One Step Closer To 60

Yesterday the Massachusetts House passed a bill that would allow Deval Patrick to appoint a temporary successor for Ted Kennedy until the outcome of a special election in January. The bill now moves to the State Senate, where Democrats have an enormous advantage as well. Republicans could hold up the bill through some procedural maneuvers, but they cannot stop it. The expectation would be that final passage could happen by the middle of next week. This would obviously be a huge boost to Democrats to have a consistent voting partner and a 60-vote majority in the Senate once again.

Regardless of the appointment process, there will be a special election, with a primary in December and a general election in January. With some of the big names on the Republican side begging off the race, the winner of the Democratic primary is highly likely to win the general. Right now the field on the Democratic side includes Attorney General Martha Coakley, Rep. Michael Capuano, and co-owner of the Celtics Stephen Pagliuca. Coakley, a statewide officer, has higher name recognition and thus a big lead. But Capuano is a pretty strong progressive.

By contrast, her main rival, MA-8 congressman Mike Capuano, has a ten year record on national issues. Basically it’s a record of being really, really liberal. He’s member 18.5 in the 111th House, he was 30.5 in the 110th House, 40.5 in the 109th, 10 in the 108th, and 8 in the 107th—firmly on the left side of the Democratic caucus. He’s the former mayor of Somerville, a dense walkable urban area, who likes to talk about mass transit, he’s pushing from the left on Afghanistan and Iraq, he favors single payer health care but says he won’t “let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

Capuano, recognizing that he needs to introduce himself to voters outside his district, has already put up an ad on statewide TV, and it's striking how hard he pushes his progressive credentials.



A Senator from Massachusetts needs to be as far to the left as possible - there aren't many states out there as blue, if any. Capuano looks pretty good to me; Coakley may be great, but she needs to reveal herself on the issues she hasn't faced as Attorney General.

Burning The Midnight Oil With CA-10

If you want to follow results and find that the SoS site is too slow, just look to Contra Costa County. They have a much larger slice of the population than any other area. I've added up the preliminary results in each of the four counties for the four main opponents, and Garamendi already has close to a 9,000-vote lead:

Garamendi: 22,345
DeSaulnier: 13,827
Buchanan: 9,955
Woods: 6.872

Furthermore, DeSaulnier is performing horribly outside of CoCo County, so he would actually have to win there and probably by a fairly decent amount to have any shot of catching Garamendi. Which I wouldn't bet on.

UPDATE by Dave: My current numbers are:

Garamendi: 23,151 23,870
DeSaulnier: 14,323 14,925
Buchanan: 10,428 10,722
Woods: 7,191 7,485

Sacramento County (only about 1,500 registered CA-10 voters) is all in, and Garamendi beat DeSaulnier there 179-5. Adriel Hampton pulled more votes than DeSaulnier up there. Alameda is all in too, and Solano and CoCo are over 50%. Garamendi is extending his lead in these numbers. He'll be the next Congressman from CA-10.

60 Again Shortly?

We're getting closer to Massachusetts being able to appoint an interim successor until the special election that will be held January 19 fills the slot once held by Ted Kennedy. I didn't think Massachusetts lawmakers would be constrained by appearances on this one. Plus, they are fulfilling the expressed desire of the electorate to have two Senators, including one who shares Ted Kennedy's beliefs and policy positions.

By the way, the whitewash of Kennedy from a liberal lion into the great conciliator and compromiser who would have bargained away the public option in a second is truly insidious. Jed Lewison, who was there during the Medicare Part D fight, has some good thoughts on this over at Daily Kos. In short, Kennedy opposed the Medicare deal because it became an industry trough-feed at the end. Despite this, conservatives keep parroting this "compromiser" spin, particularly with respect to that vote.

The reason for Fox's lie couldn't be more obvious: they desperately want Democrats to cave on the core elements of health care reform, and they think that creating a false narrative about Ted Kennedy will make their wish come true.

Ted Kennedy probably wouldn't want us to pass meaningful health care reform solely to honor his legacy. In fact, of all the reasons health reform needs to be passed, that's probably not even on the list.

But Ted Kennedy's passion for health care reform does inspire us to achieve the goal of universal, affordable coverage. And the record shows us that despite his best efforts, Republicans cannot be trusted to be fair partners in the process of getting there.

More.

Successful Voter-Approved Program Steps In To Bail Out Failed State

On May 19, voters were asked to divert money from First Five programs to pay for General Fund expenditures. The argument was that First Five had a reserve that was just "sitting around" and they should give up some of that money, earmarked for children's programs, to pay for the budget. At Calitics, we called this the "if it ain't broke, break it" proposition. First Five, financed by a tax on cigarette sales, was well-funded and able to make multi-year program projections, so that the programs started up were not in perpetual fear of being dropped.

One of the values of First Five is that they can seek out other programs affecting children and contribute to them, in keeping with their mandate. And that is what they have voluntarily agreed to do with respect to the Healthy Families program, California's version of S-CHIP.

Meeting in Sacramento this afternoon, the First 5 California Children and Families Commission agreed to help the Healthy Families Program, which faces a $90 million General Fund shortfall in 2009-10. But the Commission declined to commit to a specific level of financial assistance. As a result, it appears all but certain that the enrollment freeze approved last month by the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board, which oversees Healthy Families, will take effect on Friday, July 17.

