In the newest TV ad opposing Governor Schwarzenegger's budget initiative, Proposition 76, there is a testimonial from Craig Brown, who's simply identified as "California Finance Director, 1996-1998."

But it might have actually been a stronger slamming of the GOP governor's initiative had the on-screen identification highlighted that Brown was finance director under former Republican Governor Pete Wilson.

"Prop 76 doesn't fix the budget or stop new taxes," says Brown in the ad. "It destroys our system of checks and balances. This isn't reform."

Brown appears to be focusing on provisions in Prop 76 that would allow the governor to make unilateral cuts to bring the budget back in balance if the Legislature fails to make such decisions in time. There have been questions as to whether that kind of new budget balancing power is constitutional.

Team Arnold was quick to try and push back on Brown's decision to campaign against the current GOP governor's initiative, with a written statement from Wilson e-mailed to reporters.

"Craig must be suffering amnesia," says the statement from the former governor. "He must have forgotten that the legislature is habitually late in acting on the budget because present law does not allow the governor-- as will Prop 76-- to force legislators to do their job and do it on time."

[Last week, we took a look at another big issue in Prop 76-- how the new spending cap will work, and how it might've worked had it been in place this year.]

[the audio from today's newsmagazine is here]

In a search for some context as to how the governor's budget spending cap initiative Proposition 76 would really work, I asked the non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) a simple question: what would have happened if it was in place during this past year's budget debate?

The answer: it would have apparently prohibited $3 billion worth of spending agreed to by legislators and Governor Schwarzenegger.

The LAO has not published the above number, in part, to avoid wading into the heated political battle over the governor's initiatives. Nonetheless, it seemed a reasonable question to ask... and therefore is the focus of my report later today on the newsmagazine version of The California Report.

First, the facts. According to the LAO, the spending cap formula in Prop 76 (which uses data from the previous 3 budget years) would have held spending in the 2005-06 fiscal year to $110 billion. The Budget Act of 2005-06, on the other hand, pegs spending this fiscal year at $113 billion.

An important caveat to the LAO's theory is that it's just that-- a theory. Prop 76 would only kick in next year, and if it does, it's estimated that the cap will then be much more loose (thanks to this year's strong revenues being used as part of the formula).

Still, had it been in effect this year, it would have apparently forced the governor and legislators to find an additional $3 billion in cuts. That's because a tax increase (even if agreed to by Republicans) would not have been an option, because Prop 76 says if spending is already at the maximum level, then most tax revenues go into a reserve fund.

Some analyses even suggest something that seems counterintuitive: that if Prop 76 passes, in certain years lawmakers will have plenty of revenues for their desired projects... only to have Prop 76 force, instead, budget cuts because of the spending cap. All of those surplus dollars would have to be tucked away for the next recession.

So, how would spending have been reduced by $3 billion? Several sources, who work for varying interest groups, say one easy fix would have been to simply cancel this year's early payoff of car tax revenues to local governments. That alone would have downsized the $3 billion gap by $1.2 billion.

But where would the rest have come from? Social services programs? Higher education? K-12 schools? Those are some of the budget areas that were mentioned during the course of my reporting. None, however, would have been an easy sell.

In my on-air story, we also examine how-- again assuming it was in place as of January 1, 2005-- Prop 76 would have stacked up in comparison to the spending plan that Schwarzenegger proposed on January 10. (Hint: he would have had to go back to the drawing board)

In an extended interview (portions appear in the on-air story), outgoing Schwarzenegger finance director Tom Campbell took strong exception to using Prop 76's formula for this past year's budget. He asserted that it's unfair to apply it to any previous budget, even one that was pending when Prop 76 was actually written.

Prop 76's spending cap is, in the final analysis, an untested budget tool. If passed, all sides seem to agree that it would weaken or remove one budget balancing tool in years past (tax increases) and force more usage of another budget balancing tool (spending cuts).

How hard is it for an organization to have a quote from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, thanking them for joining his initiative efforts this fall?

Not too hard, if you consider the above headline. It comes from a sample press release that Team Arnold is suggesting groups large and small personalize and send out.

