Below is the text of a letter I sent to members of the LGBT Legislative Caucus and Equality California, in response to an email EQCA sent on May 16, on behalf of the LGBT Caucus which urged "Yes" votes on Propositions 1A-1E.

I am writing to express my disappointment in both EQCA and the members of the LGBT Caucus for the email regarding the May 19 special election. First of all, I want to say that I understand that the propositions on the ballot exist only because California has a totally screwed-up budget process and that these propositions were part of the compromise that finally saw the budget ratified. I appreciate that the LGBT Caucus is probably merely holding up their end of the bargain in urging a blanket "Yes" vote on all the propositions -- at least I hope that is their reason. I also respect the fact that as the primary LGBT-lobbying organization in the state, EQCA has a reciprocal relationship with members of the LGBT caucus and, though without taking an official position on the propositions in question, did the Caucus a political favor by sending this message out to the EQCA listserv.

But now I want to take a moment to hopefully help you to understand my situation, and why I am so tremendously disappointed in both the LGBT Caucus and EQCA for what I believe is ultimately a cynical, political accommodation that will have grievous effects on many families. A simple disclaimer does not absolve EQCA of its social responsibility to the members of the LGBT community who look to them to provide sound political and legislative advice. Nor does being LGBT entitle the Caucus to use an organization like EQCA to facilitate its backdoor political deals.   Read More »

April is the state's big revenue month, as personal income taxes flow into the Franchise Tax Board and refund checks flow out (leaving me a whopping $200 richer). Unsurprisingly, this April's receipts were significantly below expectations:

April, by far the largest tax collection month for California, ended in a whimper, coming up more than $1.8 billion short in personal income and corporate taxes.

California was about $750 million short of projected tax collection after March, and April's shortfall puts it $2.5 billion behind for the fiscal year ending June 30.

So we're already $9 billion in the hole. If Propositions 1C, 1D and 1E fail, as it looks like they will, then the deficit could grow to $16 billion.

The size of the May 20 deficit suggests the need for Democratic legislators - the same people who constantly ask "what's YOUR plan?" of progressive opponents of the flawed May 19 propositions - to answer that question themselves. A $9 billion deficit doesn't seem like a good time to straitjacket ourselves further with a spending cap and a "rainy day fund on steroids" via Prop 1A, or blow a $2 billion hole in the budget by selling more lottery bonds than there are lottery revenues.

And so today Dan Walters asks the same question I asked a couple weeks ago - What's Plan B?:

More taxes? Rejection of Proposition 1A, the linchpin measure, would not only short-circuit the taxes enacted in February but probably make any additional levies politically impossible. Democratic leaders could try again to enact taxes without Republican votes but would face a legal challenge and political fallout. A massive bailout from Washington? Unlikely.

This is an immense mess, partly caused by the recession, partly caused by years of fiscal irresponsibility. And it may be the day of reckoning that Capitol politicians had long avoided, compounded by the obvious anger of voters....

Wholesale slaughter of state spending may be their only option. This is a pivotal point in California political history, a fiscal Armageddon.

This is where the absence of a coordinated progressive and Democratic pushback against the demand to cut spending and the ideologies that underlay it is so vital. Instead Democratic legislators have cast the post-May 19 spending cuts as somehow inevitable, instead of rallying the base to fight those cuts. Had that rallying effort been done I am convinced that there would be greater support from Democrats and progressives for the May 19 propositions.

The May 20 strategy, as I see it, involves at least these pieces:

• Majority vote budget



• Wealth taxes



• Reverse corporate tax cuts



• Push repeal of the 2/3rds rule



• Immediate and meaningful prison reform



• Legalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana

Walters speculates that with record low approval ratings the legislature isn't in any position to lead these kind of changes. Here I disagree. I think their low ratings are precisely /because/ they haven't yet offered these kinds of solutions.

The other argument is of course that none of the above are possible because of Republican obstruction. But that's begging the question. It is *long past time to challenge Republican obstructionists.* This is a party that has hardly any public support any longer. They are vulnerable to attack.

The best place to start is higher income taxes on the wealthy. 75% of voters support those taxes, according to the recent Field Poll. Democrats should pick a *big* fight on that starting on May 20. Force Republicans to use the 2/3 rule to kill those taxes - and you've got yourself on hell of a winning issue for 2010. Or you actually force Republicans to climb down and back those taxes.

The point is that no matter what happens on May 19 we're going to have a massive deficit and therefore a fight on our hands on May 20. Let's come together as progressives and Democrats, no matter our views on the propositions, to prepare to win that battle.