In a resolution, the First 5 Commission committed “to join with like-minded public and private partners, including but not limited to health plans and philanthropic organizations, to provide financial assistance in Fiscal Year 2009-10 to the extent practicable and feasible…to ensure young children have access to affordable health insurance coverage.” This commitment, however, “is contingent upon the availability of funds in the applicable First 5 California accounts.”

I wish that First Five would have chosen a specific funding level, which could have rolled back the enrollment freeze. Still, they are making a commitment to help provide health insurance to needy children, one they couldn't have made if the state clawed back some of their money in the May 19 election. This way, First Five can target the money and keep in line with what the voters asked from them - to use their revenue to provide needed services for children. The state could have used that money for anything if they skimmed it off the top.

People often wail about ballot-box budgeting and the broken initiative process in the state, and to an extent I agree with them. But First Five is an example of GOOD ballot-box budgeting. It has a dedicated funding source, it's well-managed and well-capitalized, and it has the ability to make contingencies. If the structure of state government fails to allow increased revenue to pay for needed services, it's perfectly logical to go outside that process and produce dedicated sources of funding. It shows the virtue of a balanced approach. I don't necessarily want the ballot to do all of Sacramento's work for it, but the broken system of government sometimes leaves no choice.

Another Special Election Merry Go-Round

If you look at state economic statistics and the consistently worsening projections as each month of revenue collection goes by, you would recognize that, even if the positive talks on closing the current budget gap result in a deal, the possibility - even probability - of another deficit requiring a revision could take hold as early as this winter. That's what happened last year, and if anything the economy in the state has softened since then. At this time, the value of having a fully seated Senate and Assembly, due to the need for 54 Assembly votes and 27 Senate votes to move anything, becomes even more pronounced. Right now, we are down one Assembly seat owing to Curren Price's move to the Senate (owing to Mark Ridley-Thomas' election as LA County Supervisor last November). The CA-10 race could leave another opening if Sen. Mark DeSaulnier or Asm. Joan Buchanan emerge victorious. And in Los Angeles, an opening on the City Council may cost the Assembly another seat for a period of time.

Los Angeles voters showed a profound disinterest in the civic election in March when just 18% turned out, but there was a virtual stampede of candidates this week to run for the San Fernando Valley seat of former City Councilwoman Wendy Greuel, who won the race for city controller.

The slate of 14 candidates for the Sept. 22 special election reflects the varied geography of the 2nd District, which stretches from Studio City and Sherman Oaks at its southern border, through Van Nuys, Valley Glen, North Hollywood and Sun Valley to the rugged reaches of Sunland-Tujunga at its northern edge [...]

With just two months to raise money, a number of City Hall watchers are eyeing several strong contenders: former Paramount Pictures executive Chris Essel; state Assemblyman Paul Krekorian, a Democrat who lived in Burbank until moving this spring to Valley Glen; and Los Angeles Unified School District board member Tamar Galatzan.

Krekorian, who is an assistant majority leader, moved into the Council District but not out of his own Assembly District (Valley Glen is on the edge) to pursue this seat. If he wins, it probably wouldn't take effect until December 8, assuming that he doesn't reach 50% +1 on September 22. AD-51 (Curren Price's old seat) will have a new Assemblymember by November 3 at the latest, but Joan Buchanan or Mark DeSaulnier could reach the US Congress on the same day, and Krekorian might move to the LA city council and vacate AD-43 soon after. By the time all these special elections shake out, we'll be well into 2010.

All of this shows the need to modernize our system of filling special elections, which always seem to be more widespread in California. Wendy Greuel was elected City Controller back in March. There's little reason to drag out the search for her replacement this long. And if we had Instant Runoff Voting for the first round, we would not need to wait two months for an additional round, paralyzing state and local government and costing the state money in setting up additional elections. In the case of federal and state legislative elections, this is particularly perverse, since the way in which runoffs occur (with the top vote-getter in each party) almost always become useless races where the ultimate victor is well-known from the beginning.

CA-10: First Major Candidate Forum In Walnut Creek

Given the relative ambivalence in recent special elections in California, where members of Congress have been elected with 10,000 votes or less, I'd consider it an accomplishment that hundreds of people flocked to the Walnut Creek Jewish Community Center last night, on a Friday night, to hear from six of the Democratic candidates who will seek to replace Ellen Tauscher in CA-10, once she is confirmed to an appointment at the State Department and resigns her seat. Reader dslc has a short on-site commentary here, and Lisa Vorderbrueggen has provided lots of multimedia over at Political Blotter. The audio recording doesn't seem to be working right now, but she had videos of every candidate's closing statement. In case you're just tuning in, those candidates include:

Lt. Governor John Garamendi
State Sen. Mark DeSaulnier
Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan
Adriel Hampton
Anthony Woods
Tony Bothwell

(Bothwell is a San Francisco-area attorney who doesn't yet have a campaign website, but here's his law office site.)

Sadly, this is pretty much the extent of major media coverage that exists of yesterday's event, despite several hundred residents and a Congressional race that impacts hundreds of thousands. Our dwindling press corps is definitely a problem. But based on the closing statements, you can decide for yourself who performed well last night. I'll just throw around some other links as the race really kicks into gear. As a side note, apparently Garamendi brought out the giant golden bear clearly planned as his mascot for a gubernatorial race.

• Luke Thomas interviews Joan Buchanan for the Fog City Journal, and Buchanan comes of as pretty knowledgeable about the challenges we face. She foregrounded her support of mass transit and BART expansion, health care reform (she supports single payer but wouldn't commit to supporting HR 676, and thinks that a plan currently moving through the House with a robust public option could be a "stepping stone" to single payer) and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (she generally supports Obama's position).

