California

I don't actually support Eric Bradley for a second term as CDP Controller.  I think Hillary Crosby would be a fresh face and give the large Progressive Caucus coalition a grassroots voice in the leadership.  But I have to applaud Bradley, an occasional commenter here, supporting a majority vote to restore democracy to the state.

I look forward to working with all of you in building a stronger California Democratic Party-one that is ready for the challenges ahead, filled with energy and enthusiasm to elect a Democrat as Governor in 2010, to pass an initiative that reduces the threshold for the state budget to a simple majority, to defeat the destructive Louisiana Style Open Primary initiative proposed by Arnold Schwarzenegger and to maintain our majorities in the State Legislature.

This is a Party Controller candidate.  If he can advocate for majority vote, anybody can.  That's why it's truly disappointing to see Jerry Brown mute on this issue, letting everyone else in the state lead while the issue is in the forefront while he calibrates his position.  It's a cowardly stance, and nobody running for Governor should be silent on the only issue that will allow them to actually govern.  Some have said that it is better to say nothing than to be counter-productive in calling for something arbitrary like a 55% standard.  There's a slogan for you: "Brown '10 - Not Being Counter-Productive."  Inspiring!

One thing that Bradley and many other Democrats leave aside is an explanation that we have not one 2/3 requirement, but two.  There is the 2/3 vote needed to pass a budget, and the 2/3 vote needed to raise taxes.  Bill Cavala, who ably represents warmed-over consultocracy CW in Sacramento, argues that Democrats should only attempt to change the budget requirement due to political expediency:

Here's the good news: voters do agree that a budget should be passed by majority vote. They would, albeit somewhat narrowly, support such a ballot measure.

Now here's the bad news: they will not support changing the requirement that demands a two-thirds vote to raise taxes. Combine the two measures, and both would be defeated.

Convinced by media coverage of government that yearly exposes a few million dollars in obvious waste or egregious prerequisites for politicians, voters believe in most circumstances new taxes are not needed. Cut the 'waste' instead. But even voters got the word that lopping the pay raises of the 20% of the Legislature's staff that received them wouldn't cover a $42,000,000,000 revenue shortfall [...]

While it would be nice to exclude Republicans from tax decisions, we are unlikely to be able to do so anytime soon. By combining the 2/3 tax hike requirement with the 2/3 budget requirement we risk losing both - as labor found out when they put this package on the ballot a few years ago, spent millions, and lost big.

By taking the half a loaf we can get - the reduction of votes needed to pass a budget to a majority - we still gain a great deal. Republican lawmakers are certainly now aware that Democrats will pay a high price to keep the State solvent. The sidebar deals needed to raise taxes get some progressive praise now - but what sidebars will be demanded to pass a spending plan (without new taxes) in the future? And what makes anyone think the Democrats in the Legislature wouldn't pony up?

This is the stupidest argument I've ever heard.  Changing the budget but not taxes is TOM MCCLINTOCK'S view of things.  It makes Democrats own a budget that can only be modified with expenditure cuts.  In the event of a deficit, Democrats would have to either cave and cut services or hold out with the exact same dynamic that we saw this year.  And it will not allow the legislature to tackle the structural revenue gap that comes from a tax system too closely tied to boom-and-bust budget cycles.  This is perverse consultant-class thinking that is dangerously outdated, constantly compromising, and believes in political reality as static rather than lifting a finger to change that reality.  Thinking that March 2004 and June 2010 are the same is just ridiculous, and thinking that no argument can be made to the public, after the longest and most self-evidently absurd budget process in decades, that the system is fundamentally broken and has to be changed to allow the majority to do their job, is in many ways why we're in this position to begin with.

So not only do we have to watch Democratic leaders to see whether or not they support repealing 2/3 with a majority vote rather than some arbitrary number, we have to watch them to see if they want to split the baby or not, either repealing both 2/3 requirements, or just dealing with the budget without taxes, which would actually put Democrats in a demonstrably worse situation.

I'm here in Sacramento this morning for the Constitutional Convention Summit organized by the Bay Area Council. You can see the agenda here. It's unfortunate that the BAC chose to maintain an $89 registration fee, but there will be other events much more open and accessible to the public in the coming weeks and months.

I'll be liveblogging here and twittering at @cruickshank throughout the day.

The main purpose of this Summit is to gauge interest in calling a convention, bringing people together to think through the process of calling one, what issues a convention might consider, and ultimately start to generate support for the idea.

I really have no idea what's going to be said or what will happen here today, although Lt. Gov. John Garamendi is going to speak in favor of replacing the 2/3 budget rule with a 55% vote, and is also apparently going to call for the abolition of the State Senate and the creation of a 120-member unicameral legislature. Looks like the damage Senate Republicans inflicted on the chamber with their four-day hostage crisis may be terminal.

California hasn't seen a genuine constitutional convention since 1879, although our state's voters have not been shy about amending the constitution since then. A convention opens up a lot of possibilities and brings with it certain risks. All of that has to be discussed by Californians and this is but the start of that effort.

Ultimately it has to be remembered that in American political theory, the people are sovereign. They hold power, not a king or a president or a Zombie Death Cult. If a convention is to be a success it must involve, engage, and empower the people at every way. This Summit is a start in that effort - and only a start. Where we go from here should be and must be up to Californians.

Updates over the flip.
• The room is pretty full. Showing a video now that the BAC put together explaining how the state is totally broken and unable to meet its obligations to the people, constitutional convention could solve it.

