Steve Wiegand of the Sacramento Bee telegraphed his intention yesterday to spread the right-wing myth that California has a spending problem. And sure enough, that's what we got from Wiegand today in an article with the stunning title of "State officials spread loot like Santa." That quote comes from Dave Doerr, head of the right-wing California Tax Association, and furthers the myth that California "overspends" and is, unfortunately, *not* a reference to the "two Santa Claus" theory.

Wiegand's article repeats many of the right-wing frames about state spending - yet at the same time it actually examines the structural revenue shortfall. The two are related, of course - Wiegand's study of the structural deficit is vague and lacking much detail, and is used to buttress the argument that California overspends. In short, Wiegand is taking as gospel the right-wing claim that our state budget mess is a product of overspending, when in fact it is a problem of undertaxing. Take this section of the article, for example:

Doerr's observation is borne out by a Bee analysis of California's spending and debt patterns compared to other states', which found California spends more per capita than the national average in every government program except highways and public welfare - but consistently runs budget deficits and takes on more and more debt.

Why would that necessarily be a bad thing? Most other states are penurious with their public spending, and have economic and social problems that reflect such miserly policies.

Doerr appears again:

Doerr's reference is to a penchant of lawmakers and governors over the past three decades to spend whatever money they have on hand - and promise even more - then let succeeding budget drafters fend for themselves.

This is in fact a core conservative frame. They believe that when it comes to budgets, you can spend whatever you take in, and nothing more. If you have $100 billion in revenues one year and $80 billion the next, then you just have to cut $20 billion in spending, no matter the effect.

A progressive budget frame is that it is government's job to see to it that certain tasks get done because they are inherently valuable or necessary. This might include keeping open 220 state parks, or ensuring children under age 10 learn in classrooms of no more than 20 students, or that our state's children and poor families have access to health care no matter the state of the economy.

Under that frame, the "overspending" claims are rendered even more absurd than the Wiegand article shows them to be, given its lack of explanation in most places for what actually caused the spending spikes. California needs to find the revenue to maintain core services, and to maintain and even expand government employment as a counter-cyclical recovery measure. The UCLA Anderson Forecast showed that budget cuts have worsened CA's recession - but none of that seems to have made it into Wiegand's article.

Given the dearth of media coverage of California politics, it's especially unfortunate that when a major paper chooses to devote so much time and space to examining the budget crisis, they have not only gotten it so deeply wrong, but have wound up reinforcing right-wing dogma in the process.

I don't know about you, but I can't find anything in the outcome of the May 19 election that justifies, say, ending welfare entirely, or denying AIDS patients life-saving medicines, or throwing a million kids off of health care, or closing the state park system, or eliminating affordable access to higher education. Can you?

In fact, even though polls show voters emphatically *reject* that kind of budgeting Arnold Schwarzenegger has gone ahead and proposed it anyway. In his best effort to play the role of a modern-day Herbert Hoover he has decided to interpret the election as a mandate to push through the radical attack on government he has always wanted to lead.

In recent hearings in the Legislature - which in themselves prove the value of an open budget process - the scope of the cuts has become clear, and even legislators who were just last week speaking of the need for cuts are starting to have second thoughts, as Anthony Wright reported:

Some members, like Senator Denise Ducheny, asked whether some of these cuts would not create more costs, as people end up in emergency rooms or elsewhere, even within the budget year. "What makes you think this doesn't create a cost shift?... Will people just die and we won't have to take care of them?" she asked.

Senator Mark Leno talked about how the AIDS Drug Assistance Program "literally keeps people alive," and asked for information about the increased cost of ermegency room visits as a result of the cut. Senator Alan Lowenthal asked if there was a "longitudinal" analysis, and asked for the "long-range implications" of these cuts.

Assemblywoman Noreen Evans was alarmed when she noted that dialysis would be cut for some patients, exclaiming that her father was going through such treatment, and was not optional. She also noted that some cuts, like the elimination of HIV Testing, would have public health impacts. Assemblyman Kevin DeLeon pointed out the cuts to community clinics, arguing that for many Californians, "this is the only safety-net they have."

