Blackmail Acknowledged

As Brian Leubitz covers (see, they don't need me!), Arnold Schwarzenegger has threatened to veto every bill in the last legislative session if he doesn't get what he wants on water. The leadership is working toward a solution, but still remain far apart. They haven't figured this out for 30 years, but Arnold needs a solution in 30 hours or an entire year's worth of work gets vetoed for no reason.

I just want to add to the chorus of how appalling this is. We're talking about legislative blackmail.

And incredibly, Arnold has an ally in palace courtier George Skelton:

It's ugly. But it's an available political tool that the governor would be derelict not to use when an issue as critical as water is at stake.

This isn't about some narrow scheme important only to a narrow interest. Nor is it merely about a governor's pet project -- other than his legacy-building, which should be encouraged as long as it helps the state. It's about finally resolving an acute, decades-old problem that is worsening and affects practically all Californians.

Here's another old white man with health insurance who could give a crap if women get maternity care in their health insurance plans, to just pick one bill at random. Or who could care less if people who have insurance get dropped from it when they want to use it, to pick another. George Skelton would actively make the lives of Californians worse because he thinks it's sporting to see the Governor "use his power." That the power is illegal is of no consequence.

Then there's this whopper:

These and other arguments -- such as details of a new governing system for the delta -- have raged for years. Schwarzenegger apparently doesn't much care what the Legislature decides. He just wants it to compromise and send him a bill.

Yeah, he doesn't care at all. He actually invented the Latino Water Coalition, the fake-grassroots group pushing all the Republican solutions in water negotiations, but he's really just an innocent bystander. An innocent bystander who would destroy women's health and allow insurance companies to kill people for profit and a host of other things, all with an asshole like George Skelton cheering him on.

Too Bold? How About "Too Absurd"?

At first I thought that the headline writer was confused. "California tax reform plan much too bold for Capitol," it said above George Skelton's column today. "Too bold" could maybe have more than one meaning. Surely Skelton wasn't throwing in with the idea that massively shifting the tax burden to the lowest income levels in society was too good an idea. But I think that is, in fact, what he's saying.

"I would sign it immediately" if it were a bill, Schwarzenegger told reporters. "Without any doubt."

Of course, this is a governor who constantly seeks out things new and bold. And the tax proposal was all of that -- much too new and bold for most Capitol denizens, especially those representing special interests.

As Genest told me: "It shouldn't come as any surprise that lobbyists in Sacramento are in favor of maintaining the status quo unless they are confident that the change will serve their interests. That's why they're called 'special interests.' "

Nowhere in Skelton's article does he quote any figures or statistics citing the practical effect of the Parsky Commission's plans. He doesn't mention that, under the plan, taxpayers making over $1 million dollars a year would save $109,000 annually on average, while taxpayers making between $40,000 and $50,000 would save four bucks. He doesn't mention that the proposal would result in a net loss of revenue to the state, causing wider budget deficits. He does manage to mention critiques of the business net receipt tax from the side of business and industry, but offers no critiques from the opposite end, a la Jean Ross' statement that “You could not say, ‘We’re going to tax child care so we can lower the income tax on millionaires.’ But that’s what this does." The fact that the BNRT would hit business payrolls and disproportionately tax companies in the knowledge economy rather than the service economy also doesn't make it in. Skelton never mentions that, by taxing all businesses in the state, the BNRT would effectively tax rents.

He just says it's "too bold."

The Parsky Commission was practically designed to shift wealth upward. It should surprise nobody that this is what it ended up doing. That is bold, but not in the way that Skelton means it, I don't think.

He does give voice to where Karen Bass may steer the debate:

Bass was holding her tongue, trying not to express disappointment in the commission. When she first proposed its creation, the speaker envisioned the panel proposing something more practical and simple: reducing the sales tax rate and spreading it to currently untaxed services.

She promised a "thorough and objective public review" of the panel's recommendations.

Good idea, but don't stop there.

"My biggest message to dysfunctional Sacramento is to get something done," Parsky says. "If you've got a better idea, get it done."

There's no question that flattening and broadening the sales tax base is a decent enough idea. Under the constraints of minority rule, it may be the best one lawmakers can get, and it would prove popular if enacted. We'll see if the Parksy Commission report is dumped in favor of that.

Yacht Party Hijackers

George Skelton finds a nut:

The two-thirds rule is not used merely to protect taxpayers from politicians trying to reach deeper into their pockets. It's used by special interests -- mainly big business -- to game the system; a tool handy for legislative leverage, or extortion. If you don't give us what we want, we'll withhold the votes needed for the two-thirds.

It's about buying and selling. Last Friday, at the all-night windup of this year's regular legislative session, Democrats weren't in a buying mood.