• Sorry for the lack of updates here. Calitics was loading slowly earlier today. Follow along at twitter: @cruickshank

Well, it seems George Runner is branching out from just costing the state extra money in our prison system to costing our state money in our elections.  He recently filed what he has dubbed "VoteSAFE: Secure and Fair Elections Act" or as I like to call it, The VoteMORON: Mostly Obnoxious Runner Obfuscation and Negation Act. (I must admit I worked way too hard on that.)

It's a fairly standard attack on two sets of generally progressive voters. First, it requires ID for all voters at the polls, and then requires that people who vote by mail include the last four digits of their driver's license, California ID card, or social security number. And then the municipality has to go through and check everybody.  Oh, and of course the ID can't be more than 2 years expired.

So instead of making it easier for the elderly and new citizens to vote, Runner wants to make it harder and more cumbersome.  Oh, and more expensive for localities performing the elections. Yup, sounds like some Good George Runner policy there.

But wait, if you act now, you can toss in a dig at convicted felons!  Under existing California law, people who have been convicted of a felony get the right to vote back after they have completed parole.  Under Runner's MORON Act, felons would lose their right to vote forever.  This is pretty much the opposite direction as other states are heading.  We should be rewarding convicted felons for completing probation and returning into society, not continuing to punish them.

But that's George Runner, the man never met a chance to shove his boot into the face of anybody who has made a mistake. We'll see if he has the resources to actually get this on the ballot, but if you see any signature gatherers on the street with this stinker in a few weeks, Just Say No to VoteMORON!

On a cultural note, that was one hell of a Tony Awards show last night in Hollywood.  What?  That wasn't the Tonys?  Then what were all the dance numbers, bad staging and endless references to West Side Story all about?  Anyway, here are the links...

• Wanda Sykes has a nice message as part of Equality California's new "I Do" campaign.  It's nice to see her stepping out in front of the battle for marriage equality.  The proceeds of merchandise sales support continuing education efforts from Let California Ring.  And while I'm at it, Dustin Lance Black's Oscar acceptance speech for his "Milk" original screenplay was very powerful as well.  (So was Sean Penn's, punctuated by the opening line "You commie homo-loving sons of guns.")

• There is a hiring boom in one state government sector - at the Department of Personnel Administration, to help with all the layoffs.  It's a growth industry!

• Joe Mathews had a good short piece in The New Republic about the decline of his former employer, the LA Times, and the loss of local coverage in newspapers more generally.  This is a major problem for accountability and an informed citizenry in California and across the nation.

• California's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors was ruled unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals late last week.

• I strongly support Russ Feingold's proposed Constitutional amendment to mandate special elections for all Senate vacancies, but I see his Chicago Tribune op-ed on the subject had an unlikely co-author - California's David Dreier.  Color me surprised, and I assume this is part of Dreier's faux-moderate pose, but if he wants to jump aboard a Democratic reform I'm not kicking him off the hay wagon.

• Rep. George Miller gives an on-site report from the "fiscal responsibility summit" today in Washington.  Miller actually invented PAYGO in the mid-1980s and knows it can be used to force conservatives out of hiding by no longer allowing them the comfort of the "two Santa Clauses" theory, where they can advocate for endless tax cuts and endless spending at the same time.  There is a progressive answer to fiscal responsibility, and it has three words: universal health care.  Miller's comments on that front were encouraging.

(cross-posted from my campaign blog)

Last week, President Obama laid out his administration's Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan to deal with the foreclosure crisis. I wanted to weigh in on it since, as President of the Los Angeles City Council, it's been an issue my office has been working extremely hard on for months at the local level.

Obama's plan would devote $75 billion from the TARP funds as well as $200 billion in additional funding commitments to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to help between 7-9 million families avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes. This is particularly important here in California where, according to RealtyTrac, in 2008 alone California saw more than 520,000 of its homes receive foreclosure filings, a jump of 110% over 2007.

I was heartened by this plan because, while it's not perfect, it does several things that I think are very important. 1. It provides incentives to servicers who lower interest rates and to borrowers for keeping current on their loans; 2. It helps restructure loans and reduce monthly payments for responsible homeowners who wish to stay in their homes; the plan does not reward speculators, house flippers or dishonest lenders; and 3. The plan reflects the reality that I've been dealing with on the ground here in Los Angeles for months now: that solving this crisis is not just about saving homeowners' homes, this is about saving entire communities.

From The Treasury's executive summary:

The deep contraction in the economy and in the housing market has created devastating consequences for homeowners and communities throughout the country. [...]

The plan will help up to 7 to 9 million families restructure or refinance their mortgages to avoid foreclosure. In doing so, the plan not only helps responsible homeowners on the verge of defaulting, but prevents neighborhoods and communities from being pulled over the edge too, as defaults and foreclosures contribute to falling home values, failing local businesses, and lost jobs.

It goes on:

Protecting Neighborhoods: This plan will also help to stabilize home prices for all homeowners in a neighborhood. When a home goes into foreclosure, the entire neighborhood is hurt. The average homeowner could see his or her home value stabilized against declines in price by as much as $6,000 relative to what it would otherwise be absent the Homeowner Stability Initiative.

The impact of a foreclosed home on its neighborhood can be devastating. Not only does each foreclosed home reduce nearby property values by as much as 9 percent, but a boarded up house invites crime and leads to blight, a particular concern in the Los Angeles area.