• Also in the Fog City Journal, Harold Brown has an op-ed about Adriel Hampton, claiming that "SF lefties are missing an opportunity" by not rallying to his campaign.

• Anthony Woods is getting a fair amount of attention on the blogs. AR Dem profiled him in this MyDD user diary, and today, Woods took questions at Firedoglake in a live chat session with Howie Klein. I thought he served himself well.

• There's another Democratic forum scheduled for July 2 in Antioch (Antioch City Hall, Second and H streets).

More Poaching

The President announced that Republican John McHugh (NY-23) will be nominated as Secretary of the Army. That's basically an administrative job as I understand it, not necessarily a policy job. So I'm fine with it.

And, this opens up another special election in a district where Democrats and Republicans are pretty closely divided. Obama won here 52-47. The Cook PVI is R+1. Down the road, I agree with Matt Yglesias that even if a Republican wins, he will have little clout to save his seat after 2010 redistricting, when New York is likely to lose a district based on population.

Obama has displayed a knack for increasing Democratic Congressional power and disarming opponents through these appointments.

Behold The Professional Cable News Guest

Newt Gingrich decided to show his expertise in California politics in the Washington Post today, arguing that the special election defeat was a triumph for anti-tax reformers. With only 1 of the 5 propositions defeated on the ballot having anything to do with taxes, and that one tied to a right-wing spending cap, and 2 of the others defeated to ensure the safety of VOTER-APPROVED TAXES FOR SPECIFIC PROGRAMS, it's a curious notion.

But Newt Gingrich knowing nothing about California just matches his lack of knowledge about really anything. And despite this, he continues to get a large megaphone to spread his disinformation.

It’s a really strange situation. If were an editor looking for an op-ed from a conservative point of view about the California budget crisis, I would turn to one of the members of the California State Senate, or to one of the members of the California State House of Representatives. If I wanted an op-ed from a conservative point of view about the implications of the California budget crisis for national politics, I think I would turn to one of the 19 different Republican members of the United States House of Representatives. But the Post went with a former House Speaker from Georgia, who last held elected office about ten years ago.

If I wanted a conservative politician to go up against Dick Durbin (D-IL), the number two Democrat in the United States Senate, my first choice would be Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who’s Durbin’s opposite number. But of course Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the top GOP dog, would be a great get too. Failing that, there are 37 other Republican Senators you can ask. And there are lots of conservatives in the House leadership who might have an enlightening point of view on whatever it is they’re up to. But Meet The Press went with a former House Speaker from Georgia, who last held elected office about ten years ago.

Matt Y. goes on to note that other former House leaders don't get nearly the kind of platform that Gingrich does. On Rachel Maddow's show the other day, The Nation's Chris Hayes mentioned that he sees Gingrich in green rooms all over town, and that he wonders what the hell he does all day.

I guess all it takes is running a newsletter and lying about your efforts to potentially run for President some day, and you too can be on the teevee 24 hours a day. As long as you're Republican.

Arnold's Waterloo Liveblogging

Actually, I'll probably just hang out at Calitics and blog the returns there, and laugh, and point.

The turnout levels are so pathetically low, and I don't see anyone motivated to turn out except the anti-tax crowd and those responsible enough to actually read the ballot measures before voting.

I think even 1F could go down. Honestly.

...Just to quickly go over the other elections taking place in California today.

City Attorney: This is a runoff election between Jack Weiss and Carmen Trutanich. This election got extremely nasty in the final weeks, although they pulled all their attack ads last night and went soft and cuddly for the stretch run. The low turnout probably favors Trutanich. If Antonio Villaraigosa cannot drag his pal Weiss across the finish line, then it speaks volumes about his ability to draw voters in what's supposed to be his local base.

LA City Council 5th District: This is another runoff between former Assemblyman Paul Koretz and neighborhood council leader David Vahedi. This happens to be a very engaged, well-off, activist district, so I would actually expect turnout to be decent, relatively speaking. Progressives have mobilized for Koretz, and most of the competitors in the first round primary endorsed him.

SD-26: Curren Price will be a state Senator by the end of the night, replacing Mark Ridley-Thomas. His Republican opponent is a rabbi, which rules, but I think he was outspent 300:1.

CA-32: This should be a very interesting race tonight, with Judy Chu, Gil Cedillo and Emanuel Pleitez the main competitors. Will Cedillo's nasty, negative strategy pay off? Did the late endorsers to Chu's campaign recognize a trend? Can Pleitez use social media politics to a good showing? We'll see.

Pre-Analyzing Today's Special Election

Well, this is it. After three months of argument, threats, projections, facts and figures, the special election on the budget has finally arrived. Voters now get to decide the fate of six ballot measures that will impact the near-term budget deficit and the long-term manner of budgeting in the state. Well, a FEW of the voters get to decide. I popped by my local polling place just to see the crowd size - I already voted absentee - and let's just say that the traffic was, er, light.

So here are a few lessons as we watch the results tonight:

• Money Isn't Everything - This race may finally put to rest that axiom of California politics about cash being king. The No side - and mind you, groups only raised money opposing for certain ballot measures - raised about $4.5 million dollars, all told. The Yes side raised over $26 million. Despite this 6.5:1 advantage, most polls show the first five measures on the ballot, the ones that actually affect the budget, going down to defeat. Prop. 1C, which had NO money against it and the state Democratic Party along with millions from G Tech (the makers of lottery machines) behind it, has consistently polled the worst among all measures. The No on 1A folks used a strategy that conserved dollars but did get out the message, in particular through Web and Google ads. But they were obliterated on the air and through mailers, and based on the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger skipped town and Budget Reform Now doesn't even have a headquarters tonight, it appeared not to matter.

