Proposition 1F: Elected Officials’ Salaries

The final measure of the six proposition budget bail-out is Proposition 1F which would forbid pay raises for officials when there is a projected deficit. Although the legislators who have spawned this nightmare ballot are purportedly the highest paid in the nation refusing to give them raises isn’t going to save any money, it just doesn’t spend any more. We’re not talking about keeping billions of dollars in the General Fund, either, just enough to make the gesture.

What is that gesture? The legislators want to show they understand we’re all suffering and we all must sacrifice. I won’t be getting a raise at work this year and neither will anyone else. Sacramento wants to show that they’re not going to get raises when times are hard too. I’d like to vote no just to spit in their face but really, why not just put it in the books?

What should happen is pay cuts, at least to bring California’s government salaries into line with the rest of the nation. Maybe dock pay, as many have suggested, when there’s a budget impasse. Others have proposed halting campaign contributions during budget stale-mates. These are good ideas, and much more effective than refusing to give the rich and well connected a raise during deficit years. Sacramento understands this and notice how these are not included in the proposition. I’ll suck it up and vote for the tossed bone but if anyone tries to rub my belly I’m taking the hand with me.

Image from the Sacramento Bee by Brian Baer.

 

Proposition 1D: Children’s Services Funding/Proposition 1E: Mental Health Services Funding

Children and the mentally disturbed are very similar in that they are both difficult to navigate around on a crowded sidewalk. Perhaps this is why Propositions 1D and 1E have been written, two initiatives which would divert funding from two previous amendments and direct that money into the General Fund.

Back in 1998 Proposition 10 placed a half-buck tax on packs of cigarettes to fund the First 5 program, an umbrella fund for localized children’s health and education programs. Critics argue that the nebulous funding for these programs has no accountability but there are many programs which help lower-class families by providing daycare and health clinics for children which were started with First 5 monies. If you see cracks in the system work on sealing the cracks, not destroying everything.

Possibly more reprehensible is Proposition 1E which would suspend funding approved in 2004 which taxes millionaires an additional 1% for mental health programs. The temptation is that this would be a two-year suspension and that funding would return as originally intended; proponents of this initiative also point out that many of the programs receiving Proposition 63 funds are still in development while established programs are facing cuts. However, there are drop-in centers and other programs which are already working with the funding and opponents are wise to suggest without these safeguards in place the police would begin spending more time dealing with the mentally ill who have been left out in the cold.

I understand that these are desperate times but passing two measures which strip funding from special programs established to protect the most vulnerable is the same as kicking them out of the way to hop in a lifeboat. We’re supposed to carry the people who can’t walk, not toss them aside for a little under $500 million.

Photo from a Time article on mental illness, taken by JoeFox / Alamy

 

Proposition 1C: Lottery Modernization Act

Feeling lucky? State legislators were when they included $5 billion in this year’s budget that’s not in pocket. That sum was supposed to be delivered from the passage of Proposition 1C, a bizarre piece of legislation attempting to beef up the State’s lottery and sell the possible profits to the futures market.

Since 1984 California has had its lottery available to all dreamers and alcoholics. Payments to winners were capped at 50% of the revenue and schools received what was left over after operating costs. Lawmakers have examined other states’ much more successful lotteries and decided that offering bigger prizes would attract more players and boost income. Interesting concept– I’ve never voted on a proposition that had a clause about funding a gambling addiction hotline, but okay.

But wait, there’s so much more. The lawmakers decided to sell future profits from the lottery tickets for a quick fix of cash to cover this year’s budget shortfall. Ah, the greenest pasture in the land, the futures market, could now gamble on California’s gambling. How can lawmakers sell such a pie? Cutting education funding out of the equation.

It’s not as bleak as all that, the education funding lost by selling the lottery to investors would be replaced by a lump sum payment from the General Fund (which is empty) and then readjusted afterwards by evaluating attendance and cost-of-living standards. Right now money that schools receive from the lottery are based on the amount of money spent on the lottery. In the future this money will be from the General Fund with a bottom baseline guarantee. Which means that in the future California may find itself in similar financial straights as right now and still owe a guarantee once floated by ticket sales.

I’m not ethically opposed to state sponsored gambling– hell, maybe the Indian casinos could help bail us out. However, I am opposed to the idea of selling futures to investors, especially when the budget analysts concede the payback would span 20-30 years and would most likely result in having to pay out from the General Fund. The same fund that also guarantees additional education funding which was once covered by lottery sales. The profits of which were sold long ago for a couple billion dollars to shore up a bad budget by lawmakers who had created a ballot measure that received advertising from a gambling machine company.

