California 30-38

No, "California 30-38" is not a sports score, and, no, it's not a highway designation. 30 and 38 are competing propositions in the November 6 election, and Californians are in such agreement about the problem they each seek to address, that we're going to send them each down to defeat. But let me explain what they are first, and then tell you why we're probably screwed.

Here's the basic problem: Our state is broke. Our June 2012 budget gap was about $16.6 billion. The budget deal worked out between Governor Brown and the legislature balanced the budget with about $8.1 billion in spending cuts, $2.5 billion in "transfers," and the last $6 billion in new taxes "pending voter approval."

Prop 30 was placed on the ballot by the Governor as part of that budget deal. The $6 billion hole is filled by increasing the tax on incomes over $250,000 (or $500,000 for couples filing jointly) for a period of seven years, and a 1/4 cent per $1 increase in sales tax for four years. The funds go into an "Education Protection Account" within the state General Fund. Because it's within the General Fund, it increases the Prop 98 guarantees to education (K-12, plus Community Colleges), but also frees up some existing funds for other purposes.

The Prop 30 taxes go into effect immediately to cover the $6 billion gap in the current year's budget. If it fails, the budget deal included "trigger cuts." We will have a balanced budget this year, no matter what. Those $6 billion in automatic cuts include $5.3 billion from public schools for the current school year. Ever wondered what would happen if thousands of teachers got laid off in the middle of the school year? Or if your local school district defaulted on its bond payments? You might just find out if Prop 30 fails to pass.

Prop 38 is an alternative tax plan, not negotiated by the legislature, but put on the ballot by Molly Munger, who has spent about $33 million of her own money to pass it.  (Coincidentally, Molly's brother, Charles Munger Jr., has spent about $22 million of his own to lead the fight against Prop 30). Prop 38 raises income taxes on just about everybody (incomes over $7,000) for twelve years, but leaves sales tax alone. The money goes into an "Education Trust Fund," but this one is outside of the General Fund, so it is in addition to the Prop 98 guaranteed funding from the (diminished) General Fund. Prop 38 does not include Community College funding, but does include early childhood education.

Prop 38 could be an interesting alternative to the Governor's plan, except for one fatal flaw: It takes effect next year, leaving the "trigger cuts" in place for this year. Prop 38 might help in the future, but the chaos the trigger cuts would cause in education this year would do incredible harm to 100% of public school students in the state this generation. But I will vote for it anyway.

Yes, I will vote for 38, AND I will vote for 30. The proponents of each have campaigned as though we have to make a choice, and can only vote for one or the other. That is not true. And this is why I say we are doomed.

California law provides for a way to reconcile two propositions passing which each address the same issue: The one with the most votes prevails. Yes, if you vote for 30 & 38, and they both pass, you don't get two tax increases, you only get the one with the most support.

Prop 30 was headed for victory, until the Mungers, Molly and Charles, put over $55 million of their fortunes into ads against 30 and for 38. Now support for 30 has dipped to 46% approval. Meanwhile, Prop 38 only has 39% of voter approval in current polling. Now, it's been a while since I was in school, but in the old days 46+39 equaled 85% in favor of one or the other. Even if we assume there's some overlap in support, there's clearly a majority in favor of some tax increase.

Despite the fact that the majority of Californians agree that we need to enact one or the other tax increase to save our schools, and our state's competitive edge, both propositions will fail because we're being presented with the election as a "choose one only" option. The majority are for saving the state, but those who would rather destroy California than pay one cent more in taxes win by dividing and conquering the majority. Which, the conspiracy-minded might wonder, may have been what the Mungers had in mind all along.

If you're a Californian voter, I hope that you'll join me in voting for both propositions, 30 & 38, and may the better solution prevail.

Here's my quickie ballot guide to the rest of the California initiatives:

30 - taxes/budget	Yes
31 - budget reform	No
32 - special exemptions	No
33 - auto Insurance	undecided
34 - end death penalty	Yes
35 - human trafficking	Yes
36 - 3 strikes reform	Yes
37 - GMO labeling	Yes
38 - tax rates	Yes
39 - business tax	Yes
40 - redistricting	Yes

Propositions "R" Us

There will be nine statewide propositions on Californian's ballots on November 2nd, including one I'm very excited about. In fact, back in May of 2009 I called it my "Fantasy Proposition: Majority Rule!" On November 2, I get my fantasy with Proposition 25, "Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget From 2/3 to a Simple Majority." What I wrote then was that:

"California is one of only a handful of states that requires a super-majority (2/3 vote) to pass its annual budget. This allows a minority of legislators (34%) to hold the majority hostage... The stalemate has to end, and the way to do it is with a simple majority rule, like we imagined a democracy would be. If the minority party wants to have a say, they've got to come to the table to work, not just be obstructionist babies."