This is what happened, according to Democrats, and Republicans aren't exactly denying it: The Senate GOP blocked more than 20 bills requiring a two-thirds vote because Democrats wouldn't cave on three unrelated demands.

This has been true for years if not decades. The 2/3 rule does not protect tax increases, it's a tool for the Yacht Party to hijack the process. In this case, the GOP wanted to create a forced market for Intuit, makers of TurboTax; to increase the corporate tax breaks from the Februrary budget deal, in particular to help Chevron; and to make Roy Ashburn a lead author on a Democratic bill. See if you can find the word "tax increase" in there. But because the Democrats didn't much feel like giving out even more corporate welfare or fattening the pockets of Intuit, the Yacht Party revolted. And they knocked down 20 bills, including one that would keep domestic violence shelters open throughout the state (which is nothing more than homicide prevention) by shifting available funds, and another to allow the Treasurer more leeway to renegotiate with banks and save the state $850 million dollars.

These and the other bills, again, did not involve tax increases. They were taken up under urgency requirements (so the policy takes effect immediately) or other factors, like changes to the budget, which necessitate a 2/3 vote. And the Yacht Party routinely takes advantage of this, mainly out of spite and an attempt to leverage their votes to reward their corporate backers.

Ashburn candidly defends blocking the legislation: "This was an opportunity for Republicans to have some leverage." Concerning the merits of measures buried in the fallout: "The subject matter of bills at that point was secondary to what the [GOP] caucus had decided to do with them."

This is a pretty startling admission. But not one anybody wasn't aware of before now.

Skelton has deciphered the problem pretty clearly, and Democrats are well-positioned to highlight it and show the disaster of governance ushered in by the onerous 2/3 rules.

Will they?

Palace Sentries Dispatched To Guard The Drawbridge

The establishment in Sacramento has manned the barricades, battened down the hatches and gone on the offensive to prove their own worth. They sent their best man in the media, George Skelton, out to prove that no, despite your lying eyes, the California Legislature had a real banner year. After all, they managed to bring suffering to the lives of hundreds of thousands of state residents with consensus and bipartisan elan!

The current Legislature, regardless of Duvall and despite ideological polarization, has had a better year than it's getting credit for.

Its main accomplishment was keeping the state afloat amid a flood of red ink, created primarily by the toughest economic times since the Great Depression. OK, so it did use some bailing wire and chewing gum! The bills got paid, even if briefly with IOUs.

With great difficulty and pain -- at least for Democrats -- the Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger slashed programs by roughly $30 billion. They also struck a major blow against "auto-pilot" spending by permanently eliminating all automatic annual cost-of-living adjustments, except for K-12 schools. And they summoned enough courage to temporarily increase taxes by $12.5 billion.

In the end, they found a way to restore health insurance for 660,000 low-income kids.

The tax increases hit the more vulnerable elements of society disproportionately, of course. They actually found that way to restore children's health insurance by lowering industry taxes and increasing the co-pay and deductible burden on the low-income families themselves, while reducing the covered care. And anyone who adds cutting $30 billion in programs and eliminating COLA as an accomplishment is a bit of a social deviant. But there are probably no lengths to which Skelton will go to defend the palace walls from the rabble who think, based on the evidence, that the system is horribly broken.

Steve Maviglio wisely steers clear of the more horrific achievements of this year's Legislature, and offers a slightly more defensible outlook of the '09 Legislative session. Still, there's a lot unsaid:

Looking back, getting the measures on the May ballot was a significant early success that required 2/3 votes. And toward the end of the session, in addition to the renewable energy bill, Speaker Bass pushed through measures on childrens health and domestic violence that won broad bipartisan support. (The Speaker also got a standing ovation, and she appears to have strengthened her support in Caucus. Compare that to the ouster of the two Republican leaders).

Okay, so the grand water deal didn't get done. Big deal. Nothing like that has been done for a generation. Perhaps Senate President pro Tem Steinberg set the bar too high when he said he'd get it done. In any case, all parties agree that they got close and can pick up the pieces and get it finished in short order.

So for all those crying for major reforms, put it all into perspective. Sure, improvements could be made, and things could have been better, but this is not reason for drastic action. Far from it.

Of course, the renewable bill is veto bait, as are many of the other major bills pending the Governor's signature. And the domestic violence bill didn't pass the Senate, so, um, that doesn't count. The prison bill offered decent parole reforms but stopped well short of a real solution. Everyone keeps saying the water bill will happen but the two sides remain far apart, and the fact that they'll have to go into overtime to reconcile it kind of proves the point, no?

But Maviglio tips his hand with the line "this is not reason for drastic action." Of course he would say that. He's profited well from the status quo. Anything that messes with it could hurt him professionally, and what's more, could stop the endless blaming of outside factors to account for stunning failure.