Over at Calitics David Dayen wrote about the letter Karen Bass and Darrell Steinberg sent to CDP delegates asking them to endorse Props 1A-1F at next weekend's convention. I found it striking that they felt the need to contact delegates about this, and it clearly suggests they've seen the grassroots rebellion within the party against the May 19 propositions.

As a CDP delegate myself I expect to be in the thick of the endorsement battle in Sacramento, and as a member of the Calitics Editorial Board I plan to support our "no on everything" endorsement at the convention.

That being said, I don't agree with the increasingly negative attacks being levied at Speaker Bass and Senator Steinberg in the comments to David's post. They are both good progressives who have been backed into a corner by the severity of the economic crisis and the Zombie Death Cult's desire to see this state go over the cliff. I don't agree with how they handled that tough spot but I have no doubt they believe they've made the choices that were necessary for the welfare of everyone in this state.

In my capacity as Public Policy Director for the Courage Campaign I've had the chance to talk with Speaker Bass at some length about the May 19 propositions and she is passionate about the need to bring some revenue to the budget to stave off worse cuts. Again, I disagree with the way she's looking at this - these propositions are going to worsen the long-term budget mess, ensuring that ugly cuts will be made, whether it's in 2009 or 2013 or 2015 - but her position is understandable.

And yet she is not winning the argument. Democratic clubs across the state are either rejecting the package outright or are endorsing one or two of the initiatives with great reluctance and only after a considerable lobbying effort. There is no enthusiasm at all for these proposals among most Democrats and progressives, even those who endorse them.

This is due to several factors: the inherent problems with the proposals, the lack of trust and faith in Democratic leaders, the lack of a long-term strategy, and terrible framing. All of these are related. As David Dayen has repeatedly demonstrated, the chief selling point of the initiatives by Democratic electeds is fear. Fear that unless we hold our noses and approve these inherently conservative proposals (Prop 1B being the only one that might not be fundamentally right-wing in nature) Californians will suffer, that schools and health care and local governments will be made to pay the price of balancing the budget.

What that demonstrates is the deeper problem - there is no May 20 strategy coming from the Sacramento Democrats. They aren't offering any kind of plan for what happens the day after the election. And they need to, because win or lose, the state will still face a multibillion deficit on May 20.

Of particular concern is the fact that few if any Democratic legislators seem to be planning to fight the concept of budget cuts or to fight for wealth taxes. In the conversations I've had with Assemblymembers and Senators and their staffers on the May 19 election, they almost all argue that horrifying cuts are an inevitability if the May 19 props fail. They don't seem interested in, or confident in their ability to, mobilize the people of California against Republican efforts to destroy our government, to mobilize voters for saving schools, hospitals, buses, and jobs.

It might have been possible to mobilize some of the Democrats and progressives who oppose the May 19 props to support them, despite the fact they represent bad public policy - if they had any confidence that there was a clear May 20 strategy. That strategy would have to show how the Dems will resist Republican demands for cuts, to move the ball forward on the 2/3 rule and wealth taxes, and to provide economic growth.

But there has been no such strategy offered, not now, and really not at any time since 1978. These ballot propositions are sadly typical of the product of the Democratic legislature over the last 30 years - a slightly less wingnutty set of proposals that Democrats feel obligated to support, and that they insist we become a party to by ratification at the ballot box. If the grassroots had any confidence that the Democratic legislature had a clear and compelling plan to fight for progressive budget solutions, more of them might be willing to reluctantly back the initiatives as a necessary evil. (To be clear, I do not count myself among this number, and I cannot imagine a scenario where I would support 1A or 1C-1F.)

What is happening is that Democratic and progressive grassroots activists, joined by a number of prominent progressive organizations (from labor unions like CNA to good government organizations like the League of Women Voters), are rejecting the entire way of thinking that went into the May 19 proposals.

The current crisis is the product of too much short-term conservative-lite solutions. No matter what happens on May 19, we will be confronted with the same basic crisis on May 20. It is long past time for us to articulate progressive proposals, educate the public on their value and the problems with conservative "solutions," and organize voters to enact them.

*That* is what the opponents of the May 19 initiatives are saying. Perhaps we will have to produce a May 20 strategy ourselves.

The PPIC is out with a new poll. They are a generally well regarding polling outfit here in CA. The top-lines that are getting all of the headlines are their numbers on the initiatives on the May 19th special election. Yes, folks, there is an election in a few weeks, due to the disaster that is our state budget.

According to the PPIC, all of the initiatives, which were placed on the ballot by the legislature are going down, except for the one that would eliminate pay raises for legislators when there is a budget deficit.