The budget stalemates, and resulting partial shut-downs, have cost our state billions in interest and other costs. These political theatrics don't just hurt state workers, but effects our entire state economy as it punishes small businesses who rely on state spending (such as food vendors to state prisons) when they aren't paid on time. I believe Prop 25 to be one of the most important reforms Californians could possibly pass, and I urge a strong "YES" vote.

I'm also voting a strong "YES" on Proposition 22, "Prohibits the State From Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local Government Projects and Services," and I'm appalled at the Democratic Party and other "progressives" who are recommending a "no" vote. Yes, I'm fully aware of the state's budget problems and the tough choices to be made. But the state's habit of fixing its problems by raiding other funds has been a disaster for local services and needs to stop. Now. And while I'm shaming the Democratic Party, here's also a bit of scolding for the California Teachers Association, who rightly screamed bloody murder when the Governor raided education dollars, but now aren't willing to help the cities and counties in the same fight.

My strongest "NO" vote recommendation is on Proposition 23, "Suspends Air Pollution Control Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level." This has nothing to do with "saving jobs" ... at least, not California jobs. This is simply a couple of Texas oil companies who don't want to comply with our new pollution standards.

I will probably vote for Proposition 19, "Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed," but it's largely symbolic as this does nothing to change Federal law. An interesting note is that some of the Medical Marijuana advocates are recommending "no" votes here, as current Medical Marijuana law allows for larger "private gardens" than does Prop 19.

On the two redistricting propositions, I'm torn. Proposition 20 adds Congressional districts to the responsibility of the State Commission on Redistricting, while Proposition 27 eliminates the Commission completely, and turns that power back to the State Legislature. The Democrats, who are in the majority, are for Prop 27 and against Prop 20. But I'm leaning toward Power to the People and going against the "official liberal" grain on this pair of conflicting propositions.

If you would like to see a great master list of who has endorsed "YES" or "NO" on each of the propositions (includes groups from all across the political spectrum), see the California Choices website (californiachoices.org). Meanwhile, here's a quick list with my choices (subject to change without notice):

19 - Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed - soft "yes"
20 - Redistricting of Congressional Districts - "yes"
21 - Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks and Wildlife Programs - "YES"
22 - Prohibits the State From Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local Government Projects and Services - "YES!"
23 - Suspends Air Pollution Control Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level - "HELL NO!"
24 - Repeals Legislation That Allow Businesses to Lower Taxable Income - "yes"
25 - Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget From 2/3 to a Simple Majority - "PLEASE YES!!!"
26 - Requires Certain State and Local Fees to Be Approved by 2/3 Majority - "NO"
27 - Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority - "yes"

Social Media Training for Voters

Here's an interesting item (well, to those of us obsessed with social media). On the Jerry Brown for CA Governor YouTube channel, along with posting various interviews, campaign ads, biographical bits, and so on, the campaign has now posted a "Social Media Webisode" -- a short training video on how Jerry's supporters can help get the word out. The first webisode is on promoting the Brown campaign via Facebook:



Now, whether or not you're a Jerry Brown fan (I am) or support his campaign for Governor of California this year (I do), you have to admit that this is a brilliant strategy. Faced with a challenger who has so far spent over $119 million of her personal fortune, making hers the most expensive campaign for statewide office ever anywhere, Brown has not only made good use of social media to get his message out, he is harnessing the full power of social media by turning supporters into advocates.

Too many of the social media campaigns that I see, whether political or for products or whatever, treat facebook, twitter, etc., as one-way broadcast mediums. They neither engage the audience in dialogue nor tap into the extended networks of each of their followers. Brown 2010 has now done both.

Post Election Hangover

Yesterday was election day in California, and I have to say, I'm pleasantly surprised with the results on most of the ballot propositions - an area where I was preparing myself for bitter disappointment.

