. Boone Pickens dump ANOTHER $4 million into the  Prop 10 campaign coffers last week. According to state records, Clean Energy Fuels Corporation (Pickens natural gas company) has now pumped nearly $19 million into this corporate greenwash, while we on No on 10 side has raised about $150,000.

Clean Energy Fuels is a small company that loses money every year. How can it afford to lavish $19 million on a ballot measure? The answer is simple: Instead of investing in research and development, Mr. Pickens’ Clean Energy is investing in buying an election. This massive political spending by a small company is proof that passage of Proposition 10 would be a bonanza for Mr. Pickens.

The central program in Prop 10 is a $2.5 billion giveaway to trucking companies to subsidize purchases of natural gas-fueled trucks. Trucks that qualify for rebates under Prop 10 are permitted to emit air pollution at levels identical to petroleum or diesel-fueled trucks. It is estimated that Prop 10 will increase natural gas vehicle sales in California by 500%. Most trucks subsidized by Prop 10 will fill up at Mr. Pickens’ gas stations.

Prop 10 EPITOMIZES how big money is distorting the political debate in this country to favor corporate interests over the public interest. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen such a blatant attempt by ONE CORPORATION seeking to enrich itself by bankrolling a ballot measure specifically geared to do this. As blatant and egregious as this scam is, we have had great difficulty to get the media interested in exposing this fraud – both in terms of Pickens the man, and Proposition 10 the measure.

Granted, every major environmental group in the state is opposed to it, as is every newspaper editorial board (I believe it’s somewhere around 34 editorials against, and 0 in support). Similarly, just about every known organization, from the far left to the far right has also recommended a “No” vote. In fact, the Yes side has NO organizational backing AT ALL!

So I guess the real question on November 4th is how will all this grassroots opposition compare to the over $20 million (so far…much more assuredly to come) being spent by the “Yes” side on all those slick and deceptive television and radio ads? It’s hard to turn the TV on without seeing a Yes on 10 ad claiming this $10 billion boondoggle will solve global warming and end our dependence on foreign oil

And just a reminder as to who Pickens really is and what motivates him: he’s not the friendly old renewable energy convert depicted in his “Pickens Plan” ads. In fact, the Huffington Post reported today that Pickens may even be selling off his wind turbines.  This is the man that was the primary funder of the false and slanderous attack ads against John Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans of Truth in 2004 and who has an egregious legacy on the environment, and a long track record of conning communities and local governments into deals that benefit Pickens at the expense of the public. In fact, Pickens just said in an interview on 60 Minutes he has no regrets over the swift boat ads.  Now he’s set his sights on the natural gas market…and he’s using Prop 10 to do it.

So that’s I’m posting today, in hopes that we can both ignite a dialogue on the corrosive role of corporate money on the democratic process as well as convince everyone that is yet undecided to vote No on Prop 10.

We’re asking that everyone check out our No on 10 website www.noonproposition10.org and share it with as many people as you can and hyperlink it to your blogs or websites if possible. And if there are any good ideas out there as to how to reform the ballot measure process I’d love to hear those too.  

Remember how the little girl from Hillary’s 3AM ad turned out to have grown into a young woman who was working her ass off for Obama? Well, there is now a California version. The girl from the Yes on Proposition 10 ads has a simply devastating response ad blasting the initiative.

She goes through it all. How the Sierra Club and every major environment group oppose Proposition 10. How the League of Women Voters says Proposition 10 misspends $10,000,000,000. How the Chair of the Air Resources Board says Proposition 10 increases global warming. And bonus points for pointing out how the wasted money will probably go out of state.

No wonder a Texas oilman has dumped $19 million into the Yes campaign — it is but a small investment. Vote no on Proposition 10.

Capitol Alert reports that T. Boone Pickens, who has been pushing his own bailout plan, Prop 10, is sinking another $4 million to the Yes on 10 campaign:

T. Boone Pickens, the billionaire Texas oil tycoon behind Proposition 10, has doubled down on the alternative energy bond, plunging another $4 million into the measure through his company Clean Energy Fuels Corp.

Pickens’ company was already the largest financier of the ballot measure, having given $3.75 million to the campaign. The measure would provide $5 billion in rebates to help promote natural gas vehicles, the types of vehicles that could be Pickens’ company’s customers.

The rebates would be paid for through a general obligation bond, repaid by the state over 30 years.

Just as Goldman Sachs is using the US Treasury to bail itself and its allies out (h/t to jsw), T Boone is seeking to raid an already-stressed California budget to help boost his natural gas business. We’re already – and rightly – going to commit $10 billion in bond funds to Prop 1A, and even that is touch-and-go given public unease at the budget crisis and credit crunch. California cannot afford to give a handout to Oklahoma oil billionaires – we need to give that money to in-state, long-term, sustainable projects like high speed rail.

I was wondering if everyone was aware of California’s Prop 10 – a deceptively named initiative on the November ballot that seeks to authorize “$5 billion in bonds ($9.8 billion with interest), much of which would provide rebates to buyers of natural gas run vehicles. First off, environmental groups including the California League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club oppose Prop 10.