Here are the specific numbers via Dave at Calitics:

Proposition 1A: About four in 10 support the measure (39% yes, 46% no, 15% undecided) to change the budget process by increasing the state "rainy day" fund. Less than half say the measure would be very (7%) or somewhat (38%) effective in helping California avoid future state budget deficits.

Proposition 1B: They are divided (44% yes, 41% no, 15% undecided) on the initiative that would require future supplemental payments to local school districts and community colleges to address recent budget cuts.

Proposition 1C: Half oppose (37% yes, 50% no, 11% undecided) the measure to modernize the lottery and allow for $5 billion in borrowing from future lottery profits to help balance next year's state budget.

Proposition 1D: Nearly half support (48% yes, 36% no, 16% undecided) the proposition to temporarily transfer funds from early childhood education to help balance the state budget.

Proposition 1E: Nearly half favor (47% yes, 37% no, 16% undecided) the measure to transfer money from mental health services to the general fund to help balance the state budget.

Proposition 1F: An overwhelming majority (81% yes, 13% no, 6% undecided) support the initiative that would block pay increases to state elected officials in years of budget deficit.

Anything under 55-60% at this point in the game before the campaigns heat up are in danger territory. Being below 50% is in seriously big trouble and likely to go down.

CTA just put $2 million into Prop 1B, but that may not be enough to save it, particularly because 1B has a poison pill. If Prop 1A does not pass, then Prop 1B is rendered meaningless. Prop 1A has a lot more opponents than any of the other initiatives from both side of the aisle.

It is hard to conceive at this point that Prop 1A passes, given that the biggest proponents are the legislature and the governor. Their terrible approval ratings do not make them good messengers. A lot depends on how the union endorsements shake out, since they bring both cash and good messengers: teachers, nurses, cops and firefighters anybody?

If these all fail then the budget deficit will swell again, but the question is are the solutions in the initiatives worse than original problem. There are no easy answers here.

These ballot numbers are getting the lion share of the attention, but the poll also includes new figures on marriage equality. Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly nothing much has changed.

49% are opposed to marriage equality, 44% are in favor. While the issue has been in the news due to the court case, legal arguing is unlikely to sway public opinions.

Only hard work contacting voters and a sustained campaign will change hearts and minds.

Say what you will about Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Republicans - they learn from their mistakes.

In the 2005 special election they made it easy for labor unions and progressives to unite to defeat his proposals. The attacks on unions were like red cloth to a bull, and that enabled a big and broad coalition to come together to deal Arnold a significant defeat.

Arnold never abandoned his goals of breaking the power of his Democratic and progressive enemies. This time he and his Republican allies in the Legislature decided on a different approach - offering unions a Faustian bargain designed to screw them no matter which option they choose, as today's Sacramento Bee explains:

Unions last month were attacking the budget deal for including a limit on future state spending growth and $15 billion in cuts to state programs. The spending limit must be approved by voters in Proposition 1A to take effect.

Fearing that unions could mount a successful opposition campaign, lawmakers and Schwarzenegger crafted the budget deal so that increased taxes on income, sales and vehicles would last up to an additional two years if Proposition 1A passes.

The strategy assumed that the additional state tax revenue, worth as much as $16 billion between 2011 and 2013, would provide enough incentive for unions to let Proposition 1A go unchallenged.

The deal even included a specific deal with the devil for the California Teachers Association - Proposition 1B, which would restore $9 billion in educational funding in 2011 and afterward, which is also predicated on the passage of the spending cap. CTA has taken an "interim support position" on Prop 1B but like SEIU has not taken a position yet on Prop 1A.

These tactics on the part of Arnold and the Republicans is part of a broader strategy to force progressives and Democrats to defend bad deals, and leave room for conservatives to score points by opposing them. The Howard Jarvis Association and Meg Whitman have both come out against Prop 1A and may spend some money to try and defeat it.

To me the answer for progressives seems clear - reject the deal with the devil and strongly oppose Prop 1A. (In fact, there is a strong case for opposing /all/ the propositions on the May ballot but right now my focus is the spending cap.)

The tax increases would not immediately disappear, but would expire in mid-2010 along with the rest of the current budget deal. Since we're going to have to mount a big fight anyway at that time, why agree to a crippling spending cap that will at best provide just a few years of new revenues at a truly enormous long-term cost?

Keep in mind this chart from the California Budget Project on the likely effect of a spending cap on future budgets:



Those are enormous cuts that we'll face in the next decade. If Democrats, progressive activists, and labor unions don't oppose this thing, then we'll be letting the devil get our soul.