There is no shame in stating that this was a failed legislative session. Just about everyone in California would agree with you, particularly the ones who are suffering the most from the destruction of social insurance caused by the most heartless cuts. Simply put, the Great Recession dominated legislative activity, and the conservative veto from various 2/3 requirements restricts the Legislature from fulfilling the expressed will of the people through their votes (NOTE: This does not only come into play with the budget; late last Friday Republicans blocked over 20 bills that required 2/3 votes for one reason or another, probably because they knew they could get away with it). That's not something to explain away, it's actually something to fight, every single day until the problem is rectified.

Skelton and Maviglio may want to tell themselves all is well, but the public knows better, and they're going to demand major structural change. Those who think that the Legislature can still be a force for good in the state can get aboard and provide the best ideas to break the supermajority gridlock and get the state moving again. Or they can defend their narrow interests. Their defense will fail, and it would be a shame not to see them on the right side of history.

Half A Loaf Is Not Enough On Prison Reform

George Skelton writes about some of the accomplishments on deck in the next week in the Legislature. Beyond the renewable energy standard, which would be a solid accomplishment, and water, which really is kind of an unknown, Skelton looks at the prison "reform" bill, where he is both right and wrong.

The goal is threefold: to reform a system that has the worst-in-the-nation recidivism rate -- 70% -- for inmates released from prison. To begin substantially reducing the overcrowded prison population before federal courts do, as they've threatened. And to save the $1.2-billion already slashed from the prison budget on paper, but not in reality.

There apparently will be no compromising with Republicans. They're having no part of it, playing the law-and-order card as they have for decades -- advocating long lockups but opposing any tax increases to pay for the bulging prisons [...]

One thing that's needed, he and other reformers contend, is more education, drug rehab and job training for inmates. Another is a better parole system. A scaled-down bill passed by the Assembly on Monday seeks to encourage the former and achieve the latter [...]

Steinberg and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) are trying to restore much of the Senate version, which also included an independent commission to update California's sentencing structure. But their problem is Assembly Democrats. Some are scared of being portrayed as a crime softie by a future campaign opponent. Steinberg took a shot at them Tuesday.

"It's time to say, 'Come on,' " the Senate leader told reporters. "We have a law-and-order Republican governor who is willing to sign a comprehensive package with absolutely essential reforms that protects public safety. It's time to get real [...]

Steinberg and Bass may coax more votes from the skittish Democrats.

But if they can't, the good-time incentives and parole improvements alone would be worth passing. They'd mark substantial progress toward prison reform.

As I've said, the current bill is not a prison reform bill, but a parole reform bill. The education, treatment and job training encouraged is immediately undercut by the Governor's slashing of those programs as part of the deal. And the lack of an independent sentencing commission means that we're likely to see both increased sentencing laws and increases in the prison population continue, and we'll all be back here in 10-15 years.

That said, parole reform IS a key element. Changing the situation where 2/3 of the convicts returned to prison get sentences for technical parole violations is urgently needed. The Phillip Garrido case is an example of how increased case monitoring on the most serious offenders could have benefits for public safety. But it does not totally stand in for full reform. The sentencing commission goes hand-in-hand with fixing parole.

Sentencing commission: In other states, a sentencing commission looks at who is being sent to prison and for how long, and what sentences work best to lower reoffense rates. Sentences are based on the severity of the crime and the offender's prior record. Instead of a system driven by relatively low-level property and drug offenses, prison sentences are focused primarily on violent and career offenders. The result in other states is that fewer offenders go to state prison, but the offenders who do go to prison are serving longer. For lesser crimes, offenders go to county jail.

Skelton only touches on who's really to blame for our intransigence on prison reform - those allegedly fiscally responsible Republicans who refuse to bear the costs of their policy desires. They've joined the appeal of the federal judge order to reduce the population by 44,000 on the grounds that their beautiful minds tell them there's no problem in the system:

State Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster) said the judges had ignored the state’s recent “huge investment” in spending on inmate healthcare, as well as statistics showing that California spends more on healthcare per prisoner, and has a lower mortality rate among them, than many other states.

“We believe there is constitutional care today,” he said. “We believe there always has been.”

If you want the long form of this lie, read Tom Harman. Either way, it's just not true. Inmates have died, around one a week, before a federal receiver was instituted. Republicans fought the implementation of investing in prison health care, and the continued presence of infirm prisoners based on draconian sentencing laws like three strikes can account for the increased costs. Republicans typically call for increased rehabilitation and treatment for offenders while cutting the funding. It's a shell game.

However, we are well beyond that at this point. We have a bill that needs only a majority vote. And Assembly Democrats are petrified of justifying votes they had no problem with as recently as 2007. By the way, opponents can go back to those votes too, and make the same mailers. You either can act like you have the courage of your convictions, or not. Ultimately, the people will pay the price.

Tostitos State Park

This is the legacy of historically unpopular Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his friends in the Yacht Party - corporate sponsorships for state parks.