• No Credible Messengers - The main reason these ballot measures are poised to fail is that, in general terms, absolutely no politician in this state has the trust of the people. Nobody could sell the message on the Yes side because nobody could even sell themselves. I've heard about internal polls with the legislature in single digits and the Governor below 30%. We have a crisis of confidence in California, and that stands to reason, considering the extent to which process has overwhelmed personality, making the state largely ungovernable without major revisions to that process.

• Take The Message You Want - The Yacht Party will certainly try to paint this as a victory for their anti-tax jihad, and it's highly likely that the dwindling state political media, and even possibly the Democratic leadership, will believe them. However, regardless of conservatives being "emboldened," the fact is that progressives opposed the special election for very specific reasons, and Democratic leaders must reconcile with that as well. The constraints on governance here in California are undeniable. And yet the time has come to stop finding ways around the mountain of structural problems and pick up the shovel and start digging through the mountain. It won't take overnight, and in the meantime there are solutions - some painful, some creative - that the leadership will have to take. But the message from the electorate, including those that sat this race out in anger or frustration, is that people don't want gimmicks and spending caps and service cuts. They want a functioning government and they don't see one, and they will continue to punish these people who call themselves leaders until they start acting like it.

• Musical Chairs - Curren Price will win election to SD-26 today, shrinking the need for Republican votes to reach the 2/3 threshold in the Senate to 2. At the same time, this will increase the need for Republican votes to reach the 2/3 threshold in the Assembly to 4. There are more targeted seats in the Assembly, so in the short term this is a slight net win. But it's obviously not optimal, and that Assembly seat may not get filled, if the SD-26 odyssey is any guide, until late fall.

Big Tailpipe Emissions Breakthrough, As Arnold Runs And Hides Again

The Obama Administration is poised to announce a major deal on tailpipe emissions standards, bringing the whole country under one federal standard that fairly closely appropriates what California passed in 2002 and has been trying to get a waiver from the feds about ever since.

President Obama will announce as early as Tuesday that he will combine California’s tough new auto-emissions rules with the existing corporate average fuel economy standard to create a single new national standard, the officials said. As a result, cars and light trucks sold in the United States will be roughly 30 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016.

The White House would not divulge details, but environmental advocates and industry officials briefed on the program said that the president would grant California’s longstanding request that its tailpipe emissions standards be imposed nationally. That request was denied by the Bush administration but has been under review by top Obama administration officials since January.

But Mr. Obama is planning to go further, putting in place new mileage requirements to be administered by the Department of Transportation that would match the stringency of the California program.

Under the new standard, the national fleet mileage rule for cars would be roughly 42 miles a gallon in 2016. Light trucks would have to meet a fleet average of slightly more than 26.2 miles a gallon by 2016.

This is a major victory for California, as well as a step forward for all sides of this debate. Auto companies, who apparently signed off on the deal, can now have certainty about their future production needs. The states can get out of court and provide a better environment for their constituents. And we all can breathe cleaner air while using less oil.

But the hilarious postscript must be highlighted. Politico reports that this deal will be announced tomorrow, with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in attendance. As CapAlert notes, there's just one problem: California has a statewide election tomorrow, and Arnold is not an absentee voter. Yes, the Governor, the head cheerleader and supporter of the special election, might miss out on voting in it (although, if the announcement takes place early enough, he could be reasonably expected to make it home before the polls close at 8pm).

You know Arnold can't resist the lure of the spotlight. And better for him to stand at the side of a popular President than try in vain to rescue a flawed set of ballot measures which have probably already failed, given the 2 million vote-by-mail ballots already cast. It probably appeals to him to leave town on Election Day and hide out in Washington. That's par for the course for him, failing to ever accept responsibility for the damage he's caused.

Arnold's New Budget Deficit - Trust But Verify

I have several questions about this sudden restatement of the budget deficit for the next year. First of all, this is not an independent assessment by the Legislative Analyst, but from the Department of Finance. No report was released accompanying the budget revise, just some raw numbers in a letter to the legislature. Apparently a dual revision, one based on whether the ballot measures pass and one based on whether they fail, will be illegally delivered on Thursday, despite the fact that the February budget deal calls for it to be released on May 28. The Governor is getting around this by calling the release a "summary," allowing them to AGAIN show no numbers, just a "trust me" belief that the deficit is now $15 billion, $21 billion if Props. 1C, 1D, and 1E go down.

More curious is this bit from John Myers:

Taking a closer look at the $15.4 billion deficit projection, aides to Schwarzenegger say that a full $7.4 billion of that is in the fiscal year that ends just 50 days from now; the remaining $8 billion is in the 2009-2010 fiscal year.

That $8 billion in the '09-'10 year matches up with March's projection by Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor. And given that Controller John Chiang announced last Friday a $2.1 billion shortfall in anticipated revenues for the current year... that leaves about $5 billion in what budget watchers might call "new" deficit in this announcement.

That doesn't make a lick of sense. I believe Chiang's numbers that we're $2 billion short in tax collection in the current year through April 30. I do not at all believe a Governor who has lied repeatedly about budget projections throughout his entire career, claiming $5 billion in new deficit in the last 50 days of the budget year. Especially because there are no independent numbers to check.

