California Budget Deal
[Guest post by DRJ]
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and California lawmakers announced they have reached a deal to solve the $26.3 billion budget deficit. The plan reportedly focuses on spending cuts instead of raising taxes:
“The plan has not been formally released. But as outlined by lawmakers and their staffs, the proposal would reshape government in California, significantly scaling back many services that have been offered to residents — particularly the elderly and the poor — for years.
Tens of thousands of seniors and children would lose access to healthcare, local governments would sacrifice several billion dollars in state assistance this year and thousands of convicted criminals could serve less time in state prison. Welfare checks would go to fewer residents, state workers would be forced to continue to take unpaid days off and new drilling for oil would be permitted off the Santa Barbara coast.”
If it’s true, do Californians have the stomach for this?
— DRJ
I’ll let you know when I see it in action. Gov’t has expanded— could people stomach the services available 7 years ago? It is a very high tax state.
MayBee (781c96) — 7/20/2009 @ 10:53 pmI’ll believe it when I see it in action and really, it’s less about whether Californians have the stomach for it but rather if the unions will agree.
Concern that it could unravel as interest groups catch wind of its contents and pressure the rank-and-file to vote it down was evident in legislative staffers’ reluctance to share some details.
As we are essentially held hostage by the unions and special interest groups in our state, this must be viewed with skepticism until it’s a sealed deal.
And whether we can live with severely limited services has become moot – there is no money and without raising taxes, we will have to accept the necessary cutbacks.
Dana (a3e680) — 7/20/2009 @ 11:09 pmdrill more, spend less? i’m all in favor of that….
i just don’t think those crackheads will actually do it.
/native son
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 7/20/2009 @ 11:31 pmIf it’s true, do Californians have the stomach for this?
Since there are so many “I’m-liberal-therefore-I-am” nitwits dominating the California electorate, probably not. Or just say they’re going to psych themselves into contracting a severe case of cramps.
Mark (411533) — 7/20/2009 @ 11:33 pmI don’t understand what they mean when they say children and seniors will lose access to health care. So if a child or senior is genuinely sick/wounded/injured/etc, they’ll just turn them away at the ER doors? That should make ER wait times shorter.
wherestherum (d413fd) — 7/20/2009 @ 11:35 pmIt is plain that a significant majority of Californians would permit drilling offshore. What is even more clear is that the law and the jurists who love to create new law from the bench, will not allow it absent passage of a constitutional initiative.
When I saw a breakdown of the “cuts” on Fox news L.A., they listed only about half the $26.3 required.
What I really want to see is a legitimate “scoring” of the proposed budget, as the CBO does for the U.S. Congress. I would bet anyone anything I own that there are upwards of $5 Billion in accounting shenanigans and fraudulent accounting assumptions in this deal.
Ed from SFV (fabfbd) — 7/21/2009 @ 1:30 amDRJ asked:
Well, y’all certainly had the stomach to reject higher taxes when the question was put to you. Reduced spending is what should go along with lower taxes.
The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 7/21/2009 @ 4:12 amAs happyfeet noted, what passes as a spending cut in the real world, and in government, bear only a passing relation to each other.
JD (28f89b) — 7/21/2009 @ 4:16 amHow can a place that is home to such marvelous places like Monterey, Healdsburg, Big Sur, Ventana, Squaw Valley, and Mendocino be so screwed up? Watching the sunset at Lovers Point or Asilomar is beautiful beyond words. It is an absolute shame that it is so flawed that I would never consider moving there.
JD (28f89b) — 7/21/2009 @ 4:25 amIt sounds like a cynical attempt to force the feds to push some stimulus money their way as well as put an emphasis on the “need” for national health care.
voiceofreason2 (590c85) — 7/21/2009 @ 4:37 amPoliticians are notorious for punting when facing 4th and 5.
The problem isn’t politicians punting on 4th and five; it’s that they too often go with a quick kick on 2nd and seven.
The Oakland Raiders' fan Dana (3e4784) — 7/21/2009 @ 5:31 amIt is usually wise and prudent to punt on 4th and 5. Field position, score, and time remaining will dictate. Cali is is no position to consider punting.