State parks officials and nonprofit organizations scrambled Wednesday to find funding and possibly new corporate sponsors to keep as many as 100 parks and beaches open after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger slashed an additional $6.2 million out of the state parks system [...]

State officials won't finalize a list of park closures until Labor Day and said they hope to see the parks reopened in one to two years.

"We are actively seeking anyone who can help us with these places, all of them jewels, at a time when people need them most," said state parks Director Ruth Coleman.

"There are many groups and corporations that will step up to the plate and try to help," said Elizabeth Goldstein, executive director of the California State Parks Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting state parks. "But it would be a mistake to think that these efforts will be sufficient to replace the public funds being extracted." [...]

The crisis also triggered debate over the kinds of recognition corporate sponsors could expect in return for helping to subsidize a state park.

"We're reaching out to all possible partners -- cities, counties, nonprofits, banks, corporations, newspapers, individuals -- who would be interested in helping us," said Roy Stearns, spokesman for the state parks department. "Maybe we can find agreements that don't alter, commercialize or degrade our state park system.

"For example, if Budweiser came forward with money for Malibu Beach State Park, we wouldn't change the name to Budweiser Beach," he said. "But why not put up a banner saying, 'This park is kept open by Budweiser' for as long as they continue helping us?

If this isn't a hop, skip and a jump to unique licensing agreements to sell products on site, I don't know what is.

The article makes pretty clear that, while state parks and beaches may not be financially self-sustaining, they generate major amounts of economic activity. In fact, over the past year, the system "is currently packed with the highest visitation rates ever recorded," according to the parks director. This leads to residual spending in the areas around parks and beaches, increased tourism, etc. The natural beauty of California is a major attraction throughout the world.

Thanks to Governor Hoover we must lock them up or turn to the private sector to sustain them.

All part of his plan.

...I want to also address George Skelton's complaint that progressives somehow made their bed by voting down the May 19 ballot measures and now they must lie in it. I'll ignore for the moment this major error in the piece, the assertion that "state revenue has been plummeting, down 13% in the last two years even with February's tax increases." (um, they didn't take effect until April, not over the "last two years") And I won't comment on his barely suppressed glee over eliminating cost-of-living adjustments for poor people on welfare.

Schwarzenegger and the Legislature were widely accused of scare tactics -- crying wolf -- when they warned about the consequences of voters rejecting the May ballot measures. The wolf just broke down the door.

So let's do Skelton's counterfactual. Let's envision a world where the ballot measures that impacted the bottom line passed.

Those were worth a little less than $6 billion.

The deficit was $26 billion.

$1 billion of those $6 billion were cuts to different programs. If a world where cuts to certain programs means we wouldn't feel cuts to other programs is a world you populate and exalt, I think you're alone.

The other $5 billion was dubious borrowing. The most contentious item in the budget, and the most likely to have been dropped in your counterfactual... was $5 billion in dubious borrowing, only to local governments.

So the consequences of voting down very unwise ballot measures was... what, exactly? Different cuts to vital services and different dubious borrowing?

(And of course, we'd have a permanent spending cap, rather than the political spending cap we have now thanks to the conservative veto.)

Don't Fall For The Assumed Ubiquity Of The Yacht Party Mentality

That wise Mr. Skelton intones that Prop. 1A is not "a sneaky trick to raise taxes." I agree. It's a sneaky trick to drown government in a bathtub.

We touched yesterday on this bigger concern about the lessons that may be learned from the special election battle. It is clear that those anti-tax forces on the right will take credit if the ballot measures, particularly 1A, are defeated, saying that this is proof that California has had enough and the vote signals the rise of the teabaggers. That actually would be a dangerous lesson, mainly because it's not true, and it's part and parcel of the vast disinformation around taxes that the cynical forces on the right spare no expense in delivering to the public.

Low-, not high-, income Californians pay the largest share of their income in state and local taxes. Here’s an updated analysis of data we’ve blogged about before that takes into account the temporary tax increase included as part of the February budget agreement.

California is a moderate, not high, tax state when all state and local taxes and fees are taken into account. This results from the fact that California has moderately high state taxes, but low local property taxes due to the impact of Proposition 13 on local property tax collections.

High-income Californians aren’t leaving the state due to higher taxes. In fact, the number of millionaire taxpayers is growing at a rate that far exceeds the increase in the number of personal income taxpayers as a whole.

Over the past 15 years, lawmakers have enacted tax cuts that will cost the state nearly $12 billion in 2008-09. That’s a larger loss than the $11.0 billion 2009-10 temporary increase in state tax revenues included in the February budget agreement.

Moreover, while the tax increases included in the budget are all temporary, regardless of the outcome of the May election, the September 2008 and February 2009 budget agreements included massive corporate tax cuts that are permanent and that will reduce state revenues by approximately $2.5 billion per year when fully implemented.

