Special Election

The May 19 Massacre

Joe Mathews — Wed, 20 May 2009 03:33:00 -0400

Your blogger would have called it for "No" at 8:01 p.m., but he was out reporting. It's a special election wipeout. Propositions 1A through 1E -- backed by Governor Schwarzenegger, Democratic legislative leaders and most of the state's elite -- all lost badly. Only 1B appears to be receiving as much as 40 percent support in early returns. The rest are in the mid to upper 30s. (UPDATE MONDAY MORNING: all 5 measures are now well under 40 percent).

What's next? Chaos. Fighting. And a discussion of how exactly a bankrupt state declares bankruptcy.

The Real Campaign Starts After Tomorrow's California Election

Joe Mathews — Mon, 18 May 2009 15:59:00 -0400

The five budget measures on the special election ballot tomorrow are almost certainly headed to defeat. And California, whether the measures pass or not, is in deep fiscal trouble.

I'm ready for the election to be over. Now we'll see the fight over what we do now. Catastrophic cuts? Economy-damaging taxes? Or some sort of federal bailout?

In the direct democracy world, you can expect to see lots of action in the state. All kinds of groups, from various points on the political spectrum, are readying ballot initiatives that seek to capitalize on the crisis by imposing major changes. Could we see the end of the two-thirds supermajority requirement for the budget and/or taxes? Could we send harsh new restrictions on immigrants? Could we have a constitutional convention?

Governor: Two Revised Budget Proposals Coming Thursday

Joe Mathews — Mon, 11 May 2009 16:22:00 -0400

Gov. Schwarzenegger said this morning that he's going to release two revised budget proposals on Thursday so that voters understand the consequences of their vote in next Tuesday's special election.

Traditionally, governors release a "May revise" -- a revised version of their January budget -- but Schwarzenegger's announcement, made after a meeting with local officials at a senior center in Culver City, was a bit of a surprise. (Some of his own aides hadn't known this was coming). The governor had previously said he would release a May revise after the election, on May 28. Your blogger was there, along with a surprisingly small number of TV and radio reporters.

Schwarzenegger didn't offer a long explanation, but apparently, he wants to give voters a "Door #1" or "Door #2" approach. One revised proposal would show what Schwarzenegger contends the budget will look like if the special election measures, Props 1A thru 1E, pass next Tuesday. The other would show what he contends the budget will look like if the measures fail. The governor said he wanted to make sure that voters have "a clear understanding" of what their vote will mean.

Schwarzenegger also expressed some frustration that voters seem to be prepared to vote "no" to send a message of frustration about their elected leaders. The trouble, the governor said, is that voters will be the ones hurt most if the measures pass. He raised specifically the possibility of borrowing local government moneys. That prospect drew a pointed rebuke from a city councilman from the east Los Angeles county suburb of Whittier (Richard Nixon's hometown), who said that municipalities shouldn't to make "sub-prime" loans to the state, which he called not a credit-worthy entity.

Update Monday afternoon: a friend of the blog points out correctly that with Prop 1C almost certainly going down to defeat, there may not be that much difference between Door #1 and Door #2. In terms of upfront budget savings, Prop 1C accounts for $5 billion of the approximately $6 billion. in terms of long-term budget help, Prop 1A, however, is a big deal, producing an estimated $16 billion in taxes (albeit two years from now) by extending new temporary taxes from two years to four years.

Please Join Us This Saturday In San Diego

Joe Mathews — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:33:00 -0400

Please join us this Saturday morning, May 2, in San Diego for what should be a fascinating discussion about the ballot measures on the May 19 special election. The event runs from 10 to 11:30 a.m. at the San Diego Hall of Champions. (Sports fans out there would be wise to make it a day of California governance and sports). The event is free, but be sure to reserve yourself a seat by signing up here or here. And you can consider this brunch if you like--there will be food.

The panel is headlined by former Congressman and former state finance director Tom Campbell, who has thought as deeply about the state budget as anyone alive. (He has an interesting discussion on tax reform currently running on his web site). Also on the panel are Chris Reed of the San Diego Union-Tribune, writer of America's Finest Blog; New America senior scholar Mark Paul; and your blogger. The co-sponsors are New America, the Center for Policy Initiatives, and the City Club of San Diego.

The Unintended Consequences of Props 1D and 1E

Joe Mathews — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:32:00 -0400

Your blogger's expression of support for Props 1D and 1E -- two of the six measures on California's May 19 special election -- was so back-handed that the headline writer on the Internet version of my piece in today's LA Times seemed to think I'm against both propositions.