More...
While Los Angeles County was not among the hardest hit counties in California (in January, 1 out of every 249 housing units went into foreclosure, nothing compared to San Bernadino's 1 out of every 87), stemming the tide of foreclosures and preventing the eviction of responsible renters have become priorities for my office.  We have already seen more than 20,000 foreclosures in the City of Los Angeles alone (many of them multi-family apartment buildings), and their effect can devastate any street in Los Angeles, where potentially-abandoned homes reduce property values, attract crime, and bring about blight.

To this end, in October I called on Countrywide to cease and desist their illegal eviction practices after they attempted to evict a tenant in my district. Then in December, the City Council passed a moratorium on foreclosure-related evictions for one year, which I wrote with the goals of preventing blight and allowing renters who are not behind on rent to stay in their homes in this dismal economy. In addition, earlier this month, I was proud to second my colleague, Councilman Alarcon's bill to compel the City of Los Angeles to explore the divestiture of its $25 billion in banking and other financial institutions that fail to engage in responsible foreclosure prevention efforts such as:

...temporary moratoriums on foreclosures, renegotiation of mortgage principles to reflect current values and good faith negotiations with mortgagees.

In addition, my office has worked closely with One-LA, a grassroots coalition of community organizers, religious congregations, and neighborhood groups who have been at the forefront of helping families renegotiate the terms of their loans with banks.

In many ways, President Obama's plan represents the federal government catching up with what we've been doing at the local level for months now. I can't tell you how nice it is to have a partner in the White House again and a President who really gets it. The thrust of this plan acknowledges that on a very real level, if our neighbor is in foreclosure, so are we and that saving my neighbor's home saves mine. In other words, it reflects that progressive virtue that drives me in my work every day: that we're all in this together.  

The Yacht Party wrapped up their convention in Sacramento yesterday, and while they didn't censure the members of the caucus who voted for tax hikes, they did deprive them of support in future elections.  There's a problem with this, of course - only Dave Cogdill and Anthony Adams are running for their seats in the next election, as everyone else is termed out.  In addition, what this really prevents is slate mailers, not really anything else.  It doesn't prevent mailers that candidates can buy a spot on, or funding from individual members of the party, etc.  This measure is good for the "heads on a stick" crowd but not for much else.  You can already see the Yacht Party trying to run away from the insanity they've enabled for 30 years.

Shortly before the voice vote, a banner reading "The Six Losers" was unveiled listing lawmakers who voted for the budget. State Republican chairman Ron Nehring quickly closed curtains to cover the sign, which was displayed behind the table of party executive officers.

Hilarious.

I eagerly await seeing how the suicide cult reacts to a gubernatorial candidate who will try to buy the election.  Meg Whitman is certainly an economic conservative but differs with the base on a few social issues.  Unlike with an Assembly or Senate candidate, the state party delegates will have no chance of holding the purse strings over someone like Meg Whitman.

Ms. Whitman predicted that her campaign could cost $150 million, much of it coming from her own fortune. (Forbes most recently estimated it at $1.4 billion.)

This doesn't make her unbeatable, even in the primary - Ms. Whitman, say hello to Al Checchi.  But it does mean that the base will have less leverage and less relevance.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) posted a map today detailing the benefits for the Recovery Plan.  The DCCC has made Congressman Calvert one of 12 GOP House members they are targeting in an e-mail, text, and telephone campaign calling these members out for voting against the stimulus package.  As the DCCC states, "Congressman Ken Calvert's vote against President Obama's economic recovery package means that he tried to block a badly needed and shovel-ready project to repair streets in Riverside, California, creating 23 jobs alone."

To view the map, visit www.DCCC.org/Content/Recovery
In Mr. Calvert's world of bizarre partisan purity, the Stimulus Bill spends too much. This argument hardly seems credible coming from a gentleman who voted to bailout banks and corporate CEOs to the tune of seven hundred billion dollars with no oversight, and who repeatedly voted to spend a budget-busting trillion dollars in Iraq.

As of November 2008, the Bureau of Labor Statistics ranked Riverside the highest unemployment rate in the country (surpassing Detroit).  Failed trade agreements, deregulated financial markets, and tax policies that have encouraged the concentration of great wealth into pockets of a handful of Americans have put the middle class at risk.  All things that Mr. Calvert supported and voted for.  Today, in Riverside County hundreds of businesses have shut their doors.

By voting against this Bill, Mr. Calvert once again proves how out-of-touch he is with his own constituents and why he lost 80% of his district.

To help oust Calvert once and for all, visit HedrickforCongress.com and donate to the campaign.

When Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't governing by magazine cover, he's governing by Sunday talk show.  This is a good venue for him, because nobody asking him questions has any idea what Arnold's actually done to California, and he can spout off one-liners and talk the Beltway language of post-partisanship without rebuttal.  These kinds of interviews are never given to reporters in his home state, because they might actually have experience with his tenure and thus would be in position to know a lie when they see one.

For example, the Governor is getting a lot of ink for the line about how he'd be willing to take any stimulus money from any governor in the country who rejects it.  Less discussed is the essential falsehood present in this comment:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So when you -- we're looking at a similar budget crisis in the coming years here in the United States. Does the Republican Party have to re-think its absolute opposition to tax increases of any kind?

SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, no, I think that the Republican Party or any party has to always think, when you make a decision, "Do I want to make a decision that's based -- that's best for the party? Or am I a public servant and have to serve the people, what is best for the people?"

And in this particular case, in order to solve a $42 billion deficit, the only way you can do that is a combination of making severe cuts and also having some revenue increases.