Saying that tax policy is just plain wacky and inconsistent neglects these plain facts - that the past thirty years of the conservative veto have tilted tax policy, and most everything else, in a very rightward direction.

In actuality, we are seeing a grassroots/establishment divide, where the grassroots in the Democratic Party would like to see some leadership instead of another layer of failed solutions. Unfortunately, because the voices on the right are so loud in their opposition, and because advocates of the special elections would rather frame themselves in opposition to the right, the right is well-positioned to take credit for the defeat of these measures, should that happen. When that's simply not the lesson that ought to be learned.

The resultant fear is that the feckless Democratic leadership takes that lesson, and then cowers from going down the road of enacting the real structural reforms that represent the only solution possible to lift us from this perpetual disaster. That would be catastrophically wrong. Don't assume from a short-term setback that the Yacht Party mentality runs the state. People will pay for taxes in exchange for services; that was proven in 2005 and it's just as true today. Californians elect their leaders to function and yet the structure of government denies them. Dismantle that barrier, and restore democracy to the state.

Critical Mass On Budget Reform

The weekly Democratic radio address (which ought to be a YouTube address, come on guys) called for an end to the 2/3 requirement for budget and tax increases. This is the first time in my memory that so many lawmakers are openly talking about revising 2/3. It's not a new problem - 28 of the last 32 budgets have been late due to legislative squabbling, with the fights becoming more protracted than ever over the past decade. And every economic downturn, no matter how slight, sets off a crisis. Assemblyman John Perez made it clear:

The budget would not have taken so long and would have not included non-budget related issues like an open primary if California did not have the unusual requirement of a two thirds vote for budget approval.

Reforming this two-thirds requirement should be a priority for all Californians.

Perez did not reference whether the new requirement should be the arbitrary 55% number, which is what the current initiative being circulated states, or a simple democratic majority. We've learned where a number of Democrats stand this weekend:

• Darrell Steinberg decided not to mention 2/3 hardly at all in his op-ed in the Sacramento Bee. That's a lack of leadership. No elected official should be speaking in public and pass up the opportunity to advocate for majority vote. He instead opted for a Broderist call for working together and the awkward tag line "Smarter going forward."

In comments to David Greenwald, Steinberg did call for repeal, but failed to pick a side.

“The answer in my view is to take this two-thirds supermajority requirement. We are one of three states in the country that allows a small minority of members to hold up the progress.... It doesn't really work for California; it worked this time barely because of the magnitude of the crisis... We need to take the question this two-thirds supermajority to the ballot. I feel even stronger now than I did when I started on December 1.”

• Karen Bass is also talking about 2/3, but she is looking at the arbirtrary standard:

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, has proposed one that would allow lawmakers to approve budgets with 55 percent majorities if they do it by June 15. After that, it would take two-thirds votes.

It's not necessarily that this kind of measure would definitely not pass because all the thrust of majority democratic rule is lost, but that's certainly a factor.

• In that same article, Loni Hancock calls for a simple majority:

Hancock has introduced a constitutional amendment that would require only simple majorities to approve budgets.

"California needs to have a normal democracy like every other state in the nation except Rhode Island and Arkansas," she said.

That's a talking point. 55% is mush.

The point is that we have the Democratic leadership finally talking about the main impediment to the perpetual budget crisis. Without two-thirds, you can fix a tax system that is too closely tied to boom-and-bust economic cycles. Without two-thirds, you can end the virtual bribery of Yacht Party and moderate lawmakers. Without two-thirds, you can end the Big Five process that facilitates official secrecy and backroom deals and use a deliberative process involving the committee structure and relying on the input of the entire caucus. And without 2/3, you won't have to hear from high Broderist windbags tinkering on the margins with proposals that make them feel good but will do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. It's kind of hilarious that the LAST proposal in George "Can't We All Get Along" Skelton's long list in today's column is this:

* A simple majority vote for budget passage; 55% at most. Scrap the two-thirds vote requirement.

The Abyss

Just to recap the scene in the Capitol over the weekend, the State Senate and Assembly held their members in round-the-clock sessions, debating the budget deal, without any success on grabbing the additional Republican vote needed for passage. The word in the Capitol is that Darrell Steinberg and Dave Cox had a handshake deal and Cox broke it. There is another session scheduled today starting at 11am, and it is the intention of Steinberg to keep holding floor sessions until a Republican cracks. While I didn't think it was the best strategy to announce a deal and start voting on it until there was one in place (although the Cox reneging rumor changes my perspective a bit), Steinberg seems to have backed into a strategy of playing Yacht Party obstruction out very publicly, so that the essential insanity of their anti-tax, sink-the-state agenda can be well-described by what's left of political state media. George Skelton does the math and refutes the Yacht Party assertion that cutting spending alone can solve the budget crisis, and Dan Walters manages to describe the situation accurately.