I'm not. Given the state's budget problems, the repurposing of money from early childhood and mental health programs makes a ton of sense. But the unintended consequences worry me. These two measures effectively take away -- temporarily -- tax money that was raised by voters through two ballot initiatives, Prop 10 and Prop 63. Such fiscal responsibility in ballot initiatives is rare. By making targets of those measures (albeit for the good reason of a budget crisis), lawmakers have eliminated whatever incentive there was fiscal responsibility among initiative sponsors.

The good news; there's an opportunity to fix the problem. State Sen. Denise Ducheny, a San Diego Democrat, and Sen. Roy Ashburn, a Bakersfield Republican, have drafted a constitutional amendment that would require future initiatives to be self-funding -- that is, to provide revenues to cover the costs of whatever programs or mandates they create.

Special Election Swing Vote: White Guys Who Love Baseball and Read Newspapers

Joe Mathews — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:14:00 -0400

I must admit that my heart skipped a beat while watching the first TV ad (above) in favor of the six measures on the California special election ballot. The ad has no policy content worth commenting upon. Politically, it takes a swipe "politicians," which you don't want to think too hard about it because you might remember that it's the state political leadership who cooked up these propositions. No, this ad is about developing a feeling and targeting a demographic.

That demographic is your blogger: a dad who loves baseball and still reads newspapers. (I live in an apartment, not a house with a lawn -- this is 21st century urban Southern California after all -- but I'd like to live in a house like that). It's an interesting visual approach, particularly in an era when California political ads usually show a mix of voters or working people of various sexes and ethnicities. The approach is clearly targeted to independent and Republican men, a demographic that might be expected to support a spending limit but are not rallying to Prop 1A and the accompanying measures.

The Governor vs. the Flash Report

Joe Mathews — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:44:00 -0400

Wanna know what's driving Republican politics in California? It's not the Republican governor, or the Republican minority in the legislature. It's the Flash Report, the blog and web site run by Jon Fleischman, an Orange County political operative (and friendly acquaintance of your blogger) who is also an official of the California Republican Party. Flash Report posts often drive news coverage and radio talkers around the state.

If you doubt the Flash Report's power, check out the memo -- at the bottom of this item -- that is being distributed by Gov. Schwarzenegger's team and the campaign committee that supports the measures on the May 19 special election ballot. The memo, titled "Flash Report Myth-Fact," offers a direct refutation of multiple Flash Report posts criticizing the most important measure, Prop 1A, which would establish a new state spending limit and beef up the rainy day fund. The memo also provides a useful back-and-forth (sort of centrist vs. conservative back and forth) on the advantages and disadvantages of Prop 1A.

A related note: Northern Californians who have never met Jon (as one who disagrees with him on many issues, I must say that he's always terrific to talk with) will have an opportunity on April 21 in San Jose. New America and Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network are hosting an event on the special election measures, and both Fleischman and your blogger are scheduled to be a part of a panel discussing the measures.

"Flash Facts About Proposition 1A

There have been a lot of columns on the Flash Report over the past month regarding Proposition 1A filled with less-than-truthful accusations and assumptions. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about the propositions, but the debate should be an honest and open one - one in which correct data and information is provided. This document seeks to correct the record and provide accurate information about this measure.

Myth #1
President of The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Jon Coupal: "While they admit that they have no control over their spending impulses the solution they offer would actually allow continued increases in spending without any connection to the taxpayer's ability to provide revenue. Proposition 1A ties spending to income, income which can be increased under the measure through new taxes. The State Constitution already requires a balanced budget, so the only effect would be a reiterate the same requirement, one that is already being ignored with impunity." (John Coupal, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association And Michael Reagan, "As A Spending Limit, Prop. 1A Does Not Cut It," Flash Report, 3/30/09)

Fact:
California taxpayers are protected against taxes by the 2/3 vote requirement. Prop 1A does nothing to change this protection. In fact, Prop 1A should reduce the pressure for tax increases over time by forcing the state to save money into the rainy day fund during the boom years to ensure that reserves are available during economic downturns.