Image from the California Lottery website, unattributed.

 

Proposition 1B: Education Funding. Payment Plan.

You want politics? California has politics and Proposition 1B is this year’s winner for most blatant bought and sold measure of the election. The inclusion of this initiative was an attempt to appease the California Teachers Association who have been threatening legal action over educational funding. The hook was tying this to Proposition 1A; if voters reject 1A, which they likely will, 1B cannot take effect even if it passes. If you were wondering why the CTA is advocating the entire budgeting package being voted on, this is your answer.

The short version is that the voter approved Proposition 98 guarantees school funding except for particular circumstances, such as nearing bankruptcy. As revenues have declined sharply over the last year or two the funding for schools suffered and there’s legal ambiguities as how this matter should be resolved. The placing of Prop 1B was a pacifying measure that would pay schools back the lost budget which has the side-effect of also raising minimum funding guarantees in the future. So if the state is broke in two years time there would be no legal ambiguities– the money would have to be produced.

I’m all for education and frankly my experience with the public school system here suggests they could do with the money. However laying a blanket over a fire isn’t a way to put the fire out, it just sends the blanket up in flames.

Image from Fight Crime.org, taken by Duncan McIntosh. Stolen from fight crime, ha!

 

Proposition 1A: State Budget

The cornerstone of California’s upcoming special election is Proposition 1A, a constitutional amendment regarding the State’s budgeting practices. It’s a complicated agreement made between Democrats and Republicans desperate to sign off on a budget, and the legislation reeks of stale sweat and bad nerves. The major components:

The rainy day fund would more than double in size from 5% to 12.5% of the General Fund. Portions of the fund would be used to fund education and the rest would be set aside for either disaster relief or as insurance against future budget crises.

Temporary increases in sales taxes (SF went from 8.5% to 9.5%), vehicle licensing fees and income tax would be extended, the first for a year and the others for two.

California’s governor would be given powers to circumvent legislation and make budget cuts.

 

Special Election: Tuesday, May 19th

On Tuesday, May 19th, California voters will be invited to participate in a lose-lose election. The emergency ballot initiatives 1A-1F are a concerted effort thrown together by State legislators to soften the blow of looming debts and declining revenues, and many are saying it’s a hard pill we have to swallow to prevent utter bankruptcy.

Governor Schwarzenegger held a press conference on Thursday to intimidate voters by outlines his proposed cuts should the measures fail, then included all of the disastrous cuts which will be made if the measures pass. Major newspapers are backing the passage, holding their noses while writing their opinion pieces.

No one can deny that these are dire straits, but many are arguing how to cope with a projected $21+ billion deficit. If all propositions pass the deficit would be reduced to a projected $15.4-billion, hence the damned if you do, damned if you don’t atmosphere surrounding the special election.

Regardless of Tuesday’s outcome (and polls are sinking five of the six) the State would still borrow $6 billion for debts and make sweeping cuts to education and health, cut government staff and sell off property including San Quentin State Prison. Schwarzenegger plans on diverting an estimated 23,000 state prisoners into county systems as well as handing over 19,000 undocumented prisoners (presumably people incarcerated for being undocumented) to the Feds. He has also proposed drilling off the coast of Santa Barbara.

Many of the contingency cuts will simply be increases to those proposed no matter the outcome of the election. The thickest neck on the chopping block belongs to education and lawmakers are scrambling to manipulate numbers to maximize their ability to reduce funds. State Finance Director Mike Genest is pushing for an immediate $1 billion cut from school budgets by the end of the quarter to decrease the required funding for next year’s budget. Meanwhile the State is examining larger cuts while mindful of Federal requirements in education funding for stimulus money. Critics rightfully criticize the Governor’s team’s suggestion that stimulus money can compensate schools as the bailout is intended to stimulate the economy, not provide debt relief.

An additional $2 billion could be borrowed from county governments already suffering from empty coffers and more people turning to public services. The decision to remand state prisoners into county jurisdiction is especially offensive because it passes costs to local governments while picking their pockets. These forced loans would have to be repaid within three years, assuming that California is able to miraculously rebound in that time frame after removing much of the security net many residents are clinging to while impoverishing county governments.