And we all sit at our computers and type out our "even Dan Walters and George Skelton believe" articles, eternally hopeful that this is the corner-turning event, that the public will find the right people to blame for the sorry state of affairs, and punish them repeatedly forever more. Only it's wishful thinking. First of all, I hate to break it, but nobody reads George Skelton and Dan Walters. They are opinion leaders to about .001% of the electorate. Second, there was another audience watching Sacramento this weekend, and they were the bondholders, who would be crazy to allow California to borrow one more red cent from them given the political fracturing (and this budget calls for 1.1 trillion red cents, or $11 billion dollars, to be borrowed). Even if this passed tomorrow there would need to be lots of short-term debt floated to manage the cash crisis until new revenues actually reached state coffers, and with the bond rating the lowest in the country and the dysfunction being played out, I don't see it happening.

The other point is that this is, let's face it, a bad deal for Californians. Among the sweeteners thrown in the deal to attract that elusive third Republican vote are a $10,000 tax break for home buyers to re-inflate the bubble and set the state economy up for an even bigger crash; weakened anti-pollution laws that will cost the state additional public health and environmental cleanup spending in the long-term; a potential budget cap that will make it impossible for public schools and social services to meet demand; and much more. The tax changes, which are short-term except for a huge break to multinationals, tax things that we want to encourage in a downturn, work and consumption. What the federal government is offering to spur demand and get the economy moving again is exactly what the state government will be cutting to balance the budget. That's not an argument to kill it, but it's a reflection of reality.

So there will be at best a kind of zero-growth stasis, and at worst a further crumbling of the local economy, with shrunken revenues likely to require another round of this by summer. Ultimately, the media cannot help the Democratic Party solve this problem. The bill is coming due for 30 years of anti-tax zealotry and the belief that we can provide whatever citizens need without paying for it. There isn't a light at the end of the tunnel. That some opinion leaders are coming around about 20 years to late doesn't wash the blood from their hands. And that the Democratic Party is finally thinking that they should maybe fight against the 2/3 requirement that has relegated them to a functional minority in Sacramento since is was instituted doesn't absolve them for 30 years of inattention.

It gives me no pleasure to bear the bad news, but there's no wake-up call on the horizon. Even all 38 million Californians coming to the same "Hey, GOP is suxxor" conclusion at the same time doesn't change structural realities. Those must be fought for over years if not decades, and it is not defeatist to wonder whether it's too late.

High Punditry Consensus On Ditching 2/3

I really don't know where this came from other than the shrinking class of California political pundits just understanding common sense, but they are all gradually coming on board with the notion that what's killing the state is the 2/3 requirement, and that until it's fixed, nothing in the Capitol will materially change.

Most of George Skelton's column today concerns the "dance of death" - a ritual slaughtering of budget proposals through the normal legislative process until one survivor comes out on top. There is too much of a top-down approach in the legislature, with the Big 5 making the determination on the budget instead of the relevant committees having a crack at it. But near the end, Skelton reveals the truth:

My nomination for additional budget reform: Eliminate the ludicrous requirement of a two-thirds legislative vote for passage of a budget. Only two other states suffer the same straitjacket. California would have had a budget weeks ago if it could have been passed by a simple majority vote. The governor still would have the final say with his paring knife.

This mirrors exactly what conservative Dan Walters said in his column the day before. Walters wants to keep the requirement for tax votes, but he does seem to understand that without the accountability that a majority budget vote provides, there's no way to peg the fortunes or failures of the state on any one political party. Not only does it hinder legislators from doing their jobs, it impedes the opportunity for voters to determine the cause and effect. It's the "killer app" for governmental reform, and must be the first, last and only step in the short term to end the perpetual crisis at the heart of a broken system.

Now, this reform will not come easy. Republicans will caterwaul at losing the only leverage they currently own. The only path to this solution comes with actually getting a 2/3 majority in both chambers, and then offering the solution up for a vote in time for the next governor to reap the rewards. The Drive for 2/3 is monumentally important (and it's likely to be a two-cycle process) to restore functionality to Sacramento and allow legislators to do the work their constituents sent them to the Capitol to do.

SD-12: Hissy Fits And Asymmetrical Warfare

Over the weekend the CDP resolutions committee endorsed the recall of Jeff Denham in SD-12. The Republicans have thrown a massive hissy fit over this, similar to the hissy fit Yacht Party regulars like Sam Blakeslee have thrown, denouncing those who dare to identify his record in public. All of a sudden we're seeing op-eds throughout the region and across the state decrying what is routinely identified as a "Don Perata-engineered power grab." The latest comes from the fount of conventional wisdom in the California political media, George Skelton:

This is the time of year when the northern San Joaquin Valley is actually bucolic. Temperatures are bearable. The hills are green and the orchards are in full bloom -- almonds gussied in white, peaches in pink.