Really?  Arnold was "listening to the people" when he helped ram through a massive corporate tax cut, in a time of deficits, for large multinational corporations?  Show me the poll where the public was clamoring for a multinational corporate tax cut.  How about the poll where the public was desperate for waiving environmental laws regarding public works projects and delaying implementation of laws regulating diesel emissions?  Actually, the California public has spoken pretty profoundly that they want a serious reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

I mean please.  This is a guy who campaigned almost entirely in 2003 on cutting the vehicle license fee, costing the state almost enough to fill this entire budget gap over 6 years, and now he's raised it after admitting defeat.  Arnold Schwarzenegger is a born liar.  He has the interests of the California Chamber of Commerce and anything but the people of California.  That's why he refuses to engage with them or their elected representatives, preferring to float above it all and run to the national media with false tropes about "serving the people."  Forget just apologizing to Gray Davis, he should abdicate to him.

This last bit from John Myers was amusing:

And in non-governor news, he confirmed an interest in a cameo appearance in an upcoming Sylvester Stallone flick, picked Mickey Rourke to win an Oscar, and said The Candidate was his favorite political flick. That movie is an interesting choice, given it's about a candidate who's so focused on winning -- rather than governing-- that after his victory famously says: "What do we do now?"

Exactly.

A frequent topic of online discussion on the budget crisis in recent weeks has been a call to legalize and tax marijuana in order to help close the budget deficit. This would have two beneficial effects - reducing the prison population and increasing the revenue stream for state government. It was even the most popular question at Change.gov back in December.

Today Assemblymember Tom Ammiano announced he supports this basic concept, and to that end is introducing AB 390 - a bill number you'll be hearing a lot about in coming months. From a press release sent via email:

Today Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) announced the introduction of groundbreaking legislation that would tax and regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education act (AB 390) would create a regulatory structure similar to that used for beer, wine and liquor, permitting taxed sales to adults while barring sales to or possession by those under 21.

"With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move towards regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense.  This legislation would generate much needed revenue for the state, restrict access to only those over 21, end the environmental damage to our public lands from illicit crops, and improve public safety by redirecting law enforcement efforts to more serious crimes", said Ammiano.  "California has the opportunity to be the first state in the nation to enact a smart, responsible public policy for the control and regulation of marijuana."

Ammiano estimates this will bring in $1 billion in annual revenue. That could double when considering the impact of savings on prison spending.

This is clearly an idea whose time has come. I do not know of any recent polling on the topic, but I have to believe that support for regulating marijuana like alcohol has risen in recent years. 2009 offers an interesting moment, where long-time legalization advocates can now ally with Californians who want to solve the budget crisis and can no longer afford to ignore the high costs of a failed marijuana policy.

Ammiano is also following in the footsteps of other San Francisco legislators. In 1975 then-State Senator George Moscone got a bill passed and signed by Governor Jerry Brown to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. Ammiano's proposed legislation is of a much larger scale, but it makes sense to treat marijuana, a drug that is already widely available in California, the same way we treat alcohol.

It's good to see someone in Sacramento stand up and point out that there's no reason we should maintain a policy that has failed so totally and completely, and at such an enormous cost, as marijuana prohibition.

Crossposted from the California High Speed Rail Blog

One of my lingering concerns about the Obama Administration has been that they might be tempted to claim victory with the $8 billion in HSR funding added to the stimulus and not follow up on that money, which as we know merely pays for some initial costs. But Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood made clear last week that in fact, the $8 billion in HSR stimulus really is intended as a signal to America that Obama is truly serious about building HSR:

LaHood said that for Obama building high-speed rail networks is, "if not his No. 1 priority, certainly at the top of his list. What the president is saying with the $8 billion is this is the start to help begin high-speed rail projects." He added that the administration "is committed to finding the dollars to not only get them started but to finishing them in at least five parts of the country," although he declined to elaborate on where these projects might ultimately be built.

And don't worry about the right-wing freakout over the Vegas HSR project - California is in better position than any other HSR project in America to use that stimulus funding. We can begin construction in late 2010 or early 2011; no other project is anywhere close to that point.

This couldn't be better news for us in California, where we have long known that at least $15 billion in federal aid, spread out over 10 years, will be needed to build the SF-LA line. Unfortunately the news is tempered by the fact that the Obama Administration's support for HSR did not extend to mass transit as a whole. Here in California the state has decided to zero out the State Transit Assistance account, costing local agencies over $500 million in funding. The federal stimulus isn't nearly enough to make up the difference. And as the San Jose Mercury News reports, that's setting up a situation where HSR may be pit against local transit agencies:

The MTC meeting Wednesday in Oakland could turn contentious, as the current plan calls for allocating $75 million to help build the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco, which would serve as the final stopping point for a high-speed rail line and Caltrain (UPDATE: the MTC now plans to seek train box funds from the $8 billion HSR stimulus, not the general transit stimulus funds - see Transbay Blog for more info) and $70 million to build a BART spur to Oakland International Airport. Those two projects alone would take 43 percent of the $340 million headed to the area in stimulus funds for local transit.

Some want money for those new two projects scrapped or reduced - and redirected to cover the cost of paying for day-to-day transit needs.

But MTC officials counter that building the Transbay Terminal now will save millions of dollars in later costs, and combined with the $8 billion in stimulus funds set aside for high-speed rail could accelerate that program.

I support using that money for the Transbay Terminal, although I'm less certain about whether BART to OAK is all that necessary; the AirBART buses work pretty well (I used them on numerous occasions when I was an undergrad at UC Berkeley, although that was 10 years ago).

But I really hate it when HSR pitted against other forms of transit. I have said it before and I will say it again - HSR and other mass transit need each other to be successful. It should not and must not be an either/or choice. I don't blame the MTC for being stuck in this position - that blame lies in Sacramento and Washington DC. But we transit advocates need to not fall out along modal lines.