No one is going to win on Tuesday. There are no candidates up for office, at least not in San Francisco, and turnout is likely to be very low. However, given the grave nature of this special election I feel it’s of the utmost importance to sign my name, cast my ballot and share in the experience of riding the sinking ship down. If my polling station hasn’t been shut down– budget cuts have already reduced the number in town with warnings that more, last minute closures can be made.

Photo is by Rich Pedroncelli/Associated Press via The Los Angeles Times

 

Will the Chinese Own Governor Gav?

Hometown hero Gavin Newsom officially announced his candidacy for Governor of California on April 21st, flaunting his technical savvy by simultaneously championing his cause on Twitter, Facebook and Youtube. Not being as cybernetic as most of my peers I was forced to enjoy the video spectacle and was once again struck by how embarrassing it is when our supposed leaders pander to the people by utilizing shitty resolution for the sake of networking. Show a little class and stream your own videos.

There’s nothing particularly striking about his pep talk, aside from my being struck with uncontrollable laughter as soon as his well manicured mug appears. San Francisco is hailed as the nation’s leader in universal health care, ecological innovation and retaining teachers amidst grievous budget cuts. He repeatedly uses the term “we” instead of the political assertion of “I”, which has become something of a hallmark in all of his communiques. He is not running for governor so much as we are all being invited to run for governor. I guess this means I’ve been traveling the state with an SFPD escort all this time. The message is that San Francisco is doing better than California and the allusion is that it’s because we’ve had Gavin Newsom at the helm, single-handedly steering us into calmer waters as the rest of the world drowns in a fiscal tempest. The “green economy” is our guiding light, as evidenced by happy laborers installing solar paneling. Voters and the Board of Supervisors, advocates and PACs are not invited to share in the glory of our solar panels.

The elections won’t take place for another year but this never prevents pollsters from harassing the recluses and bored housewives who generate public opinion. If Jerry Brown and Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who are both assumed to be entering the race, run then Newsom places third. If Senator Dianne Feinstein throws her hat into the ring he drops to fourth, but he has commented that if she does he will bow out– as long as she announces her candidacy early enough. In an effort to court less slick Democrats Newsom has been spotted meeting with under-enlightened prospective voters in traditional hicktowns San Diego and Stockton where he plans to replace their images of gay marriage with his successful chain of yuppie eateries and wine bars.

So will the San Francisco model work the length and breadth of a state as large and diverse as California, and more importantly can Newsom convince skeptics he can handle the responsibilities given his track record? Are solar panels the key to economic solvency and can his experience managing lifestyle businesses trump the fact that China owns our collective asses? Perhaps we should examine a little bit of recent history wherein out intrepid leader laid down and allowed a foreign government full reign of policing the streets of San Francisco.

 

Gav and the Gays

On March 5th the California Supreme Court met to hear arguments concerning the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a hateful ballot measure which was passed by a narrow majority of voters banning same-sex marriage. Opponents of the measure held a march and candlelight vigil the night before and I’m proud to say that I know the one person arrested during the speeches. The official version of the story has the detention as a drunk and disorderly but just because “we don’t march before cocktails”, doesn’t mean that storming the stage and screaming “bullshit” in a fit of rage is a drunken or disorderly act.

Many things have happened five years after San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom galvanized the bigots and last week’s court hearing is in many ways the rambling result of his unique sense of political activism. On February 12th, 2004, gay couples descended upon City Hall to take part in the National Freedom to Marry protest and were shocked to find city officials handing out legal certificates. The gears had been set in motion several days prior when Newsom announced he wanted the city to explore ways of allowing gay couples to be wed, possibly in response to Massachusetts overturning a state ban on gay marriage. Word spread that homophobic organizations were planning on appealing to the courts to block any attempts by the city to marry gays. The county clerk’s office prepared gender-neutral applications under the watchful gaze of attorneys while phone calls were made to a select few gay and lesbian rights groups. Just past eleven in the morning the city’s assessor-recorder Mabel Teng performed the first ceremony between Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon who had been together for fifty years.

Alleged Christians were sickened to see genuinely loving couples who had been long treated as second-class citizens exchanging vows but their crusading efforts to file an immediate injunction were blocked as the state courts were closed in observance of Abraham Lincoln’s birthday. Eventually lawsuits were filed against San Francisco to halt proceedings and Lambda Legal, The National Center for Lesbian Rights and the ACLU stepped in to represent the couples who had been, or simply wanted to be, married; meanwhile two couples in Los Angeles sued the city demanding their basic human rights be recognized. By August of that same year the courts invalidated nearly four thousand marriages stating that Newson, acting as mayor, had overstepped the boundaries of authority as marriage was governed by the state.

