Maybe we should make April Fool's Day into a week, or maybe even a month.  I know that I enjoyed the hilarious attempts by staid news organizations to try to be the Onion for a day. Everybody gets into the act, but my fave was the Economist Magazine's Amusement Park idea.  Boy, I wish we could just have that everyday! Anyway, to the links:

•  Steve Poizner is already attacking Jerry Brown, pointing out that he, gasp, has been in public office for a long time.
• Asm. Anthony Portantino's AB 53 salary freeze measure moved out of the assembly's public employees committee.
• California Backward Forward endorsed all 6 ballot measures for the May 19 ballot, and I can't think of a better reason to vote against them all than that.
• I know that most of us here style ourselves as much better budgeters than the legislature. Now we can prove it. Over at Next10 you can take the “California Budget Challenge” and try to balance California's books yourself. The fun of an online game like Doom with the subject matter fit for long subcommittee hearings on 5-year projections of discretionary spending. What's not to like?
• Ooh, decentralized leadership in the GOP? Well, isn't that something.
• California Blue Dog, who's a complete moron, thinks it very untoward to have Executive Secretary Treasurer of the LA County Labor Fed, Maria Elena Durazo, deliver the Democratic weekly radio address. Neglecting, of course, that Durazo's late husband, Miguel Contreras, worked with Chavez, and was a Founding Member of the Chavez Foundation. So CalBlueDog's beef, as I understand it, is “person with knowledge of Cesar Chavez shouldn't deliver address about Cesar Chavez.” Anyone know which Sacramento consultant this tool is?
• Asm. Fiona Ma's bill, AB 223, to force San Francisco to reinstate JROTC made it out of committee with thanks to Republican votes.  I don't care how you feel about JROTC, but the state forcing one school district to offer one specific elective is not a good idea. In fact, San Francisco's other Assembly member, Tom Ammiano said the bill was an attempt to “bully a local school board.”  Hopefully, this bill will see be buried in the Assembly and never make it across the hall.
• And finally, apparently even the uber-rich ride Southwest Airlines. Capitol Alert informs us that Poizner and Whitman were on the same Southwest flight this week. I bet they paid for BusinessSelect.

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.

The once and future governor Jerry Brown gave an interview to the SF Chronicle’s Carla Marinucci earlier this week in which he suggested that despite the passage of 30 years and proof that anti-tax policies have been a catastrophic failure for California, he will still fight against new taxes:

With the state in fiscal crisis, the job this time around could be a no-win situation, he said, but added: “I would not be advocating new taxes, I’ll tell you that.”…

The California governor’s job this time around could be a no-win situation, he acknowledged. It’s an era when just the state deficit is out of control and budget battles are bloody. There’s no one easy answer, “there’s just pain,” he said.

Still, “I would not be advocating new taxes, I’ll tell you that,” he said. Already, California is “one of the highest tax states around,” he said. “So we’ve got to be competitive. We can’t drive all the jobs out and tax the few people who stay.”

Um…wow. This is not very good stuff for a Democratic gubernatorial candidate to be saying – Brown is reinforcing some of the typical right-wing lies about our state. Keep in mind that in terms of overall taxes we actually rank #17.

Perhaps even worse is his repeating the notion that tax increases hurt competitiveness and business. It is a totally 1980s thing to say and divorced from the lived reality of most Californians, who are losing their jobs and their chance to get retrained or educated for new ones because of the collapse of government.

I have written favorably of Jerry Brown in the past and think he could be a good governor for our state. But for that to happen – and for him to win – he needs to stop defending the last 30 years. Instead he needs to articulate a new vision for California for the next 30 years – something that voters can embrace as a credible and hopeful path toward a more prosperous future.

Brown isn’t going to get there by pretending it’s still 1978. A hard anti-tax line is the last thing California needs, as there is no way whatsoever to balance the budget and preserve vital services without the right kind of new taxes.

Additionally, statements like these only benefit Republicans, who use them to reinforce the notion that Californians dislike taxes (which is not true) and to undermine Democrats.

As if on cue, enter Steve Poizner, who in an email to supporters makes the inevitable attack:

Are there any of the tax increases that Brown does support if he opposes the overall budget deal?

Is Brown going to oppose Proposition 1A, the spending cap placed on the May 19th special election ballot, which would keep the recently approved tax increases in place for an additional two years if the measure is approved by voters?

Brown has been playing the political version of “duck and cover” on most issues since he started plotting his campaign for a third term as California Governor.  He often refuses to take a position or offer anything more than vague and non-committal rhetoric. But Californians deserve to know where Jerry Brown stands on the key issues of the day, particularly given his latest political posturing.

So, Jerry, we’re waiting.

In 1978 Brown was able to get reelected by claiming to be a “born again tax cutter”. At the time it worked for Democrats to appease the right-wing anti-tax beast, even though it did massive damage to the state. Now we are also seeing that it does damage to Democrats as well.