Despite putting $46 million of our (ratepayers) money into Prop 16, PG&E's power grab attempt went down to defeat, along with Prop 17, Mercury Insurance's "please make us give you a discount" attempt. Nobody is giving you something for nothing, and just enough people saw through these two corporate abuses of democracy for what they were, and by slim margins turned them down. Good for California and good for Californians! We're not as dumb as we might look.

My one really big disappointment was the passage of Proposition 14, deceptively and cynically titled, "Increases Right to Participate in Primaries." The idea here is to eliminate the power of political parties, by putting all primary candidates on a single ballot. The top two vote getters then face off in the November general election.

Now, if you read this blog regularly, you know I'm a registered independent, and all for breaking the stranglehold of the two major parties ... if it is to open up the process to more choice. But nature abhors a vacuum, a rule that also applies to political power. In this case, party structure is simply replaced by money and name recognition.

The diagram from the official voter information pamphlet (shown here) says it all. Instead of several party primaries, each with maybe four or five candidates selecting their nominee to face off in a general election where again there will be a half-dozen candidates, each representing a different party, we'll now have a primary with a confusing dozen or more candidates leading up to a general election choice of only two ... and both potentially of the same party!

Supporters say this will give us "more moderate candidates" as everybody will have to play to the middle. But to rise above a field of 15-20 candidates in a state the size of California, it will only give us better connected and wealthier candidates. More corporate shills to continue the status quo.

Speaking of which, the Republicans nominated two former Silicon Valley CEOs for top office; eBay's Meg Whitman for Governor and Hewlett Packard's Carly Fiorina for Senate.

In her victory speech, Whitman, who will face off against former Governor Jerry Brown in November, said that she was ready to "shake up" the Governor's office with thinking from "outside Sacramento." Whitman (who spent over $70 million of her own cash to secure the nomination) said she'd be a different kind of Governor because she isn't "beholden to anybody."

Now, if she were following a Democratic Governor, or even a Republican "career politician," that might be a good argument. But she's hoping to follow the non-politician, self-funded millionaire, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Has she not been paying attention? Probably not. She's so new to this "democracy thing" that she's rarely bothered to even vote in her adult life.

The one thing I can say for Whitman, however, is that she at least was a successful CEO, not that that will automatically translate to governing success. On the other hand, Carly Fiorina, who will be trying to unseat Senator Barbara Boxer in November, just about destroyed Hewlett Packard. When they finally fired her, their stock value was about 1/3 what it was when she was hired. Along that path, she laid off over 30,000 employees, sent thousands more jobs from California to Asia, and accepted a $20 million golden parachute to leave Silicon Valley. Ummm... she's seeking to represent me?

At Fiorina's celebration, a spokesman for the California Republican Party expressed his joy at having these two candidates to run against the Democratic "professional politicians." He says he welcomes the perspective of these leaders because they'll remove the shackles of oppressive regulation from businesses. How he managed to say that with a straight face while millions of gallons of oil having been spilling into the Gulf of Mexico for the past 50 days show that he learned some acting skills from the current Governator.

This post is getting quite long ... sorry, that's what happens when I don't blog for a while ... so I'll end it here, but in coming months I'll explain why I fully support Jerry Brown, our once and future Governor, and our Senator Barbara Boxer. And where, and why, I will likely not be voting a straight Democratic ticket in November.

Standing Up for California's Schools

About a year ago I blogged about "Pink Friday" - the designation given last year to the March 15 deadline to give teachers layoff notices, or "pink slips," due to California state budget cuts in education.

Well, this year, March 15 falls on a Monday, and the pink slips have already begun appearing. So far, statewide, over 18,000 teachers have been told that their services will not be required for the next school year. That number will increase over the next twelve days. Of course, the number of children in school will not be likewise cut. Instead, class sizes will increase and services will be cut.

In my wife's school, second grade classrooms will increase from 20 to 30 students each, and teachers will have less time to prep lessons and grade work because they'll each have additional yard duty to fill in for other adjunct staff who have also been pink slipped. Oh, and she'll take home less money as health insurance premiums increase and the district considers whether to enact three or five mandatory furlough days.

Yes, this is obviously personal to me, but if you have children in California's schools, or you run a business that hires graduates of California's schools, or you see the benefits of an educated population on such things as civil participation and crime prevention, it should be personal to you too.