As the Sac Bee reports, even some Republicans acknowledge that there is such a thing as a successful government program:

Assemblyman Danny Gilmore, R-Hanford, wrote an opinion piece this month for the Bakersfield Californian telling constituents how to apply to Healthy Families and touting it as a program that works "especially well."

Of course, the Zombie Death Cult still has its adherents, like Chuck DeVore:

But Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, said the state must scale back because it cannot afford the benefits it provides. DeVore asserted that overregulation and high taxes have stifled businesses and led to layoffs, while California has compounded the problem with too much public aid.

"When you have an unemployment rate as high as it is in this state, it should be a signal to people to look for jobs in other states with more jobs and a lower cost of living," DeVore said. "We have had policies subsidizing poverty in this state for years, and we can't keep doing that."

And this guy wants to be in the US Senate! The irony is that even his own constituents disagree with him. Orange County residents don't want their parents to lose dialysis treatment. They don't want their kids to lose Cal Grants. They don't want to be barred from going to the nearby beach.

As we have been explaining for months now, these kinds of cuts are suicidal. They will make the budget picture worse by costing more money than the cuts would save. They will certainly make the economic crisis FAR worse by forcing consumers to pull back even further on spending in order to replace the lost state aid. Arnold Schwarzenegger is demanding a Depression.

Unfortunately the legislative leadership has woefully unprepared themselves to respond. Instead of spending the months leading up to the May 19 election talking about protecting Californians against horrific cuts, the Democratic leadership instead went along with Arnold's scare tactics and made a cuts-only budget sound inevitable - and then doubled down the day after the election.

It's time for legislators to "just say no" to these cuts. And not say it in order to accept lesser but similarly damaging cuts, but say "no" in order to walk through the wide open door that leads out of the Jarvis nightmare scenario. We have a golden opportunity to bury 30 years of anti-tax nonsense - Californians understand that taxes are necessary to prevent people from dying and to provide economic recovery. There is widespread support for raising taxes on the wealthy, closing the loopholes, and ending a failed prisons policy that costs us billions.

It's time for legislators to move beyond outrage and to start showing real leadership against this madness. If they want to restore their reputations with voters, the best way to do so is to show that the Legislature still understands common sense and can give the people what they want - a fair tax system that will stop these cuts in their entirety.

Yesterday's Media News Group papers, including the Monterey Herald, ran an article purporting to provide "the answer to where California's tax dollars went" - why we're in a budget crisis. Their answer: California overspent.

A MediaNews analysis of state spending since Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger took office in late 2003 found that he and the Democratic-controlled Legislature have spent money well beyond the rate of inflation and California's population growth -- $10.2 billion more.

Yet the programs that received most of that money are priorities that Californians broadly support or have demanded at the ballot box: tougher prison sentences for criminals, health care for uninsured children and an aging population, and a cut in the "car tax" that they pay every year to register their vehicles.

The problem, according to a report last week from the state auditor, is that Republican and Democratic politicians in Sacramento have shirked their responsibility for the past decade, papering over shortfalls that started after the dot-com bubble popped in 2001.

Like homeowners paying off one credit card with another, they used accounting gimmicks and more debt, rather than raising taxes or cutting spending, to balance the books.

It's a classic case of journalistic truthiness - some facts and accurate analysis wrapped inside a totally misleading frame. But in making this analysis, and emphasizing that the growth in state spending came from core programs - education, health care, and prisons - they have actually reinforced the argument I made nearly a year ago that we have a structural revenue shortfall. As I explained it:

The real problem is that since 1978 this state has cut nearly $12 billion in taxes. This was done during economically prosperous periods, particularly the 1990s. And that lack of revenue has piled up over the years - the state has fallen further and further behind to the point now that our state's governor is seriously proposing ending public education as we know it.

The MNG story is framed as one of "foolish politicians recklessly overspent our money! if only they'd been more careful!" But within the story itself the truth does emerge:

Schwarzenegger's first act as governor, signing an executive order to cut the vehicle license fee by two-thirds, blew a large hole in the state budget. It saved the average motorist about $200 a year but would have devastated the cities and counties that had been receiving the money. So Schwarzenegger agreed to repay them every year with state funds. That promise now costs the state $6 billion a year, or $2 billion more than the rate of inflation and population growth since early 2003.