Like Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor, I would not be SURPRISED that we're not $15 billion out of balance. Some expenditure increases contributed to this deficit, and clearly the worsening economic picture has strained the revenue side. But I'm funny this way - I actually want to see the data. The Governor has spent the entire special election trying to scare people into compliance; would anyone but this Hail Mary pass with one week to go past him?

The Twin Crises

Browsing the papers today, I'm noticing quite a bit of confusion between the parallel crises California faces with respect to the budget. Jean Ross explains the difference pretty nicely between a cash flow crisis and a budget crisis in this post. The Legislative Analyst identified a cash crisis that arises out of the difference between when payments are due and when revenues enter the state's coffers. Because of that disparity, California and most other states must go out into the bond market and sell "revenue anticipation notes" to cover short-term cash needs, to be repaid when the revenue comes in. The budget crisis exacerbates the cash flow crisis, but the two are not the same thing. And the Legislative Analyst himself appeared to conflate them by claiming in his report that California faces $17 billion dollars in borrowing needs, but failure of Prop. 1C, 1D and 1E would require $23 billion in borrowing. Well, so would passage. Prop. 1C enables the government to BORROW against lottery revenue. This may not be short-term notes, but borrowing is borrowing, and due to the state's horrific credit rating, the interest rates will remain high no matter what kind of borrowing it is.

That borrowing will cost the state money and widen the deficit somewhat, but a decent amount of that is known beforehand, and baked into the cake of any budget deal. As Ross notes, the Legislative Analyst did not update his projection that the state faces an $8 billion dollar shortfall through July 2010, based on lower revenues than the projection in the February budget. However, John Chiang today estimated that current revenues through April are $2.1 billion out of balance with budget projections. According to the Legislative Analyst, this shortfall can be added to the $8 billion, because most of that referred to the next fiscal year. Doing the math...

Meanwhile, the Public Policy Institute of California just released a poll showing Propositions 1C, 1D and 1E trailing. Those measures would provide $5.8 billion in budget cash in 2009-10. Of particular concern for budget officials is that Proposition 1C is failing badly (32 percent for, 58 percent against), since it would provide $5 billion in cash.

If the ballot measures fail, the state would be looking at a $16 billion deficit (the LAO's $8 billion plus Chiang's $2.1 billion plus the ballot's $5.8 billion). But the LAO number came in March, after which economic indicators grew worse, which means the overall deficit figure could be higher than $16 billion.

Meanwhile, in the above-linked LA Times piece, the Schwarzenegger Administration floats a proposal to significantly address the prison overcrowding crisis:

As the ballot measures lag in the polls, the administration of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has begun revealing the cuts it is weighing as an alternative.

On Thursday, the administration advised law enforcement officials that it was preparing plans to commute the sentences of 38,000 state prison inmates, including all illegal immigrants. It also is considering closing some prisons and sending inmates to county jails, according to a copy of the proposal obtained by The Times.

Under the plan, 19,000 illegal immigrants -- 11% of state prisoners -- would be turned over to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency after having their sentences commuted. An additional 19,000 "relatively low-risk offenders" would have their sentences commuted as well.

The Governor tried this late last year and nothing really happened with it. Some of these ideas are OK and some are horrible - overburdening county jails won't exactly help either fiscally or from a public safety standpoint. But if the crisis can actually start a dialogue about our insane prison policies, I'm all for it.

CFT Sues Arnold For Education Funding Under Prop. 98

At last count, the California Teachers Association has dumped $10 million dollars or so into a FAIL whale of a special election, so they could secure their out-of-court settlement for $9.3 billion dollars in education money. It's important to understand what that money at stake in Prop. 1B represents. It's OWED to the schools. Not a gift, not a reward for good behavior, but owed. Under Prop. 98, the state must provide a minimum level of baseline funding to education, based on an algorithm that can be calculated in a number of ways. This Governor has consistently tried to under-calculate Prop. 98, and most recently, his Administration determined it in such a way that shortchanged the schools by $9.3 billion dollars. The education community could have demanded payment under statutory law, but instead the CTA decided to enter into what ultimately appears to be a failed bargain, whereby schools would receive money down the road from Prop. 1B if Prop. 1A, the funding mechanism for those payments, passed. The California Federation of Teachers, which unlike CTA has opposed Prop. 1A, yesterday did what would have been much cheaper for CTA to do, which is sue the state for the money owed the schools.

"Proposition 1B is going to fail, and besides that, we still have to worry about funding for 2009-10," said Marty Hittelman, CFT president. "We need to do this right away so we can take care of 2009-10, since they're already debating that. We want to make sure they understand they have to repay us."

After revenues sharply declined, the state cut 2008-09 school funding by $7.9 billion, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger believed the state did not legally owe that money back to education. School groups disagreed and threatened to sue the state before Schwarzenegger and lawmakers put Propositions 1A and 1B on the ballot to repay that money, plus another $1.3 billion owed from 2007-08.

CFT also wants the courts to resolve for good whether the state owes schools money in similar budget situations in the future.

Arnold Schwarzenegger has simply been untrustworthy when it comes to education, and has repeatedly broken the law when it comes to funding. You don't bargain with that, you fight it. Eventually, CFT and SEIU Local 99, also on the lawsuit, will win in court. And by the way, they'll end up getting the money faster than under Prop. 1B, which doesn't pay out until 2011-12. Not to mention that Prop. 1B is, you know, losing.

More on the PPIC poll here. Every ballot measure looks to fail, and PPIC has been more generous than the traditionally more accurate Field Poll.

Arnold: I Forgot, Am I Supposed To Scare People Or Reassure Them?