 

Care Not Cash Revisited

In honor of Gavin Newsom’s exploratory campaign for governor I’ve decided to try and figure out what he’s been worth as mayor. Frankly I’ve no real clue what the guy does all day but he’s a few high-profile moments. The first time Gavin percolated into the public consciousness was as he was just starting out in politics.

Way back in 2004 Gavin Newsom was just another City Supervisor overseeing the rough and tumble Marina district, a neighborhood which he had invested heavily in as owner of some boutique wine shops. Having aspirations for the throne, warmed by Willie Brown’s sharply-dressed touche, he threw his hat in the ring by proposing drastic changes to the way that San Francisco provided services to the homeless. His proposal received the Hallmark moniker of Care Not Cash and the basic premise seemed painfully simple: instead of issuing cash grants to people on the city dole why not provide housing and various health services? On the surface it’s so common sense, tackling vagrancy by giving vagrants a place to live, but the mechanisms behind the ballot measure were not so simple.

Politics played a large role in the creation of Care Not Cash, both on the local and Federal levels. San Francisco has always had a large homeless population and various mayors had attempted to deal with this in various ways. Art Agnos decided to let the homeless camp unmolested on the lawn of City Hall and the adjacent park figuring that we shouldn’t hide a problem we couldn’t fix. Frank Jordan, a former lawman, sent squads of police out into the city to roust camps and move the undesirables along to less desirable districts. Neither predecessor to Willie Brown had any sort of measurable impact on the population; in fact the numbers continued to climb. As San Francisco, always a tourist destination, saw business shift further from light industrial to service and as an influx of proto-dotcom assholes began to migrate into town the eyesore of panhandlers and drug-addled lunatics began to be perceived as a political threat; after the internet bubble burst and the stock market took hit after hit, the pressure to stave off the less attractive city landmarks grew. Meanwhile President Bush’s homeless policy was threatening aid cuts to cities who were not changing policies to represent an emphasis on housing before all other services.

 

California Propositions 1, 2, 3, 11, 12

Where does the time go? Elections fall next Tuesday and there’s so much going on for this year’s state and local ballot so I’m just gonna do a quick and dirty rundown on the rest of the California props.

Proposition 1(A) High Speed Rail Bonds
Yes, bonds are expensive to pay off but according to the LA Times additional funds will need to be derived from Federal or other sources before the bulk of the bonds would be sold which means that the gamble is far less than the entire $10 billion amount. America lags behind the rest of the industrialized world when it comes to mass transit and if we ever want people to stop clogging the roadways we need to offer them an alternative.

Proposition 2 Standards for Confining Farm Animals
The opposition raises fears of Avian Flu citing various veterinarians from groups that sound suspiciously like industry shills. The basic premise is that we treat livestock (legally property to avoid any nasty lawsuits about inhumane captivity and slaughter) like shit and it says a lot about a society when they have a billions dollar industry based on cruelty and exploitation. The bigger picture of raising meat aside penning animals up and keeping them captive for the duration of their lives is wrong. Now we can get back to worrying about e.coli and other food-born illnesses.

Proposition 3 Children’s Hospital Bond Act
Again, no one’s thrilled about the prospect of selling bonds, particularly as the previous hospital bond hasn’t been used up yet. However this is a vital part of our state’s infrastructure and I don’t think bake sales are going to pay for what’s needed. The population is growing, insurance is too expensive, people need hospitals to go to.

Proposition 11 Redistricting Initiative and Constitutional Amendment
Creates a commission to supervise redistricting for the future. That can be read as “special commission” if that makes the problem more obvious to you.

Proposition 12 Veterans’ Bond Act
Buys veterans homes. They get screwed on a national level, they get screwed by their military superiors. I don’t support what our military is up to but I’m not going to take it out on the soldiers. It’s beyond difficult to come back from war and pick up the pieces of your life and at its most ruthlessly calculating this proposition helps keep veterans from winding up in various social welfare programs down the line.

If you’re wondering why I’ve skipped comment on Propositions 4, 6, 8, 9 or Propositions 7 and 10 or Proposition 5 than you haven’t cared enough to read them earlier. The full text of all the initiatives can be browsed online for your convenience.