It's actually part of a new online strategy from the governor's campaign (see the above photo) which is asking supporters to throw a "70's House Party" this month... inviting folks over to rally support for Propositions 74, 76, and 77 (Proposition 75 is mentioned only sporadically in the material).

This page on the Schwarzenegger website offers a "house party packet" to party hosts, including a DVD of the governor, bumper stickers, and more. But what caught our eye was the side of the page, with links to all kinds of other resources-- including sample newsletter articles, a sample PowerPoint presentation... and yes, that sample news release with ready made quotes from the governor himself:

"'I am pleased to have the support of [insert organization's name] in my march to reform and rebuild California,' stated Governor Schwarzenegger." The quote goes on to say that the work of the recall goes on, and that "'with the help of groups like [insert organization's name], we will finish the job.'"

The website asks party throwers to supply some personal information, and then ends by asking "would you like a speaker?" and then "if so, which one?"

The real question: if the party host asks for the governor, will he show up?

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger may have vetoed a hike in the minimum wage, but supporters of the idea are now apparently ready to go around him and use the governor's favorite weapon: the initiative.

A group of consisting of labor unions, Latino rights groups, and others now say they will launch an effort to take the issue of the minimum wage to the ballot next year. The group, calling itself Californians For Fair Wages, has scheduled a news conference for tomorrow morning to talk about their efforts.

6 days ago, the governor vetoed AB 48 (Lieber), which would have boosted the minimum wage from its current $6.75 an hour by a total of $1 over two years. At the time, Schwarzenegger claimed that the veto was not due to the $1 increase, but rather to the fact that AB 48 called for automatic adjustments in the future based on inflation. The governor's aides went so far as to say that the governor would have signed the bill, if not for the "automatic increase" provision. Democrats disputed any notion that the governor had offered a deal.

The version that could make it to the statewide ballot would reportedly raise the minimum wage even more, up to as much as $8.75 in two years. It would also include either the inflation indexing provision or a cost-of-living adjustment aimed to help low wage workers.

If the deep pockets of labor indeed get behind this kind of campaign, then the business community would also likely pony up the cash to fight it. And it could put Governor Schwarzenegger on the defensive, possibly in November 2006, the same ballot on which he'll be seeking re-election.

It's rare to attend a media availability and hear the speakers say, hey this proposal has some flaws but it's better than nothing at all.

But that's exactly what representatives of government reform groups said today in their endorsement of the redistricting initiative, Proposition 77.

Throwing their weight behind the measure to transfer political map drawing to a panel of retired judges is California Common Cause, California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG), and TheRestofUs.org.

The Schwarzenegger camp quickly put out a press release welcoming the groups into the fold, but it didn't take much reading between the lines to tell these groups are ready for any reform of the process, even if it's not the best reform.

For example, Prop 77 uses a panel of retired judges to draw districts, judges selected in part by leaders of the Legislature. "I wouldn't have limited it to judges," said Steve Blackledge, CALPIRG's legislative director. "I would have diversified the group of independent folks who are drawing the districts."

Derek Cressman, director of TheRestofUs.org, said he thinks real reform would be to have more than one legislator from each district, a multi-representative structure he argues would be more reflective of diverse communities. But he argues Prop 77 will at least shake up the system, even if it the only real result would be the defeat of some long-time incumbent legislators.

Here's a look at a few of the bills either signed into law or vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger today. The governor's press office says he has 288 bills remaining on his desk before the end of the week deadline.

Those signed into law include...

* AB 1045 (Frommer), which will require hospitals to compile a price list for their most common procedures and have that list kept on file with the state. The bill also requires that uninsured patients be provided with a detailed estimate of charges when requested.

* AB 747 (Blakeslee), which expands the abilities of state workers to donate their vacation and comp time to a fellow worker who has a major illness or injury but lacks enough time to take off.

* AB 1655 (Horton), which grants fee waivers to UC and CSU schools for the spouses, children and now stepchildren of firefighters and law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty.

As for some of those vetoed by Schwarzenegger...

* SB 657 (Escutia), which would have required state education officials to ask local school officials for input on instructional materials. It would also have allowed local schools to use their preferred materials unless the state said otherwise. The governor's veto message says he thinks the bill would "compromise" strict state standards.