Jackfolsum alludes to it, but I wanted to highlight it as well. Arnold got tripped up a little bit today in front of the Jesusita Fire, caught in between telling Californians what they wanted to hear, or telling them they're all going to die. It's pretty amusing:

One of Schwarzenegger's strengths has been to respond to emergencies and assure local residents he will provide all support necessary. But that message clashes with his statements earlier this week that fire services would be jeopardized if voters reject the ballot measures on May 19.

Because he declared a state of emergency for the Santa Barbara fire, he said he was able to get the federal government to pay for 75 percent of the costs.

"This is very helpful for us because as you know, we have a financial crisis in California," Schwarzenegger said. "But I wanted to make sure you all know, even though we have this crisis, we will not be short of money when it comes to fighting these fires."

Oops! But Arnold's "strong leader/warrior/protector" shtick clashes with his "vote for my spending cap or you will BURN BURN BURN!!!" shtick. So he backpedaled.

"First of all, let me just make it clear, because there's always the question that comes up, what happens to the fire departments and to the budget if those initiatives don't pass," Schwarzenegger said. "The first thing you should know is, I will always fight and get every dollar I can for public safety, that is the important thing you should know."

"No. 2, it is very clear that when the initiatives fail there will be $6 billion less that will be available, so therefore there will have to be additional cuts made, if it is in law enforcement, fire, education," he added. "...But I will fight for every dollar, and will always make sure we have enough manpower and enough engines and helicopters ready to fight those fires."

Interesting use of "when the initiatives fail," not "if" there. Arnold reads the polls, I guess.

He really has no idea what he's doing. He wants to scare and please at the same time, so it comes out like mush.

Come to think of it, Arnold sounds a lot like the Californians seduced by the Two Santa Claus Theory, who want to cut services in general but protect services in particular. So maybe he's just giving the people what they want.

Budget Reform Now Becomes Budget Reform Later

The Budget Reform Now folks, on the heels of one ad narrowing their focus to Props. 1A & 1B, have released yet another, basically with the same script only substituting a teacher for the firefighter, warning of $16 billion in cuts if 1A & 1B fail to pass. 1A & 1B do NOTHING in the current budget year or the next. Nothing at all. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his cadres are exploiting a crisis with fearmongering tactics to gain a spending cap they can use to ratchet down state services forever.

This is very simple. If 1A's spending cap would immediately limit state services $16 billion dollars below the baseline funding needed to provide services at the current level, then $16 billion in services aren't at risk with the failure of 1A. They're at risk with passage. And that risk would be permanent, and would increase every year, well and above the two year extension of tax increases.

Arnold obviously doesn't give a damn about the current budget gap. Heck, he probably enjoys it; he can use his new furlough tools and threaten to set the state on fire and a host of other right-wing options. The golden goose for him and his rich supporters is the spending cap. And those Democrats who enable him in this effort ought to understand what they're supporting - a permanent reduction in services for the state's most vulnerable citizens. "What's your solution," is the phrase thrown around at us. The problem is we know theirs.

UPDATE: The latest brilliant idea from the Governor: raid local governments if the Props fail, a direct contradiction of his deal with cities to stop raiding their budgets five years ago. Under yet another Prop. 1A from 2004, the state can borrow 8% of property tax revenues (about $2 billion), which would have to be repaid with interest in three years. The credit cards are open for business again! While this measure represents 10-15% of the total projected budget gap, it would decimate services at the city and county level, services that - voila! - the state would need to step in to provide. Also the Governor cannot pull this off unilaterally: it would require a 2/3 vote of the legislature.

Message Received v. Message Assumed

Robert Cruickshank notes that the special election is in major trouble, with none of the five budget measures over 40% in the latest Field Poll. Cruickshank's advice ought to be taken by leading Democrats:

However, the overall numbers suggest that Republicans may be more likely to vote in this election, hence the seemingly likely failure of the first five. Democrats more strongly oppose Prop 1C, which as you know is the only one that makes any difference on May 20. That's not a stance borne of ignorance - 58% of all voters believe that it is unlikely that Prop 1C would significantly increase lottery revenues.

The poll also suggests that the legislature's lying ballot descriptions of Props 1D and 1E are having an impact. The wording in the sample ballot makes it sound like the money in those props is being shifted from one kind of children's and mental health programs to another, when in fact that money is just being dumped into the general fund with no guarantee at all that the money would help kids or the mentally ill. Those who plan to vote yes on 1D and 1E don't know this or don't believe it's true [...]

Democrats are more willing to give their leaders a chance. With Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, the CTA and nearly every elected Democratic official stumping for the whole package, likely Democratic voters - presumably those more inclined to pay close attention to legislators and CTA's ads - it's not surprising that most of the props hold a narrow lead among Dems (no proposition has higher than 53% support of Dems, aside from 1F). Of course, 1C does not, which gives fuel to the fire of my own "they should focus on 1C" argument - and in any case Democratic voter support for these things is tenuous, not of a large margin, and in the case of 1D and 1E, based on incorrect information.

Even that 53% margin among Democrats would be seen as very tenuous at this stage of an initiative battle. I agree that only 1C means anything to the short-term problem in the budget. The consequences of something like 1A, however, are permanent. Given that no opposition has sprung up around 1C, it makes far more sense to completely turn the message toward that at this point, even though it's in a bigger hole than the other measures. The strategy of combining the measures as a package deal is confusing voters and dooming the entire ballot.