I'd like to propose a solution, one that I don't even know is possible under state law but makes a ton of sense to me. The nine-county SF Bay Area region should implement its own gas tax, which will solely be used to fund public transit. I haven't penciled out the numbers so I don't know exactly what the tax amount should be, but it should be indexed to the price of gas, and not a fixed cent number.

This money would initially be used to backfill the loss of STA funds, and allow the federal stimulus money to go to new transit infrastructure such as Transbay Terminal or BART to OAK. Ultimately the STA funds must be restored by a statewide gas tax increase, but it is much more politically possible to implement a gas tax in the Bay Area first than to try and get the Central Valley and the Southern California exurbs to buy into this (they can be brought on board later, once the 2/3 rule is eliminated).

It's very difficult for folks living in the nine counties to evade the tax, with the possible exception of Gilroy residents who might drive to Hollister to fill up. Most folks will simply pay the increase rather than drive far out of their way to get a cheaper gallon of gas.

I'm not sure if this option has been explored by the MTC and the member counties, but it ought to be. It's a sensible solution that would not only help spare transit agencies from "Armageddon" but would itself be a long overdue policy shift that would give a real boost to transit efforts in the SF Bay Area.

The weekly Democratic radio address (which ought to be a YouTube address, come on guys) called for an end to the 2/3 requirement for budget and tax increases.  This is the first time in my memory that so many lawmakers are openly talking about revising 2/3.  It's not a new problem - 28 of the last 32 budgets have been late due to legislative squabbling, with the fights becoming more protracted than ever over the past decade.  And every economic downturn, no matter how slight, sets off a crisis.  Assemblyman John Perez made it clear:

The budget would not have taken so long and would have not included non-budget related issues like an open primary if California did not have the unusual requirement of a two thirds vote for budget approval.

Reforming this two-thirds requirement should be a priority for all Californians.

Perez did not reference whether the new requirement should be the arbitrary 55% number, which is what the current initiative being circulated states, or a simple democratic majority.  We've learned where a number of Democrats stand this weekend:

• Darrell Steinberg decided not to mention 2/3 hardly at all in his op-ed in the Sacramento Bee.  That's a lack of leadership.  No elected official should be speaking in public and pass up the opportunity to advocate for majority vote.  He instead opted for a Broderist call for working together and the awkward tag line "Smarter going forward."

In comments to David Greenwald, Steinberg did call for repeal, but failed to pick a side.

"The answer in my view is to take this two-thirds supermajority requirement. We are one of three states in the country that allows a small minority of members to hold up the progress.... It doesn't really work for California; it worked this time barely because of the magnitude of the crisis... We need to take the question this two-thirds supermajority to the ballot. I feel even stronger now than I did when I started on December 1."

• Karen Bass is also talking about 2/3, but she is looking at the arbirtrary standard:

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, has proposed one that would allow lawmakers to approve budgets with 55 percent majorities if they do it by June 15. After that, it would take two-thirds votes.

It's not necessarily that this kind of measure would definitely not pass because all the thrust of majority democratic rule is lost, but that's certainly a factor.

• In that same article, Loni Hancock calls for a simple majority:

Hancock has introduced a constitutional amendment that would require only simple majorities to approve budgets.

"California needs to have a normal democracy like every other state in the nation except Rhode Island and Arkansas," she said.

That's a talking point.  55% is mush.

The point is that we have the Democratic leadership finally talking about the main impediment to the perpetual budget crisis.  Without two-thirds, you can fix a tax system that is too closely tied to boom-and-bust economic cycles.  Without two-thirds, you can end the virtual bribery of Yacht Party and moderate lawmakers.  Without two-thirds, you can end the Big Five process that facilitates official secrecy and backroom deals and use a deliberative process involving the committee structure and relying on the input of the entire caucus.  And without 2/3, you won't have to hear from high Broderist windbags tinkering on the margins with proposals that make them feel good but will do absolutely nothing to solve the problem.  It's kind of hilarious that the LAST proposal in George "Can't We All Get Along" Skelton's long list in today's column is this:

* A simple majority vote for budget passage; 55% at most. Scrap the two-thirds vote requirement.

160 years ago a group of newly arrived Anglos and Spanish-speaking Californios met at Colton Hall here in Monterey (pictured at right in a flickr photo by fritzliess) and held California's first Constitutional Convention. The document they produced was literally copied from the Iowa state constitution but had some elements of the Mexican system of government and justice grafted onto it, and included full protection of Spanish speakers' rights in what was officially a bilingual state.

California's constitution has undergone significant change since then. In 1878 the Workingmen's Party rode an anti-Chinese backlash and the Long Depression to power, and rewrote the Constitution in an effort to undermine the power of wealthy interests. (Unfortunately they also ended the 1849 bilingual policy.) In 1911 the Constitution was essentially rewritten when Progressive Republican Hiram Johnson pushed through the initiative, referendum and recall. And in 1978 another dramatic set of Constitutional revisions was initiated by Prop 13.

Americans think of their constitutions as static and unchanging, but this has never been the case. Both the US and the California constitution have undergone frequent revision. Sometimes this comes in the form of actual amendments, but it can also take the form of significant changes in Constitutional interpretation. The only amendments that came out of the New Deal were the 20th and 21st (moving Inauguration Day to January 20 and ending Prohibition) but as most historians and political scientists agree, FDR nevertheless initiated major changes to the way the American government operated.