Most of the voters who will help a Democrat win the governor’s office in 2010, including myself, weren’t even alive when Prop 13 passed (and unlike me, many weren’t even alive when he was governor). Brown needs to offer a political vision that speaks to their needs, instead of repeating something that hasn’t been fresh for 30 years.

(Dave here.  I wrote this.  There isn’t someone named “Open Thread” who writes the open threads.  The conspiracy of the “guy who forgets to log out of one account and into another” solved!)

Two polls were actually released today on the 2010 California Governor’s race.  The Field Poll did an extensive poll of the race, including favorability ratings, and Lake Research, a Democratic firm, did their own poll which included some head-to-head matchups.

Field’s poll included Dianne Feinstein and I don’t think the results were all that great for her.  In the primary she polls well under 50%, compared to earlier polls which had her closer to that number.

Dianne Feinstein: 38%

Jerry Brown: 16%

Antonio Villaraigosa: 16%

Gavin Newsom: 10%

John Garamendi: 4%

Steve Westly: 2%

Bill Lockyer: 1%

Jack O’Connell: 1%

Undecided: 12%

Considering she’s the most well-known figure in California politics, and that there won’t be that many competitors in the final field, that’s not a runaway at all.  Plus, her net favorables with the electorate (+23) are less than Jerry Brown’s (+25), despite her being more well-known (Among just Democrats, her unfavs are slightly higher than Brown’s but so are her faves).  If anything, this shows that she would have a tough race, maybe too tough for her to want to try it rather than luxuriate in her position whitewashing Bush’s war crimes on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Without DiFi in the race, it’s a packed field.  Here’s Field’s poll:

Jerry Brown: 26%

Antonio Villaraigosa: 22%

Gavin Newsom: 16%

John Garamendi: 8%

Steve Westly: 2%

Bill Lockyer: 2%

Jack O’Connell: 2%

Undecided: 22%

DiFi’s votes are, then, basically evenly distributed.  Lake’s primary poll (they didn’t poll with DiFi) was similar:

Jerry Brown: 27%

Antonio Villaraigosa: 20%

Gavin Newsom: 14%

John Garamendi: 8%

Steve Westly: 3%

Jack O’Connell: 1%

Undecided: 27%

Big undecideds there, and obviously Villaraigosa is benefiting from being the only SoCal candidate in the field, although given his re-election performance he may have some work to do with his southern base.  As for everyone else, there’s time, but they’re all pretty far back.

The Republican primary?  Nobody’s heard of any of the candidates, and the undecideds are off the charts, but it’s early.

Meg Whitman: 21%

Tom Campbell: 18%

Steve Poizner: 7%

Undecided: 54%

Surprised to see Campbell that close, but it’s probably just name ID; he’s run statewide before.  At least 63% of all voters, and at least 67% of Republicans, have no impression whatsoever of any of these candidates.  Their favorables are miniscule.  Given that, Poizner and Whitman will have to spend a lot of their millions just to introduce themselves to the public.

Finally, Lake Research did some (selected) head-to-heads.

Brown: 41%

Poizner: 30%

Undecided: 29%

Brown: 43%

Whitman: 27%

Undecided: 30%

Newsom: 38%

Poizner: 29%

Undecided: 33%

Newsom: 40%

Whitman: 25%

Undecided: 35%

Long story short, DiFi wouldn’t have a cakewalk, Villaraigosa appears to have strength based on geographic isolation, Brown looks well-positioned, nobody knows the Republicans, and any Democrat can win.

John Garamendi has become the first gubernatorial candidate on the Democratic side to speak out publicly about the crime perpetrated on the citizens of California by a dysfunctional process.  

Lt. Gov Garamendi: I’ve been listening to what you had to say about Republicans in the Senate and Congress, we have an infection here and it’s a Republican infection that’s really spreading across this nation. Just what do they propose to do? Shut everything down? They did that with Newt Gingrich. They seem to want to do that in California and we’re saying no way. no how. We’re gonna build, we’re going to go with Obama.

We do have a two thirds vote….And then when you have Republicans that have taken a no new tax pledge and seem to just want to throw this state and really the nation into chaos and further decline in the economy, then we have the gridlock that we see. We need to change our constitution.

We need to hold these Republicans accountable…

The problem is that, as a solution, Garamendi called for a 55% bar for the budget.  That’s a completely arbitrary number, and it undercuts the principle of majority rule for an imagined gain of support in the Central Valley in a way that makes no sense.  But at least he brought up changing the Constitution.

By contrast, Steve Poizner thinks the whole deal should be dumped because not enough rich people like him are getting taxed, because, like him, they’re too powerful.

“They don’t have the guts to raise taxes on rich people because rich people have lobbyists and rich people are mobile and rich people will leave.”

I would like to see the fantasy budget Republican Steve Poizner would submit calling for massive increases in the top marginal tax rates.  He should present that at the California Republican Party’s spring meeting in Sacramento this week.  I’d like to see that.  Oh wait, his budget plan is to do everything but the tax increases as a six-month fix.  What a surprise, he doesn’t have the guts either!

(By the way, there’s no evidence that progressive taxation has caused any flight of bodies from California whatsoever in history.  Thought I’d mention that to pre-empt the trolls.)