* AB 481 (Calderon) would have kept the so-called "repo man" (or woman) from having to determine what is-- or is not-- personal property when they repossess something. In other words, the repo man wouldn't be required to assess what's inside a repossessed car, for example, or who those items belong to. Schwarzenegger's veto message says he worried that people, as a result, would lose their personal effects for good.

Political reporters love polls because they often feel like "proof" that a campaign is either gaining strength or sinking fast. But even statisticians will tell you that polling is only a best guess, and even then only a snapshot in time.

This morning, the combatants in the fall initiative campaigns are faced with a new poll that seems to reach a completely different conclusion about Governor Schwarzenegger's agenda. The new data comes from Survey USA, and was collected using a process that traditional pollsters often claim to be unreliable. But more on that in a moment.

The poll concludes that all three of the initiatives Schwarzenegger helped place on the ballot are ahead (Proposition 74- tenure- 55% yes; Proposition 76- budget- 58% yes; and Proposition 77- redistricting- 59% yes).

It also finds strong support for two other initiatives that he has endorsed: Proposition 73 (abortion- 59% yes) and Proposition 75 (union dues- 60% yes).

Survey USA gathers its data through automated phone calls. The phone rings, you hear a recorded voice, and you push the number that corresponds with your opinion. But suppose it's a 10-year-old who answers? The automated call doesn't have a filter for such errors... which is why many traditional pollsters say a live person asking the questions is more accurate.

Survey USA's data stands in contrast to the most recent statewide poll from the Public Policy Institute of California, which found much smaller support for Prop 74 (43%), Prop 76 (26%) and Prop 77 (33%).

How do you explain the difference? Perhaps opinions are shifting. Team Arnold's strategists certainly believe so, and are already pointing out to reporters that Survey USA conducted its poll two weeks after the PPIC, and after the governor's TV ads debuted.

But some of it could be methodology, and not just the issue of automated phone calls. First, there's the margin of error.

Let's examine the two polls in regards to Prop 74, which would extend a teacher's probation period. PPIC shows it as 43% yes, 47% no... with a margin of error of 3%. So if you're a Prop 74 fan, you can take heart that the correct results might actually be 46% yes, 44% no.

Survey USA shows Prop 74 at 55% yes, 44% no... with a margin of error of 4.3%. If you're a Prop 74 opponent, the margin of error this time could mean the correct results are 50.7% yes, 48.3% no.

Taking all of that into consideration, the two polls show a similar gap in opinions. The discrepancy between numbers for the other initiatives, however, is much larger.

The questions themselves should also be examined when looking for answers to why the two polls are so different.

Take Prop 76, the budget spending cap initiative. Survey USA's question was one simple sentence: "Proposition 76 limits growth in state spending so that it does not exceed recent growth in state revenues."

The PPIC question, on the other hand, was six sentences long, and included the controversial fact that the initiative could, under certain circumstances, lead to a reduction in funding for schools.

Is it possible that people who chose "yes" on Prop 76 in the Survey USA poll would have chosen "no" if they had heard the part about school funding?

Maybe, maybe not. But all of this is proof that while we reporters like them, no single poll is ever the final word about the mood of the electorate. The results of that poll come out on Election Night.

A few big contributions in the past few days are worth noting...

* No On 77: The committee to oppose the redistricting initiative Proposition 77 has ties to California's Democrats in Congress, and collected $825,000 from just three donations since Thursday. Two of the donations are from national organizations often aligned with Dems: the Association of Trial Lawyers of America ($200,000) and American Family Voices ($375,000). These two contributions appear to be examples of the recent Federal Elections Commission ruling that contribution limits don't apply for any DC players when it comes to California's initiative campaigns this fall. The third big chunk of cash for the anti-77 campaign came from Hollywood producer Stephen Bing, who handed over $250,000.

* Speedy Delivery: The founder of the courier shipping company DHL, William Robinson, continues to be a big fan of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. In the past 10 days, Robinson wrote checks totaling $500,000 to the governor's California Recovery Team. He also apparently lent Schwarzenegger an airplane to use through Election Day, a non-monetary contribution whose value campaign records estimate is $147,000. Those contributions come just a few months after Robinson gave the CRT a cool $1 million.