A few things to consider:
• Lawmakers have cut more than $17 billion from public schools and colleges in the last two years and more cuts have been proposed.
• Class sizes have increased to unmanageable numbers, denying students the one-on-one attention they need. More than 70 percent of elementary schools reported class size increases.
• Art, music, PE, career technical education and summer school programs have been eliminated.
• California spends $2,400 less per student than the national average and ranks 46th in per-pupil funding.

This is not just about K-12 education either, but our state colleges and universities:
• Student enrollment fees increased more than 30% this year. Rising student fees and reduced course offerings mean fewer students can go to college.

So, what can you do? Tomorrow, Thursday, March 4, there will be Stand Up For Schools rallies throughout the state. From silent protests in the morning before classes begin, to informational meetings in the evening where you can learn how to fight Sacramento and demand a quality education for your community, there's something you can do.

Search the events page at Stand Up For Schools to see what's happening in your community. If you don't see anything listed on the website, contact your child's teacher, school, or district office.

Another nice thing about these events is the teamwork behind them. These are not just organized by the teacher's unions, or just a few administrators working together, but a collaboration between the unions, the districts, the administrators, and other education staff and groups.

Many times we say things like, "Our state's future depends on this." Well, it may be trite to say it again, but this time, I really mean it.

Giving up on a New Constitution?

Back in November I wrote about efforts underway to call a California State Constitutional Convention that would take our bloated, unworkable governance structure (California's Constitution is the world's third longest; eight times the length of the U.S. Constitution) and reform our state government from head to toe.

Well, as of yesterday, Backers of the campaign have suspended their efforts because of a lack of money. To date, they've only collected 100,000 of the million or so petition signatures required to get the Constitutional Convention on the ballot. Further, they've only raised about one million dollars ("only?") and some pledged donations have failed to come in.

"Campaign officials said they would need at least $3.5 million for a successful signature-gathering effort, plus millions more for the actual campaign. They blamed the tough economy and people focusing charitable efforts on Haiti for the lack of donations to their effort."

Well, first off, the nonprofit consultant part of me wants to yell at them for making excuses: Never blame the donors! They failed to get their message out and make a strong case to the average voter, plain and simple.

But, more to the point of this blog, part of my reason for supporting a Constitutional Convention and other reforms is to reduce the influence of money on our political processes. Now, we need another $3.5 million to fight against the high price of democracy. Huh?

As I wrote in that initial blog, the whole Initiative process (roughly one century old) was also an attempt to take power from the elites and corporations and return it to the people. Now we need new reforms to save us from the expensive mess that the old reforms have become. And so it goes.

The Repair California web site is still live, if you have an extra few million dollars lying around to give them to re-ignite the campaign.

Can California be Saved?

There are those who would place all the blame on Hiram Johnson. It was Johnson, as Governor, and the Progressives who brought the great reforms of the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall (along with direct election of US Senators) to California nearly 100 years ago to break the monopoly on power held by the State Legislature and the corporate interests who owned the individual members of that body.*

The legacy of a century of Initiatives and Referendums is a state Constitution with over 500 amendments (often conflicting with or negating each other) that is the world's third longest (eight times the length of the U.S. Constitution), a practice of budgeting through the ballot box that has left the Governor and Legislature very little authority in dealing with fiscal emergencies, and a state that is considered by many on both the right and the left as being virtually un-governable.

Far from being a tool for the people to self-govern when leaders fail, it has become accepted that to pass any statewide ballot measure requires the backing of the same large monied interests that the Progressives sought to silence. And yet, we still cling to the progressive reforms. While nearly all see the need for reform in how our state is governed, virtually nobody is suggesting an overhaul of the Initiative and Referendum process.

In fact, a year from now, in November 2010, we are likely to have at least half-a-dozen reform efforts using the Initiative process to cure us of the problems caused by abuse of the Initiative process. Can Alanis Morissette write a verse about that irony?

Yesterday I went to a lunch meeting of the American Leadership Forum, Silicon Valley, to hear about the history of some of these reform movements, previous efforts to save our state, and to discuss whether too many reform efforts on the same ballot will doom them all. The guest speaker was Don Benninghoven, a former Executive Director of the League of California Cities, and the vice-chair of the Constitutional Revision Commission (1996-98) appointed by Governor Pete Wilson.