Too bad that this spring there's also a foul odor of Sacramento political pollution.

In a nutshell, the local state senator -- Republican Jeff Denham of Merced -- didn't vote for the state budget last summer. That contributed to a 52-day stalemate and angered the Senate leader, Democrat Don Perata of Oakland. So Perata now is trying to recall Denham.

Not just a payback, but the political death penalty.

Funny, I don't remember such high dudgeon back in 2003, when the recall of Gray Davis was viewed as a victory for democracy and an opportunity for the people to have their say.

Here's what's actually going on. Professional hack Kevin Spillane is good at getting his propaganda into the papers. And the media obliges without any historical perspective whatsoever. If Republicans want to put forth a measure ending recall petitions and allowing any state officer to finish out their term, go ahead; I'd probably support it. But they don't. They want to use the recall when it suits them and whine about "fairness" and "power grabs" when it doesn't. There could not have possibly been a bigger power grab than the Darrell Issa and Ted Costa-funded recall of Gray Davis. Anyone in the so-called liberal media dumb enough not to understand this notion of asymmetrical warfare isn't worth reading.

I fear that the Spillane hack-o-thon is bearing fruit in scaring off Democrats from pressing forward on this recall; there certainly wasn't a lot of talk about it or enthusiasm at the convention, nor was there any potential challenger in sight pressing the flesh. The Denham recall, in fact, is what the process was invented for: when legislators protect their own or their party's interest at the expense of the people they should be held accountable. Jeff Denham is part of an effort to stop California lawmakers from doing their jobs and eliminate, for practical purposes, the role of government in the state. The Iron Law of Institutions dictate that "people within institutions act to increase their own power rather than the power of the institution itself." The only way to deal with that from the outside is use the legal tools available to exact leverage on the institution. If it was OK for a Republican to use, so too for a Democrat.

So these media types and their hacktastic Republican spinmeisters can shut their whiny little mouths and defend their role in the shutdown of democracy in California to the voters. Jeff Denham ought to be able to defend himself instead of crying about the "process."

Nunez-gate: Skelton Weighs In

The grand poohbah of the Sacto press corps, taking his whacks.

Memo to editor:

Water is a huge issue right now in the California Legislature. So to broaden my perspective, I propose traveling to Italy to study the ancient Roman aqueduct.

It's even older than the state water project. Both are outdated, and I could put this all into context for our readers.

There's a convenient hotel in Rome at the top of the Spanish Steps where I can stay for $730 a night.

Best, Your stir-crazy Sacramento columnist.

He goes on like that for a while. If money is the mother's milk of politics, money scandals are the mother's milk of political columnists.

Skelton also makes the point that none of this would happen with public financing, but he dismisses is as an unrealizable goal, at least for now, because anything that reduces the amount of spending on political activities will be met with fear and loathing by the political establishment. He invokes the golden rule: "If you can't explain it, don't do it." And then, at the end of the column, in comes Fabian to explain:

After my deadline -- after I'd written this column -- Nuñez called to explain.

He "became a hit around the world" after his global warming bill passed last year, the speaker said, and received many foreign invitations. "The dollar is pretty darn weak in Europe these days" and that runs up expenses, he added. He also buys lots of gifts for dignitaries, staffers and other legislators.

Nuñez defended paying for all this with political money rather than tax dollars. "My conscience wouldn't allow me to do that, so I use my campaign funds. That's between me and the people who contribute."

But what about the wine trip? The French organized it.

"I know this stuff doesn't look good. But it's legitimate. I did not do anything wrong."

He didn't say he was pretty much middle class in this one, so the explanations are getting better. But just because you "became a hit" doesn't mean you actually have to show up around the world. In some ways, this explanation is far worse, actually. It's almost an admission that these activities had nothing to do with California government business.

Note also the plea to his own conscience, that he had to protect the taxpayers from paying for these trips and instead hit up corporate donors who will in turn impact legislation that will bankrupt the taxpayers many times over.

Skelton: "GOP Trying To Rig The Presidential Election"

There is no reason for a well-informed Californian not to know about the Dirty Tricks initiative to steal the 2008 election by changing the way the state apportions its electoral votes. By now practically every newspaper in the state has written an editorial against it. And now one of the deans of Sacramento, George Skelton, bluntly criticizes the maneuver.

The chutzpah award for this summer has a runaway winner. It's the small team of Republican operatives trying to rig the 2008 presidential race.

"Rig" means tilting the playing field to assure continued Republican occupancy of the White House -- perhaps for a very long time.

Skelton intimates that this could backfire on the Republican operatives by creating a rallying point for progressives and Democrats:

Whatever this is, it's brazen -- a strategy based on the assumption of a low voter turnout that leans Republican while the electoral college measure slips under the Democratic radar.

