Maybe George Skelton took my post last week to heart, or maybe the self-evident truth smacked him upside the head, but in today’s column Skelton calls for eliminating the 2/3 rule:

It’s a good bet that 51% of the Legislature would have voted for a budget by now — maybe even had one in place for the July 1 start of the new fiscal year. But 67% is required.

Only two other states have such a monstrous hurdle. And both are better positioned to deal with it because, unlike California, their legislatures are lopsidedly dominated by one party….

State Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), a hero of fiscal conservatives, long has favored allowing a majority budget vote.

“The two-thirds vote for the budget has not contained spending, and it blurs accountability,” McClintock says. “If anything, in past years, it has prompted additional spending as votes for the budget are cobbled together.”

The rub is that while McClintock is willing to support a majority vote for a budget he is not willing to support majority vote for taxes. That is the one that really matters. If we had a majority rule for the budget but 2/3 for taxes, it would do nothing to change the current budget standoff as Republicans would still use their numbers to block a tax increase and therefore block a budget.

The column has some good quotes from Steinberg and Bass, who are showing welcome interest in fixing the odious 2/3 rule:

Both incoming Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) say they’ll consider developing a 2010 ballot initiative to permit majority-vote budgets.

“I’m telling you, I’m very serious about it,” Steinberg says. “We can’t keep doing this. This is ridiculous. It’s unproductive.”

Bass figures there would be plenty of financial support for a ballot campaign from labor unions, healthcare providers and others who rely on public funds and are frustrated by incessantly tardy budgets.

“This budget crisis we’re in is a perfect example of why we need to be like 47 other states,” Bass says. “I’m not sure what we have in common with Arkansas and Rhode Island. . . .

“We would have had a budget by the constitutional deadline, June 15.”

Both Bass and Steinberg need to move on a fix for the 2/3 rule. But since that won’t happen until 2010, we need a solution to THIS budget crisis – a solution which will require voters to hold Republicans accountable for their hostage tactics.

Lest we let Skelton off easy today, he still shows he believes in the Media’s First Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Republicans:

Don’t blame Republicans either. They’re being asked by the governor to break their pledges — however misguided they were — not to raise taxes. Moreover, most are philosophically opposed to taxing people more — particularly during a recession — and are sticking to their principles. That’s supposed to be an admirable trait.

Nonsense. The 2/3 rule isn’t a problem unless one party makes it a problem. The Republicans are using the 2/3 rule as a weapon to destroy this state and make its residents suffer. Don’t let them get away with it.

Steve Lopez has an extraordinary column in today’s LA Times about a meeting at the Silver Lake school where his daughter is about to start kindergarten:

The auditorium was packed; the mood somber. About 200 parents had come to hear what everyone knew would be disturbing news. An anticipated $180,000 budget shortfall might well cost three critically important Ivanhoe educators their positions at the school, though they might be transferred elsewhere.

The parents group at the school had summoned families to tell them the news. And to present an alternative: a public education that would no longer be free.

Get out your checkbooks, parents were told. All those wrapping-paper sales and pancake fundraisers wouldn’t be enough. We could either pony up some hard cash, or see Ivanhoe’s standing as one of L.A. Unified’s best schools threatened….

Pay $25, if that’s all you can afford, Herman said. But he pointed up to a screen encouraging parents to dig a little deeper. Those three jobs can be saved, he said, if 80 parents contribute $250 apiece, 75 contribute $500, 50 fork over $1,000, 20 give $2,000 and six bust the bank with $5,000 contributions.

Four other L.A. Unified schools have already gone this route, Herman said, citing Canyon, Wonderland Avenue, Carpenter Avenue and Mar Vista.

We’ve heard of schools holding bake sales to pay for books and materials, but never have I heard of schools fundraising to retain teachers. It’s a shocking sign of just how dire the situation facing public education has become in our state, where parents hoping that their children will receive a good education must now open their wallets to ensure it.

Lopez goes on to mention that LA Unified is expecting even worse budget problems in the coming years – $100 million this year, but perhaps as much as $350 million in the next two years. And Lopez rightly points out that not every school can fundraise:

At nearby Micheltorena Street School, where more than 90% of the students qualify for free or reduced-price meals, the principal told me that of course she can’t match that kind of parental support. She’s hoping that given the greater needs of her students, she’ll be spared harsh cuts. But like other principals, she doesn’t yet know how bad the news will be.

What is going on here is the slow and steady privatization of public education in California. Turning education from something provided to every child free of charge to something provided to those children whose parents are lucky enough to be able to afford the cost.

And if you can’t afford the cost? The implication is clear – your child will sit in a classroom of 35 students, probably won’t learn a whole lot, won’t have a very bright future.