California's constitution has been amended frequently - over 500 times by some accounts - and included an effort in the late 1960s to modernize the document. Still, it has become clear that California's government is broken and unable to meet the needs of one of the worst crises our state has ever faced. The economic crisis, drought, an energy and environmental crisis that seem to have faded a bit from the public mind but are still very much here - all of these problems are dumped into the lap of a government hamstrung by a conservative veto and a series of rules, many of which date from the last 30 years, designed specifically to prevent government from meeting the people's needs.

The spectacle of Abel Maldonado blackmailing the Legislature to accede to his demands as the price of passing a budget last week showed the need to eliminate the 2/3 rule. It is the first change, the tree that blocks the tracks, the door that opens that path to all other changes. But it has become clear that California needs even deeper reform to solve the present crisis and meet the  needs of a 21st century state. Periods of major economic change usually are accompanied by constitutional change - hell, even the US Constitution itself owes its existence to the severe economic crisis of the 1780s, one of the worst in American history.

That's why the Courage Campaign, where I work as Public Policy Director, is joining the Bay Area Council and a diverse coalition of organizations to sponsor a Constitutional Convention Summit on Tuesday in Sacramento (you can register at Repair California).

It's my own personal belief, and one shared by the Courage Campaign, that a Constitutional Convention can successfully fix California's broken government. In a poll of our members last September over 90% said they supported a convention. And in December we launched CPR for California - a Citizens Plan to Reform California that included some major structural fixes for the state, including fixing the budget process and producing long-overdue initiative reform as well as empowerment solutions such as public financing of elections and universal voter registration.

But the key to success is that a convention must truly be "of the people." A convention will fail - and may not even be approved by voters - if it is seen as a top-down effort. Remember of course that a Constitution is a social compact, the product of a sovereign people, a recognition that we must have government to survive but that it must also be accountable to the people. For a Constitutional Convention to have legitimacy it must include the people of California at every step of the journey - especially in setting the Convention's priorities. Additionally, the delegates who attend the Convention must be representative of the state's population, and not be selected from a small group.

It's also worth noting some of the limits of a Constitutional Convention. The Courage Campaign believes that all social issues should be off-limits at a convention, such as marriage equality (that is best dealt with by the California Supreme Court, or by the voters if the Court upholds Prop 8). The Convention alone won't solve our state's financial woes.

But it's time that California's government once again adapted to the times. We need a constitution and a government responsive to the people and able to address the broad 21st century crisis, instead of a government that was deliberately broken and subject to a conservative veto. A Constitutional Convention won't solve all our problems, but it's a necessary step forward for California.

It doesn't come without risks, of course. But the time has come for progressives to assert a new set of ideas and a new agenda for California's future.

Over the flip I explain the process of calling, holding, and approving the proposals produced out of a Constitutional Convention.
The California Constitution currently only allows the Legislature to propose a convention to the voters - and that requires the usual 2/3 vote. Since the Zombie Death Cult won't go for a convention as it would challenge the conservative veto they hold so dear, that means the people need to be empowered to call the convention themselves.

There would be two propositions on the ballot, likely in June 2010. The first would enable the people themselves to call a convention (perhaps with a time limit - no more than one convention every 20 years) and allow them to also limit the scope of what a convention could cover. The second proposition would actually call the constitution, limited to exclude social issues, and would provide for the election of delegates (perhaps 10-12 per Assembly district).

The convention itself would meet within 6 months of voter approval. The convention would set its own rules of deliberation (or those could be spelled out in the proposition). Ultimately the convention would propose a package of reforms to be voted on as a single proposition - up or down on the whole thing. Voters then get the final say over any proposed changes, as of course the people of California hold sovereign power over such Constitutional changes.

Because there are so many reforms needed, and because of the barriers to putting each reform on the ballot (the Legislature might not go for it, and no initiative has qualified for the ballot without using paid signature gatherers in over 25 years), a Constitutional Convention is the best path for allowing a package of reforms to be approved at once.

In both the Friday and Saturday editions of the Los Angeles Times, right on page A1 above the fold, there was a graphic of a "tax calculator," which projected the additional taxes an individual would pay based on certain factors like income, number of dependents and values of vehicles.  They have a corresponding tax calculator on their website where users can type in the data and get the precise tax hit coming to them.  The Sacramento Bee has the same thing.  Talk radio was having a field day with these calculators over the past couple days, getting people to call in and disclose their statistics and telling them how much money they will owe.  This led to perverse complaints like the lady making $126,000 a year ranting about an $800 tax increase.

In my life, I have never seen a "spending cut calculator," where someone good plug in the services they rely on, like how many school-age children they have, or how many roads they take to work, or how many police officers and firefighters serve their community, or what social services they or their families rely on, and how much they stand to lose in THAT equation.  Tax calculators show bias toward the gated community screamers on the right who see their money being piled away for nothing.  A spending cut calculator would actually show the impact to a much larger cross-section of society, putting far more people at risk than a below 1% hit to their bottom line.

But of course, people who are perceived to depend on state services probably don't log on to the LA Times and the Sacramento Bee websites very often to calculate their tax burden.  In reality, we all depend on the state for roads and law enforcement and libraries and schools and county hospitals and on and on.  And in Los Angeles County, one in five residents - almost 2.2 million people - receive some form of public aid.  So wouldn't it make sense to portray the real cost of spending cuts in the same way that tax increases are portrayed?

