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 »

Now this is a federal intervention I can believe in:

The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget.

Schwarzenegger's office was advised this week by federal health officials that the wage reduction, which will save California $74 million, violates provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Failure to revoke the scheduled wage cut before it takes effect July 1 could cost California $6.8 billion in stimulus money, according to state officials....

The SEIU said in a statement that it had asked the Obama administration for the ruling.

Combined with the CFT lawsuit this action shows a new aggressiveness coming from progressive unions, and is *precisely* the right strategy to take against those who would demand or accede to the economically insane policy of wage cuts for these workers. The failure of the May 19 election proves the failure of an accommodationist strategy - Republican demands for government destruction can only be countered through strong pushback.

This is also a welcome step from the federal government, which did not have to make this ruling. It would be nice if DC would get even more aggressive about oversight of the stimulus money. The education stimulus, for example, ought to have been conditioned on states refusing to layoff teachers or cut education budgets.

By demanding this federal ruling, and by suing over the Prop 98 funds, SEIU and CFT have done far more to help prevent crippling budget cuts than the millions spent by CTA and other progressive organizations trying in vain to convince Californians to accept a bad deal that will make the budget situation worse, not better.

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.

As Arnold Schwarzenegger starts the campaign for the May 19 special election ballot measures, the Legislative Analyst's Office points out that the budget deal will come up short by $8 billion and that it hasn't solved our structural revenue shortfall problems:

"Unfortunately, the state's economic and revenue outlook continues to deteriorate," the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) said in a review of the package, which covered the remainder of this fiscal year and all of the next.

"Even in the few weeks since the budget was signed, there have been a series of negative developments. Our updated revenue forecast projects that revenues will fall short of the assumptions in the budget package by $8 billion. Consequently, the Legislature and governor will need to adopt billions of dollars in additional solutions in the coming months to bring the 2009-10 budget back into balance."

Taylor had some more bad news for the state's political leaders. Because so many of the "solutions" adopted last month are temporary, "without corrective actions, the state's huge operating deficits will reappear in future years - growing from $12.6 billion in 2010-11 to $26 billion in 2013-14."

The full LAO report in fact makes some assumptions I would consider rosy, such as a recovery in employment and personal income in 2009, when many economists do not expect this to occur until the second half of 2010 at best.

What this means is that the budget situation is still a total mess, and that improvement is far away. The May 19 election will have little meaningful impact on the state's financial health, although a spending cap would ensure that services will continue to be gutted. Republicans and Arnold Schwarzenegger are likely to use the deficit projections as an argument for Prop 1A, when all that will accomplish is an even worse destruction of core services, such as schools which could face larger cuts than what we're seeing now, a truly frightening thing to consider.

This also means political leaders who deny the need to find tax solutions, like Jerry Brown, are not being realistic. Fundamental change is necessary, and perhaps a constitutional convention alongside the elimination of the 2/3 rule conservative veto can help get us there.

One thing is certain - if anyone thinks California can remain a competitive place to do business and attract jobs and employees with the worst school system in the nation and no ability to address our water, transportation, or health care crises, they are deeply deluded.