How is this any different from a tax increase? The Vehicle License Fee would, if restored to 1998 levels, eliminate the need for any education cuts at a cost of $150 per driver. Whereas the families at Lopez’ Ivanhoe Elementary are being asked to contribute hundreds or even thousands of dollars to keep teachers in the classroom.

Lopez reports that most parents are willing to pony up for the fundraiser, for the sake of their kids. And that suggests public support for new taxes for education, instead of school-by-school fundraisers, would be popular with state voters. The alternative is the erosion of the critical promise of free education to all of our state’s children. As Lopez so well points out:

when will we ever stop playing this shell game in which politicians rise to power promising prosperity without pain, even as working folks and retirees pay through the nose?

It’s an excellent question, Steve.

I can’t decide if Jonah Goldberg’s insufferable columns in the LA Times delightfully show the world just how whacked out right wing opinion is, or if they’re hideous trash that must be stopped. Today is no different.  “Popping The Left’s Internet Bubble” subtitled, “don’t believe the hype – when liberals are in power, conservatives will once again thrive online” is yet another lame effort in the pages of the LA Times to downplay progressives’ strength and successes in online activism.

The fact that it’s coming from a well known conservative, rather than a “neutral” journalism professor, like Michael Skube, author of Sunday’s debacle, probably doesn’t rankle too many feathers, but it’s still getting valuable face time none the less.

Goldberg’s theory, that the nutroots will soon catch up and surpass the netroots because, well, it’s easier and more exciting to be on offense, is a loser.  Apparently “liberalism is having a nice moment” and we should be thankful for our lousy war, our lousy president and lousy Republican congress because it’s made us stronger! 

No mention of the blood, sweat and tears put into this movement by the people who populate these sites. Or the thoughtfulness and affinity for the truth. Or the attention to detail and trial and error we’ve had to endure. No, this moment has been handed to us by an unpopular president and a stupid war, and when the Democrats get back into power (I guess winning back the House and Senate last year doesn’t qualify) then the right wing will regain its strength and show Daily Kos and MoveOn a thing or two about online activism.

The dishonesty coming from the pages of the LA Times on this subject has been absurd.  You can’t scan the horizon and claim to know its depths.

Find the op-ed here:  http://www.latimes.c…

I know there has already been a great deal of discussion on how the newspaper industry is falling apart and it sucks everyone will miss Bob Salladay. And he’s going to be tough to replace:

Dear Leader

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger brought to Canada his vision of an independent, new world, desired by all people, that will appear as brilliant features of Schwarzenegger’s century and remain forever under the rays of the great sun. The august name of Schwarzenegger represents glory and happiness of humankind and hope and future of the world and it would shine forever.

If newspapers were hiring writers like this instead of buying them out, maybe they’d be doing a little better.

(Nice to have the Senator here. Now go do as he says! – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Recently the Los Angeles Times ran an editorial, “For Citizens Only,” on the California Dream Act (SB 160) which misrepresented facts and promoted a policy position out of step with reality and mainstream opinion in California. 

Just one week after the LA Times declared their objection to increasing access to higher education for all Californians, the California Public Policy Institute (PPIC) issued a definitive analysis citing a critical gap in the number of college grads the state will produce.  PPIC warned that California will not meet the economic demand for highly skilled workers with current immigration and graduation rates; they recommended swift action on the state’s behalf to intervene. Additionally, a Field Poll in April 2007 noted that 83% of Californians support creating programs to legalize the status of undocumented immigrants indicating a far more open attitude toward immigrants than the LA Times expressed in their editorial.

The California Dream Act is an appropriate step to address our state’s workforce needs and is in alignment with voter sentiments toward immigrants. As the paper of note in California’s largest immigrant city, we expect more from the Los Angeles Times. 

Please help us express our dissatisfaction with the paper’s position and presentation of facts. It is critical that we set the record straight on SB 160 and make the paper aware of our concerns.

We are asking you to take three simple steps: 

–  Read our response to The Times editorial here:  “Let All Students Dream”  We are trying to earn a spot in the “Most Viewed” stories on the website, so be sure to use the link provided to view the response. 

–  Write a letter to the editor at The Times, expressing your concerns with their position or support for the bill 

–  Forward this to your network of friends, and ask them to do the same. 

As the focus on the topic of immigration intensifies in the coming weeks – both at the federal level and in our own state as the Legislature takes up our three immigrant related bills – we must not let misrepresentations or narrow perspectives cloud common consensus.

If you need additional information on SB 160 contact Eric Guerra (SAC) or Marvin Pineda (LA).  If you would like to help respond to the LA Times editorial or get the word out in support of SB 160 contact Christy Wolfe. 

Please take action today, and thank you for your support.