Myth #2
Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner: Prop 1A does nothing to change the fiscally irresponsible approach that is the cause of our chronic budget deficits. Instead, it will cost Californians jobs and hurt small businesses at a time when the state's unemployment rate is already at a staggering 10.5%. (Jon Fleischman, "Poizner Calls on California Republican Party to Oppose Proposition 1A, Flash Report, 3/24/09)

Fact:
Prop 1A puts into place all of the following fiscal reforms:

Prevents overspending revenues in the good years on ongoing programs by mandating that revenues above the 10-year trend line be redirected to first build up the rainy day fund (budget reserve) and then to fund ONLY one-time expenses such as tax rebates, paying down debt or funding an infrastructure project;
Increases the rainy day fund from 5% of the General Fund to 12.5 % of the General Fund;
Mandates an annual 3% transfer to the rainy day fund PLUS transfer of revenues above the 10-year trend line;
Can only be modified by a vote of the people;
Constitutionally limits the ability of the Governor to suspend/reduce the rainy day fund transfer;
Limits the ability of the Governor to withdraw money from the rainy day budget stabilization fund to emergency uses, such as a fire or flood; and
Creates new authority for the Governor to reduce spending during the fiscal year without legislative approval.

Myth #3
Ben Zycher, Fellow With The Pacific Research Institute: "The language allows the governor to suspend or reduce transfers into the BSF for any fiscal year upon issuance of an executive order, and there is no limit on that power; given the spending pressures that exert themselves upon any California governor, it is likely that such executive orders will become the norm rather than the exception." (Ben Zycher, "FR Interview With Economist Ben Zycher Who Says The Measure Does Not Deliver On A Promise Of A Real Spending Limit," Flash Report, 3/6/09)

President of The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Jon Coupal: "But Proposition 1A fails in its promise to provide a real spending limit for California. How can it, when the Governor can suspend transfers into the budget stabilization fund simply by issuing an executive order? How can this be characterized as imposing 'spending discipline' if the spending limit will automatically be adjusted upward for new taxes?" (Jon Coupal, "Governor, You're Not In Hollywood Anymore," Flash Report, 3/16/09)

Fact:
Prop 1A is a constitutional amendment that does not include a suspension provision. There is absolutely no way for the Legislature or the Governor to unilaterally suspend it. In fact, it would take another vote of the people to change it - the Legislature and the Governor could not act alone to alter it.

It is also drastically different from Proposition 58, which provided a lot of loopholes for the Governor and Legislature to avoid its requirements - namely it made transfers to the rainy day fund optional, not mandatory. Prop 1A does not contain this kind of provision and makes the conditions for transfers into and out of the rainy day fund mandatory so that they are not subject to political pressures.

In regards to the spending limit increasing upward for new taxes, the trend line based on revenues will increase only if the Legislature enacts a permanent tax increase and then only after it is in place for ten years. The Proposition 1A revenue limit doesn't make it any easier or more likely to raise revenues, compared with today. Indeed, if spending is already at the revenue cap, a tax increase would be difficult to justify since the proceeds of the new taxes would be deposited in the reserve.

Myth #4
Lewis K. Uhler, President, National Tax Limitation Committee: "Furthermore, the Prop. 1A spending cap will not, in itself, limit general fund spending. All that this cap does - if spending ever actually bumps up against this 10-year average revenue trend line - is to require that the excess, or so-called ‘unanticipated' revenues be placed in a ‘rainy day fund' - the Budget Stabilization Fund (BSF) and spent according to the rules of the BSF." (Lewis K. Uhler, "Vote No On 1A The "Spending Cap" Measure (Prop. 1A) Is Not Effective Medicine For Taxpayers," Flash Report, 4/3/09)

Fact:
The rules in Prop 1A governing transfers to and withdrawals from the rainy day budget stabilization fund are crystal clear and ensure that boom-year revenues (plus the annual 3% mandatory transfer) are saved into the rainy day fund. These transfers can only be suspended in the event that revenues are below last year's expenditures grown for inflation and population. Likewise, withdrawals from the rainy day budget stabilization fund are only allowed under similar circumstances. Current law allows suspensions and withdrawals from the rainy day budget stabilization fund for any reason.

Myth #5
Ben Zycher, Fellow With The Pacific Research Institute: "Proposition 1A allows the (assumed) revenues from any tax increase to be included in the revenue projection for the current fiscal year, thus increasing allowable spending. But it proscribes any consideration of the adverse economic effects of---and thus the reduction of the tax base caused by---the tax increase in future fiscal years over the ten-year projection horizon. This means that a tax increase yields more allowable spending immediately without any recognition of the future adverse revenue effects, so that future transfers out of the BSF become more likely. Because Proposition 1A treats tax increases in this unrealistic way, it biases the future revenue projection upward, and with it allowable spending under the terms of the proposition." (Jon Fleischman, "FR Interview With Economist Ben Zycher Who Says The Measure Does Not Deliver On A Promise Of A Real Spending Limit," Flash Report, 3/6/09)

Fact:
In regards to the spending limit increasing upward for new taxes, the trend line based on revenues will increase only if the Legislature enacts a permanent tax increase and then only after it is in place for ten years. But the Proposition 1A revenue limit doesn't make it any easier or more likely to raise revenues, compared with today. Indeed, if spending is already at the revenue cap, a tax increase would be difficult to justify since the proceeds of the new taxes would be deposited in the reserve.