But I can envision just the opposite. I can see this initiative drawing a lot of media attention that awakens Democratic voters.

"It's a 'wacky California' story," (Peter) Ragone says. "Like in, 'Here they go again!' "

Skelton offers the obvious alternative to this power grab in clear and concise language.

What would make sense is to completely shutter the archaic electoral college and elect the president by national popular vote. The argument that if it ain't broke, don't fix it was discredited in 2000 when the system did break. For the fourth time in history, the candidate who got the most citizen votes lost out in the electoral college. No need to recite the national consequences of that glitch.

But before we can tear down the electoral college, Americans must get over the notion that states -- not citizens -- should elect the president. Whomever most people want to be president should be. That's how every other officeholder is elected in this land.

Exactly, though placing it on the ballot as an alternative would probably needlessly confuse the issue. Especially if you see it as a rallying point. I don't think the 30,000-feet strategy of Ragone and Chris Lehane is to energize Democrats, necessarily. They want to spend a lot of money and "confuse to kill" if they have to. But the progressive movement smells an opportunity here, a chance to use this campaign as a springboard, to activate progressives all over the state to fight this dirty trick.

Like I said, well-informed people have no excuse not to know about this. But those one notch below may not be at all aware. That's why we need to make sure we have the resources we need to run a positive campaign bent on capitalizing on this dirty trick to change the political map in the state. Republicans will rue the day they even tried this. You can help by contributing through ActBlue to the Courage Campaign's effort to stop this thing dead in its tracks. I almost want it to qualify for the ballot now. The money spent will be a great investment for the future, and a complete waste on the Republican side.

George Skelton Is Shrill

The Royal and Ancient Hermetic Order of the Shrill has a new member, and he's particularly amped up about some of the little goodies tucked away in the state budget, which is once again too heavily constructed on the backs of the poor:

Anyway, it was about the time of the wine-tasting that the legislative leaders hatched their plan to roll California's most vulnerable.OK, maybe I'm guilty of a cheap shot. But it's no more a cheap shot than picking the pockets of the poor in order to bring spending and taxes closer into balance.

The victims list includes 1.2 million impoverished aged, blind and disabled, plus 500,000 welfare families, mostly single moms with two kids.

Skelton is particularly shrill about the delay in the cost of living adjustment (COLA) for seniors on state and federal assistance, and the cuts to public transit, which for many who can't afford cars is the only recourse to get around (although we need to sever that link between class and public transit, and soon). Skelton is particularly disappointed in some so-called progressive leaders:

It was a sign of scandalized Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's loss of political clout that he didn't personally fight for the transit funds, as he has for other L.A. causes in the past. "He has been AWOL," says one leading Democrat. "He's been wounded."

Democrats, however, haven't exactly been fighting for the aged, poor and disabled either. Republicans wouldn't be expected to. But Democrats are supposed to be the defenders of the destitute. Instead, they suddenly surrendered to Republicans last week after vowing to hold their ground.

Any budget is going to be a mixed bag under the 2/3 requirement. But it does appear to me that winners and losers were very clearly chosen based on their political clout. The blind, the elderly, the poor, they all don't donate to campaigns the way that teachers do (no slam on teachers, just reality). Drug offenders who saw a cut in Prop. 36 treatment funds don't host fundraisers at the halfway house. Where you stood in this budget depended upon where you sat, and if you didn't have a place at the table, forget it.

Maybe that has to do with the donations rolling in for the term limits initiative. Or maybe it's just easier to dismiss those who have little voice and little chance to mobilize.

George Skelton Sayin' What We All Been Thinkin'

George Skelton, pretty much the only state political columnist at the LA Times, is charitable toward Antonio Villaraigosa by using his recent marital troubles as a partial reason, but he really speaks the truth that he's wasted his time in the Mayor's office:

"Ultimately, Antonio will be judged by voters based on their perception of the job he is doing as mayor," says Democratic strategist Darry Sragow.

That's what many people have told reporters: They don't care what a politician does in private. What counts is what he does for them.

OK, a lot of Angelenos are waiting. The mayor better get crackin'.

Get that subway-to-the-sea moving.

Really bust up some gangs, not just stage photo-ops.

That failed school takeover fiasco was a waste of time and political clout. Why would a new mayor allow himself to make so many enemies in his first major endeavor?

I'm beginning to understand. He was distracted.

The mayor has a list of accomplishments about as long as the average Quick Hit. Literally, the list that the Mayor's office was going to put out included his hosting American Indian Heritage Month.

Not that Indian heritage isn't noble, but it gives one the sense of grasping at straws.

This affair of Villaraigosa's may damage him nationally, but locally, the damage is being done every day he fails to deliver on his promises.