Contra Dan Walters, it is completely untrue that "liberal Web sites" are unilaterally condemning cuts to education and health & welfare spending.  We fully understand that a $42 billion dollar hole cannot be filled by revenue alone.  We certainly condemn corporate tax cuts at a time of massive deficits, or counter-productive actions like selling the lottery, which will produce net losses in the long-term.  But there is no question that the media mentality is to highlight the tax side of the equation over the spending side, and dramatically portray the tax increases - splashed across the front page - while relegating the spending cuts to further down the page.  It feeds the tax revolt and distorts the debate.  And it's completely irresponsible.

(This is cross-posted from my site La Vida Locavore, which covers food politics and all news related to food. Stop by and check us out if you're ever wondering what Tom Vilsack's up to, what really happened to all the peanut butter, or where California milk REALLY comes from... hint: not the happy cows in the pictures.)

The news in California is bad. Well, mostly bad. After all, the Oscars are tomorrow. But the budget's a mess, the economy sucks, and on top of that there's a drought. What's next, an earthquake?

To manage water in the face of the drought, the federal government is cutting off water to many California farms for at least three weeks in March. The amount of time without water will depend on whether we get rain in the next few weeks. In the San Joaquin Valley, the drought will cause an estimated $1.15 billion (with a B) in lost agriculture-related wages and 40,000 lost jobs in farm-related industries. And if that ain't bad enough, the New York Times reports that the problems go beyond food in affected towns:

Across the valley, towns are already seeing some of the worst unemployment in the country, with rates three and four times the national average, as well as reported increases in all manner of social ills: drug use, excessive drinking and rises in hunger and domestic violence.

California farms receive 80% of their water from federally-managed supplies and the rest from the state. The feds are turning off the tap, but farmers may still receive some water from the state. Unfortunately for the farmers, some of the water may be legally unavailable to them due to laws or rulings protecting endangered species.

(Meanwhile, in the parts of the state where I hang out - San Diego and Los Angeles - I've seen idiots who let their automatic sprinkler systems water their already wet lawns on rainy days recently.)
Over at Change.org Natasha Chart asks if a recovery is even possible on a planet headed for environmental collapse? That's an answer I wish I knew. Natasha's been covering the water story regularly with a post about Colorado's fights between Big Oil and Big Water, a post about agribusiness and water use, and a post I highly recommend reading (even though it scares the shit out of me) called "We don't have to choose a dustbowl"

My own environmentalist hippie foodie answers to the water problem begin as follows:

1. Why is it still legal to have lawns in California? Seriously. Somebody should outlaw watering your lawn. If we weren't in such a budget crisis I'd add that the city should provide native drought resistant plants to residents who want to make their yard beautiful and able to survive without water.

2. California growers need to go organic ASAP. It's not a fix that will help them this year, and it will reduce their productivity in the next few years but in the long run, it will make all of their crops more drought resistant because the soil will store more water.

3. We've gotta do something about animal agriculture. It uses a TON of water. If factory farms are something we have to have, then they shouldn't be located in California. Period.

4. We need to expand fruit, nut, and vegetable (so-called "specialty crop") production in the other 49 states to plan for decreased production in California and to reduce energy needs for shipping food across the country. Right now there are actually laws preventing farmers who grow commodities to switching over to grow specialty crops instead. You can't even buy land from a farmer who used to grow commodities there and grow specialty crops on that land! The USDA is dabbling in changing that policy but only in a very small pilot program.

These things are expensive - either for the farmers or for the state that mandates it and compensates the farmers (or offers financial incentives to make it happen without mandating it). But we bailed out the banks even after they screwed up and got us into this mess. Why can't we bail out our farmers? After all, we need to eat.

On Wednesday, February 18th the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) posted this press release...

Shady Representative Calvert Land Deal Still in Court

Did Calvert and Co. get special treatment to 'further curry political favor'?  With questions still swirling about Representative Ken Calvert's role in the purchase of public land, a $1.5 million lawsuit alleging the land sale may have been improper - or worse - continues to make its way through Riverside County Superior Court.
"Representative Calvert's shady land deal refuses to go away.  After all, Calvert and his partners got a sweetheart deal on a prime piece of property that avoided a competitive bidding process and was done to 'further curry political favor, relations and influence,'" said Andy Stone, Western Regional Press Secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.  "Congressman Calvert should spend less time focusing on his real estate holdings and more time addressing the needs of his constituents like he could have done by supporting the economic stimulus package which is projected to create 9,000-plus jobs in California's 44th District.  The fact that Calvert's 'rare' economic chat today is a 'private' fundraiser shows how out of touch he is."

Calvert says he was a silent partner in the $1.2 million deal to acquire a plot of land near new residential construction to build self-storage units.  
But it appears the Jurupa Community Services District sold the property to Calvert and his partners without first offering it to other public agencies, as required by law.  That means Calvert and his partners were able to buy a plot of land, close to the freeway, in a booming real estate market - with no competitive bidding.  In fact, a Riverside County grand jury found that the community services district violated the law when it sold the land to Calvert and his partners.

And the lawsuit goes even a step further calling the land sale "actual fraud, corruption and actual malice" and alleges that the land was sold to Calvert - who had previously supported federal legislation benefiting the Jurupa Community Services District - and his partners as a way to "further curry political favor, relations and influence."  Of course, Ken Calvert has a long history of engaging in questionable land deals, even reportedly coming under investigation by the FBI because of allegations about Calvert-sought earmarks benefiting his property holdings.  