Once again, with the special election likely to crater, what's important is the message received, not the message assumed. The claptrap that a loss on 1A would somehow embolden Republicans neglects the very loud message professed by progressives in this debate, a message which to this point, has basically split the Democratic rank and file, despite the fact that every leader and their mother in the Party support these measures. The establishment/grassroots divide is nothing short of historic, and the message that could be taken away is, simply, we want you to deal with the underlying structural issues, not more of the same failed band-aid solutions. While the oft-cited line in the poll from the Yacht Party will be that "if the budget measures are defeated it would send a message to the governor and the Legislature that voters are tired of more government spending and higher taxes," this is being enabled by a Democratic Party who thinks they are fighting Republican anti-tax forces on this instead of progressives in their own party with which they have a legitimate public policy dispute. Only one set of messages gets expressed in the wider media, because the Democrats have utterly failed in framing the debate properly, leaving us with this false impression.

Even Zed Hollingsworth concurs that Props. 1D and 1E were "Republican ideas" (in truth they all were), and that failure on those measures would mean that the electorate wants those successful First Five and mental health programs to continue untouched. Why the Democratic leadership can't take this message and run with it, and find themselves a mandate to deal with the structural problems, is completely alien to me. The state party passed a resolution supporting a majority vote budget at the recent convention. But its elected officials haven't gotten the message.

Obligatory Brown/Newsom Past/Future Race To The Governor's Mansion Post

I've been pretty up front in questioning whether or not the next Governor matters compared to the structural reforms needed to get California back on a sustainable course. Nevertheless, the off-year CDP convention in Sacramento does traditionally kick off the following year's gubernatorial race, and this year was no different. Given what we know right now, I think it's highly probable, actually, that the Democratic primary will feature only two candidates. Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom were the only two with any visibility whatsoever in Sacramento, and while Antonio Villaraigosa may still feel he can jump in late and capture a healthy share of the Latino vote in any primary, his awkward exit from the festivities does not lead me to believe that he will bother with the race.

If that is the case, we have a virtual mirror-image of the 2008 national Democratic primary, with a candidate positioning himself as looking to the future against a candidate firmly implanted in the past. That's the general belief, anyway, and there's quite a bit of truth to that. Clearly, Mayor Newsom's convention speech continually framed the choice for voters as "whether we’re going to move forward in a new direction or whether we’re going to look back." Clearly, each candidate has a profile that fits that general mold. And the general mood of each candidate's signature event, with Brown lolling at the old Governor's Mansion with his 1974 blue Plymouth in the driveway, literally an historical set piece, while Newsom closed off a street and held a block party featuring Wyclef Jean (and got what amounts to an endorsement from Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson when he introduced Newsom as "the next Governor of California"), could not have been more different.

And yet Jerry Brown has always been something of a political futurist, someone who was mocked in his time for being unrealistic and silly, on issues which are now firmly in the mainstream of the American political debate. And as CalBuzz points out, Brown's presentation to the convention may be closer to the zeitgeist than Newsom's right now:

While Newsom (a Hillary supporter, BTW) spent the weekend trying to position himself as Obama to Brown’s Clinton, General Jerry delivered a Jim Hightower-like jeremiad to the convention, filled with rips and roars at financial insiders and white collar criminals. In tone and substance it seemed closer to tapping the populist zeitgeist of these financially troubled times than did Newsom's effort to fight the last war.

Voters fed up with Governor Arnold's shattered promises to “blow up boxes” and sweep clean the mess in Sacramento may well be in the mood for less “change” and more common sense, which happens to be Brown’s political meme du jour.

Ultimately, I don't cotton much to these popularity-based views of major elections, preferring to judge on substance. The primary electorate is older, but that means there's more potential for increasing turnout among youth, so we'll see where that leads. But ultimately, I'm going to judge on the basis of substance, particularly with respect to structural reform. And while Brown gave a fairly nice speech, highlighting his high-profile work as Attorney General suing the likes of Wells Fargo, in essence he left unanswered the charges that he is an apostle for fantasyland in thinking he can just bring Democrats and Republicans in a room together and get them to work everything out. On the other hand, Newsom, in a meet and greet with bloggers, came out once again in favor of a Constitutional convention to put all of these contradictory and hobbling budget and governing ideas on the chopping block and work from scratch to figure out a way to organize the state that makes sense. You can ague with his somewhat rosy picture of his record - as I have - but you cannot argue that he has a forward-looking view of how to finally blow up this insanely dysfunctional structure.

On the near-term issue of the special election, Brown has appeared on stage with Arnold Schwarzenegger to tout the Yes side on all measures, while Newsom has not. In fact, he expressed his opposition to Props. 1C, 1D and 1E, saying "I can't get my arms around balancing the budget with lottery money" and that 1D and 1E would raid successful and cost-effective programs. Now, what I can't get MY arms around is Newsom's support for 1A, particularly because he explained that his first instinct was to oppose, but that he "had to be responsible" and look at the impact on city budgets. However, 1A would provide no budgetary relief for two years, while 1C, 1D and 1E, which he opposes, would. In clarifying this, Newsom spokesman Eric Jaye explained that the impact on city budgets could be made worse by the bond markets seeing the failure of 1A and raising their interest rates, but there's definitely a tension there. Perhaps Newsom thinks that he can fix whatever damage is done by a constitutional convention, but a voter-approved spending cap would be hard to cancel out within a the space of a year or two.

(More on the Newsom blogger meetup in a later post.)