That Commission actually did recommend some changes to the Initiative process, including adding a requirement that the Legislature review all submitted initiatives and have the opportunity to amend them before being submitted to the voters. This was suggested as a way of cutting down on the law suits that inevitably follow most initiatives by having them conform to certain standards of Constitutional review. They also recommended that rather than be set in stone and require another costly initiative to amend once an initiative is passed, that there be a set time frame (five years?) after which the Legislature could amend initiatives without putting it before the people. By the time their report was finalized, however, a new Republican majority had taken over the Legislature and they shelved the entire project.

But on to November of 2010... Several organizations have submitted Initiative language to the State, and will likely soon receive approval to start collecting signatures for ballot access. They include...

The League of California Cities will have their "Save our Cities... Again" Initiative. Basically, their aim is to protect local jurisdictions (the only level of government that most citizens still trust) from having their funds grabbed by the State each time the State is in trouble. The League has been successful with this type of Initiative before.

California Forward has their 2010 Reform Plan as well. This will likely be on the ballot in two (or three?) different measures, including such reforms as changing the vote needed to pass a state budget from 2/3 majority to simple majority, holding legislators personally responsible for failing to pass a budget on time, and protection of local government, similar to the League of California Cities effort.

And then there's the biggie: Repair California's call for a new State Constitutional Convention (Repair California was initiated by the Bay Area Council, but has grown to be a statewide coalition). Rather than work piecemeal around this problem or that problem and just add to the clutter of our unworkable governing document, they want to start fresh. Of course, that fresh start requires two Initiatives to set in motion: One to amend the current state Constitution to allow for citizens to call for a convention, and the second one to actually make that call.

Of course, this is the Initiative (or two) that has me the most fascinated and interested. It could be the greatest thing to happen to this state politically since 1911, or it could be total chaos. Or both. Either way, it could be a lot of fun and something I want to take a part in, either as an official delegate or just as an observer.

And, of course, even if all goes well, and they come up with the greatest state constitution of all time, it will still need to be approved by the people. After all that work, if it contains too many changes to current law, or anything even remotely controversial, it could fail miserably, leaving us right where we are now. It is for this reason that many of the participants in yesterday's meeting did not want to support Repair California's plan. But for me, even with all the potential pitfalls, I'm drawn to it and feel we have to give a try.

Soon the signature gathering will begin, and assuming all of the above qualify for the ballot, it will be up to the good people of this state (and many of the bad ones) to decide which way to go. Personally, I see no conflict between them. We can amend the budget process (CA Forward) and protect local government (League of CA Cities) today, and work on a new Constitution for tomorrow.

* While Johnson was a forward thinking and progressive leader on domestic issues for the first half of the 20th century, first as Governor then as US Senator, he was also an isolationist and xenophobe who supported the California Alien Land Act, prohibiting Asians from purchasing property, and was the only US Senator to vote against both the League of Nations and the United Nations.

Happy [Fiscal] New Year?

July 1 is the start of the fiscal year for many businesses, as well as the state of California and our neighbor, Arizona. Besides a border and fiscal year, CA and AZ share another thing in common: they will each begin issuing IOUs to their employees, vendors, contractors, and others due to the inability of our elected representatives to agree on a state budget. In fact, 19 states are on the verge of such financial calamity.

Some cheer this as a bit of political anarchy and showmanship. I, however, am not alone in finding this grandstanding mockery of the democratic process to be an irresponsible dereliction of duty.

My friend in Arizona, JR Snyder, Jr., has blogged about his thoughts on the state government shutdown. Although from the opposite side of the political spectrum on many issues, JR and I are agreed on this fact. From JR's blog:

If you choose to take the position that the state needs a shutdown to get it's house in order, know the consequences no matter which side you're on. Social services may be distasteful but the answer is not abruptly halting them without some thoughtful unwinding. The chaos ensuing affects all citizens, because the ripple of destruction will run through the state economy on all levels.

Destruction is not the same as Disruption.

There are good reasons why even a partial shutdown is a very bad idea right now. A shutdown will destroy the state's credit rating. We are already insolvent and any money borrowed to operate will have to be paid back at higher interest rates due to bad credit. The entire state economy is in a precarious position and even a 24 hour shutdown will have a negative impact and far worse if protracted. The law suits against the state alone will hinder us for decades.

Many find these state shutdowns to acceptable because of the assumption that it will only hurt either "welfare queens" or faceless bureaucrats. And wouldn't it be fun to think of this as our way of getting revenge on that idiot at the DMV who kept me waiting in line for three hours?