Finally, the Governor found his way to Sacramento and made a beeline for the nearest camera, not knowing how to negotiate.  This line will make the 6:00 news statewide:

“Anyone that runs around, I think, and says that this can be done without raising taxes, I think has not really looked at it carefully to understand this budget or has a math problem and has to get back, as I said, and take Math 101,” Schwarzenegger said.

Of course, this was the guy who said he’d “terminate” taxes and lied about Phil Angelides’ tax plans.  So he has no credibility and less relevance, no matter the truth of his statement.

Putting their ideology over the best interests of the state, Republican legislators and Jon Coupal filed suit today to block the Democrats’ majority-vote budget deal. Coupal is the head of the Howard Jarvis Association, which as best I can tell is dedicated to ensuring California is unable to meet its residents’ basic needs during this crisis or avert an outright Depression.

Led by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a coalition of fiscal conservatives said Tuesday that they wanted immediate court intervention against Democrats’ plan to cut the budget deficit by $18 billion. In addition to cutting expenditures, the proposal relies on repealing the existing tax on fuel and imposing a new fee more than twice as large, a plan that the coalition said requires a two-thirds vote in the Legislature, including approval from some Republicans.

What the Bee’s article doesn’t note (and I’m assuming it wasn’t a deliberate oversight) is that one of the plaintiffs is Insurance Commissioner and likely GOP gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner. From the Howard Jarvis Association’s announcement:

Also joining the suit are the Americans for Prosperity, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, Flash Report Editor Jon Fleischman and KFI radio talk show hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou….

“This dishonest effort to raise taxes without a two-thirds vote is a dagger at the heart of Proposition 13 and every California taxpayer,” stated HJTA President Jon Coupal at a morning news conference on the steps of the Court of Appeal. “If taxpayers lose the protection of the two-thirds vote, there will be no limitation to the ability of the tax-and-spend lobby in Sacramento to take whatever they want from hard-working Californians.”

California’s budget crisis threatens the financial stability not just of our government, but of most Californians. If the state has to print IOUs the domino effect on the state’s credit rating, outstanding debt, and jobs could be catastrophic.

Coupal and Poizner are showing that such an outcome is perfectly acceptable to them if that’s what it takes to preserve conservative structural power in California. Their policies brought California to this point. Isn’t it time we held conservatives accountable for what they have wrought?

The latest Field Poll is out (SF Chronicle here and Field PDF here) and it shows the favorability ratings of various leading contenders for 2010 gubernatorial race in both parties. And while the Chronicle wants to make this an “omg DiFi is the favorite” and “ha ha – Newsom sucks” story, the two most important things the poll actually tells us are:

1. DiFi has very high unfavorability ratings among Democratic contenders, and

2. Nobody – and I mean nobody – knows a thing about the Yacht Party potentials, except that they don’t like them.

Let’s take this in order. First, the Dems:

Among Dems only Gavin Newsom has higher unfavorables, but not by much, and since this poll was taken right before the election – when Newsom was getting pounded in the press and on the airwaves by the Yes on 8 campaign – this may be a low point for Newsom.

That makes the 39% unfavorable figure for Feinstein rather significant. Sure, she has the highest favorable rating – 50% – of anyone in the field regardless of party, but that’s not a great figure for such an established politician. As we’ve noted before, her numbers among Dems aren’t so hot either. I don’t see much basis for a DiFi inevitability argument, which the Chronicle is trying to get started.

Jerry Brown has a lot of room to grow, since much of that 32% “no opinion” are probably younger Californians who (like me) were born late in or after his previous terms as governor.

Antonio Villaraigosa has to be considered a sleeper here. At 39% “no opinion” that gives him room to grow as well. He has been building a solidly progressive reputation over the last year, coming out strong against Prop 8 and leading the fight for mass transit in LA (seriously, getting to 2/3 with a sales tax for rail in LA County is a major achievement). As Brian noted a few weeks ago, his endorsements were the closest match to our own. He is also making a high profile link with Barack Obama, serving on his economic advisory team. If you want to run for governor, it is a damn smart move to link yourself to a popular president who won CA by 24 points.

And what of the Yacht Party contenders? They have Bill Simon written all over them:

Even with enormous unknown ratings, none of them have a net favorability rating outside the margin of error, and Steve Poizner already has a significant unfavorability rating that will only grow once his links to voter registration fraud get a wider airing. The Chronicle article promotes Meg Whitman as a breakout star, but I’m not seeing it here. All California voters will need to hear is that she’s a Republican and that she was an advisor to the McCain campaign and that may be enough to torpedo her.

The only Republican who might have a snowball’s chance is Tom Campbell, the moderate Republican, but he didn’t fare well in a statewide race in 2000 (losing to DiFi). Of course it’s highly unlikely that the “down with the ship” Yacht Party primary voters will vote for a moderate like Campbell.

This goes to show that the 2010 governor’s race may well be decided in the June primary, which should be one of the most interesting primary fights we’ve seen in this state in a long, long, LONG time.