And for the purposes of full disclosure, I work for a non-profit consumer rights organization called the Consumer Federation of California. We started doing some research on Prop 10 and couldn’t believe what we found.

Most know about Texas oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens through his “Pickens Plan” ads. Many

don’t know that he was a primary funder of the false and slanderous attack ads against John Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans of Truth in 2004, has an egregious legacy on the

environment, and a long track record of conning communities and local governments into deals that benefit Pickens at the expense of the public. Well, he’s set his sights on the natural gas market…and he’s using Prop 10 – a $10 billion Texas Boondoggle – to do it.

In fact, its T. Boone Pickens natural gas corporation that spent millions to get Prop 10 on the ballot and now is spending millions more to make sure it wins in November.

What’s amazing about this Proposition however, is how obvious an attempt it is to greenwash Californians in order to enrich the natural gas industry (and therefore Pickens). Prop 10 doesn’t require any clean air improvement, yet asks taxpayers to shell out $2.5 billion in subsidies to trucking companies to purchase so-called “clean” vehicles that can pollute every bit as much as diesel and gasoline powered trucks. Hybrids are not even considered “clean” under Prop 10.

The tax giveaways favor vehicles that fill up at his corporation’s fossil fuel stations and shortchange other cleaner technologies. Meanwhile, interstate trucking companies can collect California handouts of $50,000 per “clean” truck, and re-locate the trucks out of state. Prop 10’s California price tag: $10 billion.

The Bad News:

The non-profit coalition that opposes Prop 10 has almost no real campaign money, so we’re being outspent millions to one. T. Boone Pickens has received a free ride from the corporate media, and many voters believe it is “green” because of the slick ads promoting it..

So we’re asking that everyone check out our No on 10 website www.noonproposition10.org and share it with as many people as you can and hyperlink it to your blogs or websites if possible.

The Good News:

On top of the opposition from leading environmental organizations, all four of the state’s four major consumer right groups – TURN, UCAN, CFC, and Consumer Watchdog – are also opposed.

EVERY NEWSPAPER editorial board to date has blasted Prop 10 out of the water…with the Los Angeles Times calling it a “reprehensible scam”. Even the three major taxpayer rights groups – California Taxpayers Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and the California Tax Reform Association – are opposed to Prop 10.

Hell, groups as diverse as the California Chamber of Commerce, the League of Women Voters, the California Federation of Teachers and the California Nurses Association even agree this is a sham.

The fact of the matter is Prop 10 is a corporate greenwash of the highest order…the question is will the truth beat out all their fossil fuel money?

See for yourself at www.noonproposition10.org

Thanks!

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

One of the defining features of capitalism in the 21st century has been the arrogance of its most wealthy practitioners, now manifested by their belief that they’ll be bailed out and not forced to suffer any consequence for their criminally reckless bad judgment.

So it’s not just coincidence that as the financial robber barons of our time are demanding a massively unpopular bailout, another wealthy baron who made his money at the expense of Americans is seeking a bailout from California voters this November.

T. Boone Pickens is worth about $3 billion, a fortune amassed from his years as a corporate raider during the 1980s and his large stake in oil companies like ExxonMobil and Occidental.

Along the way he became a leading funder of right-wing causes, and was the primary backer of the notorious Swift Boat veterans, whose lie-filled ad against John Kerry helped swing the 2004 election to Bush. T. Boone promised he’d pay $1 million to anyone who could disprove the allegations, but reneged when John Kerry himself took him up on the offer.

T. Boone is seeing the handwriting on the wall for the oil economy, and wants to build up his natural gas business. Problem is, he wants to build up that business at our expense. He put Proposition 10 on the ballot and is spending his own money to run ads for it. Essentially he wants California taxpayers to bail him out to the tune of $5 billion.

The LA Times last week editorialized against Prop 10, explaining it and why it is such a bad idea. They call it a “reprehensible scam“:

This measure asks taxpayers to fund $5 billion in bonds — at a time when the state is in desperate financial straits and may be approaching a dangerous level of indebtedness — for a scheme disguised as an effort to benefit the environment. Yet its true aim is to subsidize vehicles powered by natural gas, which would build a customer base for its sponsor: Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a company Pickens co-founded that operates natural gas filling stations throughout the U.S. and Canada.

The measure generously doles out taxpayer money for a variety of green-sounding initiatives: $200 million for alternative energy demonstration projects at eight California cities, none of which are clamoring to perform them; $1.5 billion in grants and incentives for research and development of clean energy technologies and alternative fuel vehicles, a field that venture capitalists are already shoveling cash into; $250 million for renewable energy generation equipment. But the lion’s share of the bond money, $2.875 billion worth, goes for rebates on purchases of alternative fuel vehicles.

The rebates are structured so that only a small amount of money goes to truly environmentally beneficial vehicles, while most would subsidize those that run on natural gas.

The American public rightly opposes the Bush Bailout for Wall Street crooks. Why should Californians support a bailout for an already-wealthy oilman, one responsible for some of the most disgusting political lies of our time?