But, as I commented on JR's blog, the IOUs will be going to more than just these usual political scapegoats. They'll be going to suppliers and contractors to all sorts of state run or funded institutions and offices. The companies that supply food to the prisons, or who have maintenance contracts with the universities, or provide linens to hospitals (etc., etc.).

Those suppliers, in turn, cannot pay their staff with IOUs; they need money. Many of them are small, local businesses that will be forced to lay off staff, and possibly shut their doors for good, if the budget impasse continues for more than a couple of weeks. This will slow down local spending and hurt the economy in communities up and down each of the 19 budgetless states, and far beyond the state capitals or the homes of bureaucrats from the other party.

Demand your representatives do their jobs and pass a budget! Whichever side of the political fence you're on, our legislators have a duty to run their states in a responsible manner. Political grandstanding that costs regular citizens their livelihood is wrong, from the left or the right.

California's Sham Election

On May 19 California voters will have special election on six propositions (1A-1F) placed on the ballot by the legislature in an attempt to solve our enduring budget crisis (we are now ten months into the fiscal year, with no final approved budget). Of course, the legislature could have actually done their jobs and come up with a workable budget solution on their own, but they've now, once again, failed to do their jobs and have put it to the citizens of this great state to do it for them. Can you tell that I'm just a little upset about this?

Prop 1A - Rainy Day Stabilization Fund - NO
On the surface, this sounds like a good idea; put money away in a special fund in case of a fiscal emergency. Except, the time to start this fund would have been a decade ago. It's pouring now, and yet 1A would immediately grab control of a chunk of the state's non-existent budget, forcing further cuts in needed services. Further, according to the League of Women Voters of California, "If Prop. 1A passes, the Governor would be given new power to make mid-year cuts and suspend COLAs in state programs without legislative oversight."

Prop 1B - Education Funding Re-payment - NO
Some years ago California voters approved a measure that would guarantee that Education's share of the state budget, as a percentage, would never be decreased. For the last several years, however, the Governor and legislature have broken that rule, "borrowing" billions from education with the unfulfilled promise to pay it back. 1B again promises to pay back the $9.3 billion owed... but not until 2011. The legislature already has the ability and the obligation to pay this money back, the proposition only grants them more time, and another two years to ignore the will of the people from previous elections.

For me, this is the most upsetting of the measures, and it is galling because the CTA (California Teachers Association) is endorsing this nonsense. Basically, the school bully took their lunch money on Monday. On Tuesday and Wednesday the bully took their money again. Then, on Thursday, the bully said to CTA, "We'll pay you back next week if we can have your lunch money again today." And now the CTA is telling the principal that bully is their best friend. Fear of deeper cuts if 1B fails is what drives this, but why should these guarantees be any more valid than the guarantees the legislature and Governor have already ignored? The CTA are fools and are complicit in the legislature's abrogation of their duties.

Prop 1C - Lottery Modernization - NO
Okay, if it were just "modernization" of the lottery, that would be fine. But they are so convinced that modernization is going to bring in new revenue that 1C will allow the state to borrow $5 billion (IE: sell bonds) from these future earnings to balance this year's budget. Never mind that most reasonable financial experts say that in the current market we probably won't be able to sell the bonds, or that the interest we'd pay if we do sell them would be unbearable, or that the lottery money was already guaranteed to education (see 1B, above). Idiocy upon idiocy. We're close enough to bankrupt already, thank you.

Prop 1D - Children's Services Funding - NO
How could I recommend a "no" vote on a proposition with a title like that? Because it's a lie. It takes away Children's Services Funding. 1D allows the state to take back the money that now funds each county's First 5 Commission and programs (as approved by voters in Prop 10) and use it to "achieve state General Fund budgetary savings" (according to the official voter information guide from the state). First 5 does great work throughout the state, and I've been pleased and proud to work with several First 5 programs in both Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties; programs that will likely close down in July if 1D passes.

Prop E - Mental Health Services Reallocation - NO
As with 1D taking back voter approved funds for Early Childhood Education, 1E takes back voter approved funds for Mental Health. As with this entire package of propositions, it demonstrates the Governor's and the legislature's disregard of the will of the people while at the same time asking the people to approve of their disregard. They have failed to do their job, and are now looking to us take the blame. They cannot accept responsibility for cutting spending (or raising taxes) and so they've wiped their hands clean and when First 5 folds, and mental health facilities close, and classrooms return to overcrowding, and the state's credit rating takes a [futher] dive from pawning worthless bonds, they can say, "It was the will of the people."