I think there's room to be critical of both candidates, as well as room to be praiseworthy. But rather than framing this election along cultural or generational lines, I think it's necessary to frame it along the policies they would both bring to Sacramento and whether they make sense for progressives to get behind. So it's not past vs. future for me so much as success vs. FAIL.

Aftermath Of The Proposition Battle: Listen To The Range Of Debate

Those who followed the proposition thread know the outcome, but in case you need a recap, Big Media's got your back as well.

Efforts by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders to win voter approval of six budget measures on the May 19 ballot grew more difficult Sunday when a sharply split state Democratic Party declined to back three of them.

The mixed verdict by more than 1,200 delegates to a state party convention came after a nasty floor fight over the grim menu of proposed solutions to California's severe budget crisis.

"We've got all kinds of divisions," Art Pulaski, leader of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, said of the fractures among unions that drove the party's internal rift. "It's not unusual for us."

Republicans, too, are split on Propositions 1A through 1F. The state Republican Party has broken with Schwarzenegger, its standard-bearer, and begun fighting the measures.

Taken together, the muddled messages from California's two major parties threaten to fuel the sort of voter confusion that often spells doom for complicated ballot measures.

This is pretty on the money. There's a split within both parties, one that Democratic leaders aren't coming to terms with. Neither side has taken heed of its grassroots, at least in part. With the propositions in trouble, we must take an eye to the message that will come out in the aftermath. The truth is that Democrats have a principled policy difference here, and those legitimate concerns should not be discounted by the leadership in favor of a narrative that voters opposed the ballot because of 2 years' worth of certain tax increases. In fact, the word "taxes" was not used once on the floor of the convention by those opposed to 1A or any other measure. We oppose these measures because we find them deeply harmful to the future functioning of the state. We believe there's a better way in the short term, with the majority-vote fee increase, and the long-term, with the end of the conservative veto and a more sustainable course, based on broader-based taxation to pay for the services all Californians desire. We reject in whole the dumbed-down, simplistic framing that 1A would "reform the budget" and failure would court disaster.

As for the spin that delegates "supported" the measures on the "May 11 ballot" (Steve, you should probably get the date right if you're working for the Yes side), and a "supermajority quirk in party rules" was used by opponents, I really don't know what to even say to that. First of all, the quirk has been on the books for a long time, and it was actually progressives like Dante Atkins who have been working to reform the endorsement process, so welcome to the party. Next, with fully 1/3 of the delegates electeds and appointeds, most of whom negotiated and supported the deal, and another 1/3 elected by county committees, and another 1/3 grassroots delegates elected at caucuses, a 60% threshold, which again was never argued by these people when it worked for them, represents a fairly broad consensus of all three sectors. Finally, if you went state by state, I would imagine you would find such a threshold in many if not most state Democratic parties, whereas the 2/3 rule for the budget, to which some are making a false equivalence, only finds parallel in Arkansas and Rhode Island. I would be all too happy to completely reform the endorsement process and even question its use by the party outright, that would be a fine debate. But whining about known rules sounds like Hillary Clinton's staff bemoaning the fact of caucuses in the 2008 primary when they knew the facts for years. The grapes, they are sour.

Now that the endorsement battle is over and the election just weeks from being done, let's have a dialogue instead of a lecture, and let's take the concerns seriously of those who reject the false messiah of a spending cap and raiding important voter-approved initiatives and balancing the budget on the backs of gamblers. Let's actually advocate for something rather than being forced to accept something. Let's not worry about "what the Republicans will say" and let's not sniff that "pie in the sky solutions won't work." Let's reform the state and come out with a government that works.

Barbara Boxer On Bybee Impeachment: "I'm Very Open To That."

At a press avail following her speech at the California Democratic Party convention, I asked Sen. Boxer about the Resolutions Committee passing support for a Congressional inquiry into the actions of torture judge Jay Bybee and the imposition of all possible penalties including impeachment. She said "I'm very open to that.... there is an ongoing investigation at the Justice Department into his work (at the Office of Professional Responsibility -ed), and we'll see how that goes. But I'm very open to that. And I'll remind everyone that I didn't vote for him when his nomination came up. I was one of 19 to do so."

Needless to say, the support from Sen. Boxer will be a great help in the Resolutions Committee, when they prioritize the top ten resolutions to send to the floor of the convention tomorrow.

The other interesting tidbit from the presser was that Sen. Boxer offered no indication of her endorsement on the ballot measures for the special election on May 19. She says she and Sen. Feinstein haven't studied the measures yet, and that they will get together in Washington and offer a joint statement once they make their decision. "I'll let you know when I go public. But let me say this - the budget process in California is dysfunctional, because of the super-majority needed to pass a budget and tax increases. And until we get to the root causes of changing that, it's very difficult to do anything." This pretty much tracks with what we've been saying for a long time. Until you pass #1, it won't matter if you pass #2-#10.

Other topics covered included torture investigations (Boxer supports the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that Sen. Leahy recommended), the fate of cram-down provisions in the Senate ("Sen. Durbin is doing a heroic job... the banks are still a major lobbying group."), potential opponents in her 2010 re-election (I hope nobody runs against me!"), and the news of a budget reconciliation deal on health care in the Senate (she didn't have much to say on that other than that reconciliation should always be on the table, as it was during the Reagan years, and that the situation is "in flux.") Boxer was at her most eloquent answering a question about the rule of law and the impression that those at the highest levels of power, be it the banksters or the torture regime, were above it. "The law must prevail... the people should feel that something's wrong, if nothing is done on torture. If we don't like a law, we repeal it, we don't ignore it."