The bottom line for whether taxes would be increased has been, is, and will be getting a two-thirds legislative vote. Remember: since Proposition 13 passed in 1978, the Legislature has never raised taxes to increase programs and services - only to address deficits or emergencies. Since 1978, tax increases to finance new programs have only come about by a vote of the people.

Furthermore, only permanent tax increases are included in the trendline, so temporary tax increases would not apply.

Myth #6
Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform: "Prop 1A does not even come close to providing an effective spending cap. Even worse, the so called "rainy day fund" that 1A creates is nothing more than a slush fund for the spending interests that have put a great state on the road to bankruptcy." (Grover Norquist, "Plenty To Dislike In 1A - Americans For Tax Reform Says Vote No On May Ballot Propositions," Flash Report, 4/6/09)

Fact:
This is political rhetoric, not a factual analysis of what Prop 1A would actually do. Prop 1A creates a mandatory annual 3% transfer to the rainy day fund and forces the state to save boom year budget revenues. The measure calls for part of these savings to retire an existing education obligation, to retire existing budgetary debt and to build up the rainy day fund for use to help the state through bad budget years. In the event that the rainy day fund fills to its 12.5% target, Prop 1A still only allows the use of additional budget savings on specific items such as further building the rainy day fund, paying for infrastructure projects, providing one-time tax relief, or paying off unfunded health care liabilities for state employees.

Note that had Prop 1A been in place over the past decade, the rainy day fund would have been full three times. In addition $33 billion would have been available to fund one-time expenses. Instead we had no rainy day fund and that $33 billion was spent in large part to fund ongoing programs that now cannot be sustained without a tax increase.

Myth #7
Ray Haynes: "Proposition 1A contains no limits on spending for education, infrastructure and bonds, which means that legislature can take this money any time it wants, with little or no restriction, to increase state spending. Second, once the limit on the Budget Stabilization Fund (the BSF) hits 12.5%, the state can spend its excess revenue on anything. Understand that the 12.5% BSF requirement is fixed, it is 12.5% of the budget for that year, amounts deposited in the past do not accumulate. The money deposited from last year counts towards this year's limit. That means in really good years, where revenue is pouring in, as it did in 1999-2001 and 2005-2007, the BSF will fill quickly, and the transfers will be done. Assuming that the Legislature doesn't spend it on the approved items (which it will), once it is full, the BSF is no restraint on spending." (Ray Haynes, "May Ballot Props - A Really Bad Deal," Flash Report, 3/25/09)

Fact:
Prop 1A contains a very clear limit on spending: revenues above the 10-year trend line are used for one-time expenses, to pay down existing budgetary debt and to build up the rainy day fund.

Prop 1A is clear about what happens to excess revenues (above the 10-year trend line) when the rainy day fund is full (12.5% of the current year General Fund). These additional revenues could be used to further build the rainy day fund, pay for infrastructure projects, provide one-time tax relief, or pay off unfunded health care liabilities for state employees.

Prop 1A also specifically allows excess revenues (beyond the 10-year trend line) to be used to further build the rainy day fund beyond the 12.5% target.

Myth #8
President Of The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Jon Coupal: "As a result of Steinberg's selection of Hancock as the author of the argument against, the word "taxes" will not appear anywhere in the official arguments for or against Proposition 1A." (John Coupal, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, "Proposition 1A: Keeping Taxpayers In The Dark," Flash Report, 3/2/09)

Fact:
This argument is a red herring. Voters will see both a description of Prop 1A and its fiscal impact when they go to the polls. The title and summary of the measure that appears in the official voter information guide specifically states: "higher tax revenues of roughly $16 billion from 2010-11 through 2012-2013 to help balance the state budget."