Prop 1F - Elected Officials' Salaries - YES
This, like the rest, is completely unnecessary. Elected officials have (in theory, at least) enough common sense not to give themselves raises in years of fiscal emergency. But, one self-serving State Senator thought it would score him points with voters to put it in writing. Ordinarily I'd like to tell him screw himself and recommend a "no" vote here, but I'm afraid that if 1F fails the legislature will take that a showing of support and give themselves unearned and undeserved raises.

So, what happens if 1A-1E fail? We don't know. Certainly nothing good. The legislature will certainly have to cut programs, and it won't be pleasant. But that is the job we elected them to do. We have let them slide, with late budgets, and ignoring previously passed propositions, for far too long.

But they are using this uncertainty to get our support for propositions unfairly. A co-worker of mine said it was like, "They're holding a gun to our heads." We agreed, pretty much, on the above analysis of the situation. She's giving in to the fear and voting "yes" on the full slate; I'm daring them to pull the trigger and voting "no."

So, what could help now? What propositions should they have put on the ballot?

Fantasy Proposition 1 - Majority Rule!
California is one of only a handful of states that requires a super-majority (2/3 vote) to pass its annual budget. This allows a minority of legislators (34%) to hold the majority hostage. In this way, both parties have become complicit in a dance that doesn't allow them to blame others for fear of taking their share of the blame. And there's plenty of blame to go around. The stalemate has to end, and the way to do it is with a simple majority rule, like we imagined a democracy would be. If the minority party wants to have a say, they've got to come to the table to work, not just be obstructionist babies.

Fantasy Proposition 2 - Repeal Term Limits
I know a lot of people are going to disagree with me here, and say that term limits help us remove these do-nothing politicians. On the contrary, it only helps them escape the blame. If any of them had a long-term interest in keeping their seats, they'd work out a budget compromise, as they did in the days before term limits. Now, they are on to the next position before the full estimate of the damage they've done currently is in. Musical chairs may be fun to watch and keep score, but it has left the lobbyists and political consultants in charge of neophyte electeds. It has failed the people and bankrupted our state.

More information:
League of Women Voters of California election site - Their press release is one of the best written analysis' of the measures I've seen

no on proposition 1d
no prop 1d & 1e coalition
courage campaign
vote no on 1a

It's Pink Friday in California

No, "Pink Friday" has nothing to do the ongoing battle to overturn Proposition 8, or anything to do with Gay Rights at all. "Pink Friday" refers to termination notices, often called "pink slips," and that the California Constitution mandates that local school districts notify teachers of any layoffs for the coming school year by March 15 each year.

As the last workday before March 15, today is the day when an estimated 25,000+ teachers throughout the state will receive notice that their services will likely not be needed for the 2009-10 school year. Well, actually, they'll be needed; they just won't be funded.

In Santa Clara County it will be about 1,000 teachers receiving their pink slips today. But that 1,000 will not be evenly distributed throughout the county. In the Cupertino district (where my wife works), they have managed to make other last-minute budget adjustments, and last week announced there would be no teacher layoffs this year. Needless to say, districts that aren't also home to companies like Apple or Hewlett Packard will not fare as well.

In many parts of the state, there will be protests today in support of teachers. But they're not likely to do much good.

Like the March 15 mandated deadline, the budget crunch is coming from Sacramento, where legislators "solved" their budget deadlock by overturning the people's commitment to funding schools and early childhood education.

Although we're now nine months into the 2008-09 Fiscal Year, the budget (which was only passed last month) will not be official until after a May 19 special election, which will ask the people to ratify the legislature's reworking of five previous ballot measures. These include voter approved minimums for funding K-12 education, early childhood programs (First 5), and mental health funding, as well as "borrowing" against future lottery earnings.

Not among the special ballot initiatives: modifying the 2/3 vote requirement for the legislature to pass a budget. California is one of only a handful of states that requires such a super-majority to pass its annual budget. This 2/3 super-majority has allowed a vocal minority (34%) in the legislature to stalemate and bankrupt the state.