I'm reading the accounts of delusional maniacs from across the state with not a little bit of bemusement.  The lack of economic thought is matched only by the lack of recognition that Republicans got far more out of this budget than they deserved to get, thanks to the anti-democratic 2/3 requirement.  Here's a sample of this Algonquin Roundtable:

"The Republicans should have stood their ground," fumed 70-year-old Tony Dragonetti. "Abel Maldonado is sick, and so are the other Republicans who voted for this. They give the you-owe-me crowd everything they need, but the poor slob who is working day after day paying taxes gets nothing." [...]

"I think they could have held out. There are a lot more cuts they could have made," said Steve Pyle, 61, who said he was so unhappy with the country's direction that he seriously was considering moving to Australia. "They could start by getting rid of all the illegal immigrants and the teachers unions." [...]

"I don't believe everything would have stopped if this budget wasn't passed," Sanders said. "I support what the Republicans did."

Local GOP activist Adele Harrison predicted new taxes would push the state and country into a depression [...]

Terry Carter, 65, just smiled behind the counter and kept pouring coffee. The boisterous regulars have helped keep him in business for 22 years. As for his own opinions, he keeps those to himself.

"Sometimes the smartest thing you can do is listen," he said.

Well, that depends on who you're listening to.  For example, listening to talk radio is most definitely NOT the smartest thing you can do.  I've been tuning in to a lot of this down in Southern California, and the ignorance abounds.  A typical commenter is a well-off suburbanite bitching about $700 bucks in new taxes for their $126,000 salary (that was an actual conversation).  Roger Niello, one of the Yacht Party's own who voted for the budget, got hammered on a Sacramento station.

John in Sacramento warned, "You're going to bankrupt the state with taxes."

And Dave in Cameron Park told Niello he was "outraged that you, as a Republican, caved in and voted with Democrats." [...]

"You should have let (California) fall off a cliff," John from Sacramento told him. "Then, we pick up the pieces and put this state together, the way it used to be." (emphasis mine)

This is the suicide cult politics played by the GOP.  And it features a lot of righteous anger and talk of censure and recalls and primary challenges.  There's even some Ventura County Supervisor and anti-tax nut who's mulling a run for Governor as the conservative alternative.

But I'm not sure it's such a force anymore.  The John and Ken show ended Thursday with the two musing that "somebody should do something about this" and asking listeners to find each other to fight against the turncoats.  In other words, they're not going to lead it.  Ultimately, these are lazy people shouting at the end of the bar.  Independents have turned dramatically against them, and the leader of the party won't show up at their convention.  I don't know that they're entirely coordinated, after years of mismanagement and an almost broke state party apparatus, to even pull off the enforcer role.  If someone like Anthony Adams survives a primary challenge, that would be a powerful signal that the Yacht Party is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

In fact, in maybe the most pathetic rallying speech I've ever heard in my lifetime, neo-Hooverist South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford argued for losing now, losing tomorrow, losing forevah!

"We are at the incredible gut check point for what happens next in American civilization," Sanford said in the introductory address for the state party's three-day Sacramento convention [...]

"Would you be willing to lose? Would you be willing to support folks who may likely lose," Sanford told the gathering at the Capitol Hyatt. He went on to say that it was paramount for party members to support the GOP "at a time when it may look like a losing cause" because their efforts will be "pushing the ball forward in the larger conservative movement."

California Republicans: Willing To Lose.

To be honest, I (Brian) actually typed open primary without even thinking.  I thought it was funny, so I left it.  Anyway, to some links and events

• The Monterey chapter of the NAACP is having an event on Saturday night at the Seaside Embassy Suites with Bill Monning to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the NAACP.  More info at their website.

• Josh Richman has the scoop on Asm. Alberto Torrico  entering the very crowded AG race.  With this being one of the few open seats vacated at the state level, there might be a few more entries here.  In addition, largely crazy person George Runner is running for Board of Equalization in one of the traditionally Republican seats now held by Bill Leonard.

• In other campaign news, Dean Andal has decided not to run the worst Republican campaign in America again and face Jerry McNerney in CA-11.  There are some other options for the GOP, including recently termed-out Asm. Guy Houston.  But McNerney won easily over Andal, who took a job with PriceWaterhouseCoopers instead of getting thrashed again.

• Despite the budget resolution, the counties still aren't getting their social service payments, as it will take time for money to flow through the system.  In the meantime people suffer.  There is both a human cost and a very real financial cost to delay.  Another example is the state's residents getting shortchanged because they can't get through to unemployment insurance call centers.  That money doesn't get into the economy, either, hurting businesses.  Also, the EDD pays money to Verizon whenever an unemployed individual gets the message machine, costing over $5 million since 2004.  Um, buy an answering machine.

• There's quite the controversy going on at Corona Del Mar High School about a performance (or not) of Rent.  It even made the NY Times.

• CalPERS and CalSTRS are reviewing how they make change in the corporate governance world.  The California pensions have really been one of the loudest voices for good corporate governance, and here's hoping that they continue to do so during the downturn.

• The cuts in education will be very, very difficult for the districts, and really take us in the wrong direction. But we have a deal, right? Right?

Here it is folks, the propositions qualified for the May 19 Special Election, thanks to a tweet from our Secretary of State.  I take not position yet on any of these, as there is still a lot of research to be done. So we have the following:

Prop 1A: Very Complicated Spending Cap/Rainy Day Fund

Prop 1B: Education Finance Reforms

Prop 1C: Securitization of the Lottery

Prop 1D: Raiding First 5, Prop 10 of 1998

Prop 1E: Raiding Mental Health Services, Prop 63 of 2004

Prop 1F: No State Elected Official Raises During Deficits

Prop 13: Changes to the taxation of Seismic Retrofitting