“Not only is California’s credit rating the lowest in the United States, but we are ranked behind Kazakhstan, Mexico and many others,” Lockyer told a Political Science Association audience on the UC Berkeley campus last night. “We’re rated low, and that adds to our borrowing costs.”

California’s legislative session ended on August 31, with members of the Assembly and Senate unable to close a $19 billion deficit in California’s proposed $90 billion 2010-2011 budget. With outgoing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger threatening to veto any budget that misses his goals on taxes and spending, California may be without a budget until well after the Nov. 2 election. The state has missed its June 15 budget deadline in 23 of the last 24 years, but previous budget impasses have never lasted past mid-September.

Lockyer didn’t say when he expected the budget to pass, but explained that the delay is exacting a price on the state. “It’s in the neighborhood of $50 million to $55 million more money that is spent every day than would be spent if the budget were adopted,” he said.

California’s constitution requires both the Senate and the Assembly to pass a budget by a two-thirds vote, making the state one of only three that require a “supermajority” to approve a budget. Even though Democrats have a large majority in both California houses, two Senate Republicans and five Republican Assembly members would have to vote with the Democrats in this session for a budget to pass. That hasn’t come close to happening.

The November’s ballot contains one possible long-term solution to this nearly annual legislative logjam, Lockyer said. Proposition 25 would enable the legislature to pass a budget by a majority vote and would penalize legislators for not meeting a budget deadline.

“One of the things I like about it is that if legislators don’t adopt a budget on time, they don’t get paid,” Lockyer said. “They forfeit their salaries for every day that there’s a stalemate.”

The treasurer was less optimistic about potential budget-balancing revenue from Proposition 19, the November California ballot initiative that calls for the legalization and taxation of marijuana. While Lockyer supported the legalization of medicinal marijuana during his 1990s tenure as California’s attorney general, he has joined the majority of statewide officials and candidates for state office—including Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown—in opposing Proposition 19.

“I don’t think legalizing marijuana would produce economic results and tax results that are substantial,” Lockyer said. “There are some economists who think there could be substantial public health costs with marijuana legalization.”

In a year when California expects competitive statewide elections for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general, Lockyer is expected to easily win his bid for a second term as treasurer. While he supports fellow Democrat Jerry Brown in the governor’s race, he doubts Brown or Meg Whitman will change California’s byzantine budget process.

“But the thing that make me chuckle about Meg is that she controlled a small Board of Directors at EBay,” Lockyer said. “As governor, she’d have 120 legislators that hate her guts and think they can do a better job. That promises some interesting things out of Sacramento.”

The estimates come from a new economic study commissioned by Let’s Go Oakland as part of the effort to keep the A’s from decamping to San Jose. In addition to new jobs, the study projected property values around the new stadium would increase by $4.7 billion and $2.6 billion in total economic activity would be created in the next 30 years.

“The investment that the city ultimately is going to make — the report demonstrates that the city will receive a return on that investment,” said Doug Boxer, co-founder of the Let’s Go Oakland campaign.

Mayor Ron Dellums, who also spoke at the press conference where the study was released, voiced his support for the continued efforts to keep the A’s in Oakland. “Baseball is synonymous with Oakland,” Dellums said. “For that reason, we have reached out in a very diligent way to keep the Oakland A’s.”

Dellums spokesman Paul Rose said the city has been in constant contact with Major League Baseball about the three proposed stadium sites the city has come up with. The three sites are all waterfront locations in the Jack London Square area, which is an ideal area for a stadium said Claude Gruen, lead author of the study by Gruen, Gruen + Associates. “We’ve got BART in… we have the roads in, we have the freeway, we have access parking capacity on the waterfront,” Gruen said.

The study also examined the potential economic impact of the A’s leaving Oakland, projecting that Alameda County would lose 953 jobs and $32 million in total income. “I think (the A’s departing) leaves a void there that’s very difficult to measure,” Dellums said.

But according to Roger Noll, professor of economics at Stanford and author of the book Sports, Jobs and Taxes: The Economic Impact of Sports Teams and Stadiums, the economic impacts either way are greatly exaggerated. “Professional sports teams are not something that generate any business, particularly in the local area,” Noll said. “There’s virtually no spillover benefit to the rest of the community.”

Noll says losing the A’s wouldn’t have a significant impact on the finances of the local government or the local economy. “The reality is, the A’s have almost no financial impact one way or the other on Oakland, in the local area,” Noll said.

Supporters argue that a stadium would revitalize the Jack London Square area, and will stimulate the local economy in much the same way that ballparks in Denver, Baltimore and San Francisco did. Boxer cited a recent experience at a Colorado Rockies’ game as proof positive of what a new stadium could do for Oakland. “After the game, 31,000 people filled into lower downtown (Denver)… It’s just a tremendous atmosphere,” Boxer said. “This is what we can do for Oakland, if we can get baseball to agree that the A’s belong in Oakland.”

Despite Major League Baseball’s cooperation with Oakland, the A’s are not actively negotiating with the city. Owner Lew Wolff has said many times that the team exhausted every possibility with Oakland, and relocation is the best option for the A’s. Wolff favors building a new stadium in San Jose, where the A’s could solicit sponsorship deals from Silicon Valley companies.

San Jose’s local government has been favorable to a stadium, and Mayor Chuck Reed has met multiple times with Wolff. The city has purchased most of the 14 acres where the ballpark would be built, and John Weis, assistant executive director of the San Jose Redevelopment Agency, said the city is currently negotiating to buy the final two parcels of land needed.

However, one key roadblock remains in San Jose: Major League Baseball granted the San Francisco Giants territorial rights to Santa Clara County in the 1990s. Those rights would have to be rescinded in order for the A’s to move to San Jose, and the Giants have already stated they will not let them go easily.

But both San Jose and Oakland must bide their time until a special “blue ribbon” panel, set up by MLB Commissioner Bud Selig to investigate new ballpark locations for the A’s, issues its ruling. The three-person panel was formed more than a year ago, but no timetable has been set for its decision.

Dellums believes the stadium saga will be resolved soon. “We’re at a level of seriousness at this point, that makes me feel very good that over the next few months, we ought to be able to resolve this one way or another,” he said.

Although many signs point to the A’s departure from Oakland, including Wolff’s close relationship with Selig (the two were fraternity brothers at the University of Wisconsin), Dellums said he is cautiously optimistic that the city will keep its team. “I don’t think it’s too late at all… we’re still in the game,” Dellums said. “I believe these proposals are superior (to San Jose’s).”

Boxer agrees. “If the A’s were on their way to San Jose, if it was that done of a deal, then baseball would have said it a long time ago,” he said. “That’s why I’m optimistic.”

The Oakland A’s declined to comment on the report.