And on Pink Friday, it's teachers who get to pick up the tab. Oh, and the kids? They'll do just fine as class sizes increase ... won't they?

California Über Alles ~ We've Got a Bigger Problem Now

From the San Francisco Chronicle, Monday, May 21, 2007:

As the costs for fixing the state's troubled corrections system rocket higher, California is headed for a dubious milestone -- for the first time the state will spend more on incarcerating inmates than on educating students in its public universities.

Based on current spending trends, California's prison budget will overtake spending on the state's universities in five years. No other big state in the country spends close to as much on its prisons compared with universities.

Our wondrous state legislature has decided to spend $7.4 billion to build 40,000 new prison beds - all in addition to the current annual prisons budget of more than $10 billion. "Interest payments alone on the billions of dollars of bonds that will be sold to finance the new construction will amount to $330 million a year by 2011."

Does the fact that we'll be investing in prisons far more than we'll be investing in higher education say anything about our priorities? Let's ask Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez:

"I'll tell you what, it's clearly not a statement of our priorities. Our policies are hurting the economy of California. This is a disservice to our economy."

Well then, surely the new spending is supported by the legislators that oversee prison spending. Let's check in with Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, chairman of the committee overseeing the state's prison construction efforts:

"I'm not defending the damn department. The department is a shambles. They couldn't build their way out of a paper bag. Everyone has a reason to be skeptical. Everyone is holding their breath, hoping that this time they're successful."

Well, I feel much better knowing that prison spending is not a higher priority than higher education (even though we're spending more on it), and that we don't actually believe that throwing money at the prison system will fix it (even though that's what we're doing instead of looking for solutions).

This is probably a very good thing, actually. Because when we allow our educational systems to go to hell, we'll have a higher and higher percentage of our population in prisons, and it will become a higher priority than education. And then, once everybody' in prison, we can educate them there! It all makes perfect sense.

NOTE: This post's title is in reference to two songs by the Dead Kennedys - California Über Alles and its sequel We've Got A Bigger Problem Now.

A step toward a national primary; A step away from democracy

The 2008 presidential candidates are all drastically re-thinking their primary season strategies, now that California has moved its primary up to an early date of February 5. As a Californian, I'm supposed to be thrilled with the idea, and agree with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said that:

Moving our presidential primary election from June to February means California will have the influence it deserves when it comes to choosing America's next presidential candidates.

But is it true that California previously had no influence on presidential primaries? And is this step toward a national primary actually a good thing for our democracy? I think it's possible that the answer to each to each of these questions is "no."

First of all, California has always had plenty of influence on the race, the question is simply, "What type of influence?" While the average voter has had to wait until June to let their voice be heard at the primary ballot box, California has always played an early and important role in the money primary.

Whether it's wooing liberals in Hollywood, talking to visionary libertarians in Silicon Valley, or reassuring traditional values ranchers in the Central Valley, candidates from every party and all political views come to California to meet, greet, and get a check from the leaders of the Golden State's three major industries.

While the average Californian doesn't get the same opportunity for face time with candidates the way they do in New Hampshire, we certainly are made aware of their visits, and have the chance to support our favorites by voting with our checkbooks.

So, the early primary doesn't really give us that much more voice in presidential matters. In fact, by forcing Californians to go on record earlier in the primary season, we actually get less of a chance to see how our candidates perform as they stump across the country, debate, and demonstrate their leadership skills and ideas.

And that, in fact, may be bad for our democracy. As more and more states join the rush to be among the early deciders, to "make their voice heard," we head a step closer towards establishing a single, national primary (or, at least a small number of "Super Tuesdays" that shorten the primary season to a handful of weeks).

This does not favor democracy. This does not favor debate, deep discussion, or the evolution of ideas. A national primary favors one thing above all else, and you know what it is: Money. It favors a recognized name and reputation, yes, but those things are just a part of money and establishment.

No room for underdogs or dark horses here. A pretty face, well recognized, and ready with a short sound-bite is all that will matter in the national primary.

Call me old-fashioned, but I like the idea of testing a candidate, and getting to know him or her over a period of months, through a series of local and regional elections that get larger and more complicated throughout the year. Seeing who gets burnt out, and who gets stronger, is a big part of deciding who you think can lead the nation in times of adversity and stand up to greater challenges.

So, we Californians now have an early primary. Yippee. I'm so happy to live in such exciting times.