Myth #9
Ray Haynes: "This cap is based on historical spending patterns (over the last ten years, the fastest growth in spending in the history of the state), and has a number of exceptions and allowable spending categories. Analyzing its true effect is difficult because it is based on spending patterns, unknown factors, and legislative action by a legislature that has proven itself to lack all self control. No one can point to a number and say ‘Spending will not exceed that amount.'" (Ray Haynes, "May Ballot Props - A Really Bad Deal," Flash Report, 3/25/09)

Fact:
Because Prop 1A creates an historical 10-year trend line for spending, the measure very clearly defines a limit based on a regression analysis that includes good years and bad years during the past decade. DOF estimates the 10-year trend to be about $100 billion for FY08-09 and to drop a couple of billion dollars in FY09-10. Had the measure been in place the last ten years, this trend line would have forced savings into the rainy day fund during several years - money that would have been available to help us through the current crisis.

This measure is predicated on the fact that we will have years in which revenues are above the cap, called "good years" and years in which they are below, or "bad years".

Prop 1A puts into effect essentially two different formulas. The first applies to the good years to cap spending based on a 10-year revenue trend line designed to smooth out expenditures. The state's fiscal problems have not grown as a result of the down years, but rather the good years when the Legislature makes ongoing funding commitments that we cannot afford to sustain. Prop 1A limits the Legislature's ability to spend it all in these years and forces them to save for the down years.

It is in these down years - that is, when current year estimated revenues are lower than prior year expenditures - when the second formula created by Prop 1A comes into place. Under Prop 1A, the state cannot spend more in a down year than it spent in the prior year plus an adjustment for population and inflation. Right now, the trend line would increase at about a 5.2 percent rate, but population and inflation are at a combined 4 percent growth rate.

This means that irrespective of the actual balance in the reserve fund and irrespective of the ten-year revenue trend line, the state could only draw down the rainy day reserve to allow for current year spending that does not exceed the prior year's expenditures plus an adjustment for population and inflation. Under this second formula, it would be limited by the population and inflation growth rates, even if we had the funding in reserve to spend all the way up to the higher revenue trend line.

Had Prop 1A been in place over the past decade, the rainy day fund would have been full three times. In addition $33 billion would have been available to fund one-time expenses. Instead, we had no rainy day fund and that $33 billion was spent in large part to fund ongoing programs that now cannot be sustained without a tax increase. We would have gone into the 2008-09 budget year with less than half the deficit and $9 billion in reserve to cover the gap.

Myth #10
Lewis K. Uhler, President, National Tax Limitation Committee: "The threshold difficulty is that neither the California Department of Finance, nor any other potential source of these numbers, is willing to provide out-year revenue projections with which to work. And the design of the Prop. 1A cap, relying upon a running 10-year average of actual general fund revenues, cannot be used to test the efficacy of the cap without such out-year revenue projections (whereas, a conventional state spending cap, which is predicated on the previous year's actual spending, adjusted for changes in inflation and population, generates a hard number and a known restraint over the business cycle)." (Lewis K. Uhler, "Vote No On 1A The ‘Spending Cap' Measure (Prop. 1A) Is Not Effective Medicine For Taxpayers," Flash Report, 4/3/09)

Fact:
The Department of Finance has provided an estimate of how Proposition 1A would have impacted the last ten years of budget history and how that plays out in the current year (FY08-09). They found that if Proposition 1A had been in effect, spending would have been held to about $92 billion for FY 08-09 and $9 billion would have been available in the rainy day fund. Instead, the state faced a situation earlier this year where expenditures were estimated to be more than $104 billion with nothing in reserve to cover the massive budget deficit due to the decline in revenues."

Runaway, Budget-Busting Runoffs

Gautam Dutta — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:44:00 -0400

By Gautam Dutta and CA Assemblymember Ted W. Lieu

This year, California state and local governments will spend close to $10 million on at least three elections we do not need. That makes no sense amidst California’s and our nation’s brutal recession.

Here’s the root of the problem. On March 24, 2009 barely 6 percent of registered voters showed up for a special election to fill a vacancy for California’s 26th Senate District. In an area with almost 1 million residents and 400,000 registered voters, only 23,000 civic-minded citizens decided who would replace former State Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas (newly elected to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors).

How much did this special election cost? A whopping $2.2 million of our tax dollars – nearly $100 per voter – according to the Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder / County Clerk.

Unfortunately, we’re not even close to being finished. Since no candidate won a majority, we must hold a second election that will cost even more money. Because this is a heavily Democratic district, it is certain the Democratic nominee, Assemblymember Curren Price, will win. Yet Mr. Price must wait two months for a second election before he can be sworn in as State Senator.

Far from being “special”, special runoff elections cost millions of tax dollars to administer — at a time when governments have been forced to lay off schoolteachers and workers.