MNG claims there was $10.6 billion in "overspending" - but $6 billion of it, or more than half, was Arnold's idiotic VLF cut. The article, which conveniently stops its history at November 2003, doesn't include the other $6 billion in tax cuts that have been implemented since 1993 - cuts that would have allowed state services to be funded at the bare-bones levels we've seen during Arnold's reign.   Read More »

Today's Paul Krugman column exploring the apparent end of Republican racial backlash politics has been getting some excellent commentary across the blogosphere, including friend of Calitics thereisnospoon's excellent take at Daily Kos:

For the longest time, the progressive economic agenda was held hostage to vaguely economically progressive but socially retrograde racist Dixiecrats in the South. When truly progressive economics required that all our nation's people have equal opportunity to share in the nation's wealth, those erstwhile allies became strained or broken. But today Democrats are no longer dependent on the likes of Zell Miller and his Dixiecratic friends to enact a progressive economic agenda. The Republicans have painted themselves into a corner as the Party of the South, and Democrats have largely cleaned our own house of the racists.

All that leaves for us is the question of whether enough of our Democratic officials will recover from their Battered Wife Syndrome and the reject the temptations of corporate corruption to truly herald the advent of a 2nd New Deal.

Krugman and spoon's points are especially applicable to California, where the Republican politics of backlash was born and perfected. From Reagan's 1966 campaign that took many white working class voters from Pat Brown and the Dems, to Howard Jarvis' 1978 Prop 13 campaign to cut taxes he argued were being misspent on people of color, to Pete Wilson's 1994 campaign won by scapegoating immigrants (also true of Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2003 recall campaign, to a lesser extent) California Republican ideologies and political success have been built on exploiting white voters' resentments. As both Krugman and spoon point out, the base wanted the Great Society undone, and the /real/ power in the Republican Party wanted to undo the New Deal.

As the state of California enters the most serious fiscal crisis in its 150-year history, it's worth looking at how the collapse of Republican backlash politics may provide the necessary opening to fix this state and move beyond 40 years of destructive and failed conservative ideology.

The short version of what I'm going to explain below is this: the collapse of the backlash is due to a more diverse electorate and to an economic crisis that is now consuming the white middle-class, eliminating previous economic privileges they turned to conservatives to defend.

The underlying economic and demographic rationale for Republican anti-tax backlash politics in California is now gone, making multiracial coalitional politics based on expanding government in order to provide badly needed services and jobs a very real possibility, and likely the seed of a new political framework in California. More services and more spending, not less taxes, are now the overriding concern of California voters. Our politicians will have to catch up to be viable.   Read More »

Here in the dog days of April, as the state awaits the governor's May Revise, frustration seems to be setting in over the budget. The real political battles will begin in earnest after the May Revise, but the jockeying for position has been going on for some time, including in the state's media. Unsurprisingly, the media wants to spin the budget crisis as a failure of all Sacramento politicians, when in fact the current impasse is the responsibility of one group alone: the Republicans.

As an article in Sunday's Sac Bee would have us believe, there is "scant support for budget changes." But a deeper look shows that while Democrats have already proposed budget fixes, such as closing the yacht loophole and creating an oil severance tax (as exists in nearly every other state), it is the Republicans alone that have blocked meaningful budget action.

And why have they done so? Republicans want us to believe that *any* revenue solution is economically damaging:

However, Sen. Dave Cogdill of Modesto, the GOP's incoming leader, said the state should not take away credits at a time when the economy is struggling.

Other ideas that have yet to gain traction would raise income taxes on high-wage earners or amend Proposition 13 to assess businesses in the same way as residential property. The latter, known as "split-roll" property tax, would require that commercial and industrial properties be reassessed more regularly, bringing the state an estimated $3 billion annually.

Cogdill dismissed all as non-starters.

"We should help the general fund by stimulating the economy and be a more beneficial partner with industry, rather than stifling them," Cogdill said.

But whose economy is stimulated by revenue cuts? Who actually sees this so-called economic growth? And who suffers from the spending cuts that are forced by the revenue cuts? A closer look at the overall situation shows that the Republicans' claims are nonsense. Tax cuts provide economic growth for a wealthy few, but cause economic distress for pretty much everyone else - *especially* when those tax cuts come at the expense of education. More below.   Read More »