California

Author and longtime Sacramento Bee columnist Peter Schrag shows up in the LA Times with a piece today that, more than anything I've recently read, explains the political dynamics behind the state's cash crunch. Republicans blogs are already attacking it, but Schrag has plenty to say about Democrats too.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Congressman Devin Nunes, a Republican from the Central Valley, describes California as an economic basket case and outlines, by my count, five ballot initiatives that he believes are needed to fix the state. Why should anyone care? Because Nunes, while little known to most Californians, is one of California's more thoughtful Republican politicians, and he has the ability to raise money to pursue at least a couple of these ideas at the ballot.

The blog Calitics pushes back on my earlier contention that the appointment of Leon Panetta as CIA director is a blow to reform in California. (George Skelton made the same argument in his Los Angeles Times column today).  Progressives don't like his centrist -- or Broderist (that's an adjective that uses the Washington Post centrist columnist David Broder's name) -- approach to reform, though they like Panetta. Some Democrats in California still hold it against Panetta that he began his work in politics four decades ago as a Republican.

A Democratic law firm filed  two versions of an initiative Monday with the California attorney general. As Democratic leaders have promised, the initiative effectively would eliminate California's requirement of a two-thirds vote to pass a budget. (Though, for political purposes, the two-thirds requirement would remain in the constitution--new language would merely exempt all appropriations from the two-thirds requirement for approving appropriations. Look for advocates of the initiative to say, over and over, that it doesn't remove the two-thirds requirement from the constitution. Because technically, it doesn't).

One of the two versions of the initiative also would eliminate the two-thirds requirement for raising all taxes (with an exception for property taxes that offers a bit of a nod to Prop 13). Again, this is political. Proponents are cutting the heart out of Prop 13, but they'll be able to say, "What are you talking about? We don't touch property taxes!" It's also possible that by filing two versions, backers are telegraphing a political strategy: they could agree not to take on the two-thirds requirement as it applies to taxes -- in return for support for eliminating the two-thirds requirement on the budget.

President-elect Obama's call for enormous new investment in national instructure has the potential, as Steve Coll recently noted, to both stimulate the economy in the short run and strengthen it for the long haul. But as the situation in California illustrates, the economy cannot get the full benefit of that infrastructure package unless the stimulus package also includes a large dose of direct aid to state budgets.

In every respect but one, California is ideally positioned to take advantage of Obama's infrastructure plans. With its congested freeways, crumbling levees, and burgeoning population, it has boundless infrastructure needs. It has existing voter authorization to issue tens of billions worth of state bonds to cover the state's share of cost for projects. It has a bountiful supply of workers, now idled by the collapse of housing construction, to retrofit buildings for energy efficiency or to repair schools and public buildings. It has a vigorous corps of entrepreneurs and venture capitalists to spur a wave of green infrastructure investments, contributing new ideas and technologies to the effort.

It has everything to carry out an infrastructure stimulus program except cash.

The headlines from this morning's new Public Policy Institute of California poll all focus on Prop 8. But there isn't much surprising in those numbers. Evangelicals and Republicans overwhelmingly supported Prop 8. No kidding. The poll also documented the intensity gap between Prop 8's supporters (74 percent considered the outcome of Prop 8 very important) and its opponents (59 percent considered the outcome very important).

The conservative Weekly Standard takes a look at Prop 107, the 2006 Arizona initiative that failed to ban same-sex marriage, and Prop 102, the 2008 Arizona ban that passed. What was the difference? The 2006 ban would have barred domestic partnerships. The 2008 initiative protected domestic partnerships. Also, the Standard quotes a leader of the no campaign as saying that fundraising was weak because California's No on Prop 8 campaign soaked up so much money. If that's true, it means the disastrous No on 8 campaign in California was responsible not only for the setback for marriage equality in California but also for the defeat in Arizona.

With state revenues in free fall, governors are banging on the door of Congress, calling on lawmakers to put assistance to the states at the top of the list in the next economic stimulus package. In the ubiquitous media shorthand, the states want a “bailout.”

This shorthand, however, muddies the issue and the stakes here.

New America is sponsoring a very important event this Wednesday from 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.  in Sacramento, "A Nation Without States,"  that will offer a whole new way of looking at California -- and some big ideas for reform that you may not have heard before. Below is a description of the event and its panel. To RSVP for it (there's no cost, but they try to get a count so they have enough food for lunch, which is provided), click here.

The first panel will describe California's regions, detailing the differences between and relationships among them and focusing on how each is transforming itself in response to the globalizing 21st century economy. The speakers will assess how well California's data collection and state agencies serve the needs of policy makers, both in the State Capitol and within the regions themselves.

We asked Leif Wellington Haase, director of New America's California Program, and Micah Weinberg, a research fellow in the California program, to fill us in on the latest developments on health care in California, particularly the possible cuts to funding the state’s Healthy Family Program for low income kids.

This blog has documented the flurry of activity in health reform in Washington in recent weeks. Senator Max Baucus has floated major new proposal to overhaul the delivery and funding of care and Sen. Edward Kennedy is working on a related initiative. Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has urged Republicans to work with Obama to make helping the uninsured an “immediate” priority.

But will immediately be soon enough?