Was yesterday’s race an isolated case? Hardly. Get ready for a slew of special runoff elections to follow in the weeks ahead. Once Assemblymember Price takes office as State Senator, another special election will be called to fill his seat in the State Assembly. If that seat is won by another elected official, yet another special election must be called to fill that vacancy. What’s more, two more special elections will soon be held to replace two California Congressmembers who have joined the Obama Administration: Hilda Solis (Secretary of Labor) and Ellen Tauscher (Undersecretary of State-Designate).

If no candidate wins a majority in any of these elections (which is likely), a second election will be necessary – costing taxpayers millions of dollars more, as well as burning out voters from too many elections. Between now and Halloween, voters in Ladera Heights will be asked to vote three more times; residents of the San Fernando Valley and other parts of Los Angeles will be asked to vote at least two more times. Meanwhile, taxpayers are left to pick up the multi-million dollar tabs.

Fortunately, there’s a better way to conduct special elections to fill vacancies. It’s called Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Using IRV would allow us to elect majority winners using one election, instead of two.

With IRV, voters get to rank their choices, 1, 2, 3. If your first choice cannot win, your vote automatically goes to your second (i.e., runoff) choice. It’s like conducting a runoff election, but in a single election. If IRV had been used last night, the election for the Senate district would be finished.

IRV has already been adopted by San Francisco, Oakland, Minneapolis, Memphis, and Santa Fe. Currently, Louisiana, South Carolina and Arkansas all use IRV for overseas voters. A number of prominent leaders have endorsed IRV, including: President Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, California Controller John Chiang, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, and former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan. Influential civic groups also support IRV, including: Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, Los Angeles League of Women Voters, Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, Asian American Action Fund, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, and New America Foundation.

This morning, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas’ proposal to study IRV: specifically, how IRV can save taxpayer dollars while reducing voter fatigue. The Board of Supervisors will take up this important issue at its May 12 meeting.

As part of the Governor’s proposed budget solutions after the May 19 statewide budget election, he should include using IRV for special elections to save funds and help defray budget shortfalls.

It’s time to do away with needless, costly runoff elections. It’s time to adopt IRV - and fill vacancies by electing majority winners in a single special election.

Gautam Dutta is Deputy Director for New America Foundation’s Political Reform Program. Ted W. Lieu is a California Assemblymember (53rd District).

PPIC Poll Shows Five Of Six California Measures In Trouble

Joe Mathews — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:33:00 -0400

Here's a link to the poll, which shows five of the six measures on the May 19 special election ballot with less than 50 percent support. Here's pollster Mark Baldassare's take on the results in the Sacramento Bee. And here's my upbeat prediction, via Fox & Hounds Daily.

That optimism is based on the fact that opposition to the measures is poorly funded, disorganized and late to the game. The Sacramento Bee, in this news story, suggests the opponents are coming together to fight Prop 1A, the spending limit. But the opposition is forming too late to make much difference on its own. The real problem is that people don't understand much about the measure other than its link to taxes. As Ted Costa, the anti-tax activist who is co-chair of one of the campaigns against 1A, said on a conference call yesterday, "We can beat this with just robocalls." 1A likely loses even without a campaign against it.

Whitman Takes the Easy Path on The Props

Joe Mathews — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:44:00 -0400

Writing in the Sacramento Bee, Meg Whitman, the eBay chief turned GOP gubernatorial contender, comes out against Props 1A (spending limit and rainy day fund), Prop 1B (a boost in the education funding base) and Prop 1C (a plan to modernize the lottery and borrow against future revenue). She supports Props 1D and 1E (which redirect voter-approved moneys for early childhood and mental health programs) and the populist 1F, which would bar legislative pay increases in years with deficits. All six measures were part of last month's budget deal and appear on the May 19 special election ballot.

This is safe politics but something short of leadership. Whitman needs the conservatives who vote in Republican primaries, and they hate the temporary tax extensions that are part of Prop 1A. (If the measure passes, the temporary taxes run for 4 years. If it fails, they run for 2 years). One potential rival, former Congressman Tom Campbell, has bravely backed Prop 1A. Another, insurance commissioner Steve Poizner, has adopted a line similar to Whitman's.

Poizner and Whitman are taking the easy way. What would be the hard way? I'd love to see these two Republicans put together plans that would address the state's budget problems. They won't of course. Because of the politics and because the state's budget deficit can't be closed without increasing some taxes. If there's a way to do it without tax increases, I haven't seen it.