JD (28f89b) — 7/21/2009 @ 6:08 amI wrote an e-mail to George Skelton about his piece yesterday about the budget negotiations and the level of taxation. In referring to the failed initiatives in May, he said:
Schwarzenegger keeps calling it “the biggest tax increase in the history of California” — not to brag but to get liberal taxers off his back.
In strictly dollar terms, he’s right. But in relevant terms — comparing the tax hike to the general fund size — the all-time champ is Reagan. His tax increase equaled roughly 30% of the general fund. Wilson’s was 16%; Schwarzenegger’s 14%.
Living within your means sometimes requires increasing the means.
That’s a very practical suggestion if he means go out and get a second job but that’s not what he is about. Anyway, he wrote back and we had a couple of exchanges. He doesn’t believe taxpayers are leaving the state. His conclusion was that he would have to live within an hour or two of the beach.
Without the ocean, California would be Michigan or Ohio. They have beaches, too. It might yet make it.
25% unemployment, here we come !
Mike K (90939b) — 7/21/2009 @ 6:20 amIt is plain that a significant majority of Californians would permit drilling offshore
Do you have a citation for that claim? A Field Poll taken last summer during the height of the gasoline price boom said that 51% of Californians opposed “allowing oil companies to drill more oil and gas wells along the California coast” (against 43% in favor). A PPIC Poll taken at roughly the same time found 51% in favor and 45% opposed.
Those numbers show that at the height of the gasoline price boom, Californians were divided on the issue, and neither proponents nor opponents of drilling could claim “a significant majority”. My read on the data is that a majority of Californians are uneasy with the idea but that those who like the idea could put together a majority with those who would reluctantly support it in order to prevent themselves pain — but only for so long as the pain was staring them in the face.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 7/21/2009 @ 7:36 amWhen I saw a breakdown of the “cuts” on Fox news L.A., they listed only about half the $26.3 required.
That’s because a big chunk of the ‘resolution’ involves stupid accounting tricks like shifting a payday into the next fiscal year and increasing withholding in the first half of the year.
Both of which, incidentally, mean a budget crisis next year.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 7/21/2009 @ 7:44 amWhy would you punt with 3 seconds on the clock?
JD (0a26e4) — 7/21/2009 @ 7:54 amUnless the politicians are actually held to account, this is the best you can expect from them.
JD (0a26e4) — 7/21/2009 @ 7:57 amIt’s hard to hold them to account when their districts are gerrymandered such that almost all of them win election by appealing to the voters in the locally dominant party’s primary.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 7/21/2009 @ 7:59 amIsn’t that kind of a cop-out, aphrael?
JD (0a26e4) — 7/21/2009 @ 8:13 amThe hallmark of good sarcasm is that it doesn’t have to be explained. Point is that they are punting and hoping no one notices the hope for stimulus manna…
voiceofreason2 (10af7e) — 7/21/2009 @ 8:16 amas for my sarcastic prowess…. will work on that
“…new drilling for oil would be permitted off the Santa Barbara coast.”
Over Barbara Boxer’s dead body!
Why, next thing you’ll know, we’ll have black-surf lapping up along the beach just like the Gulf States due to all those rigs in the Gulf of Mexico;
and, another thing,all of the taxes generated by off-shore drilling would be tainted, blood-money.
It would be just like trading in Blood Diamonds, but worse!
Seriously though, they need to do a real re-work of their spending model, and this isn’t it.
It probably will take a “receiver” such as was imposed on NYC during their budget crisis in the 70’s (“Ford to NYC: Drop Dead!”) to take away the Legislature’s “credit card” and force actual changes in the manner in which State Government spends money – which will mean the wholesale reworking of programs and departments, and the union contracts contained within them.
This deal is DOA!
AD - RtR/OS! (8d7b04) — 7/21/2009 @ 8:20 amNo, my bad …
JD (0a26e4) — 7/21/2009 @ 8:20 amJD: no, it really isn’t.
California’s legislature passed an incumbent protection deal as the 2000 redistricting. The result is that it is effectively impossible for the outcome of a general election for a state legislative office to be in doubt, except when there are special elections to replace resigning officeholders (because those elections are conducted via a blanket primary).
A Republican cannot get elected in my district. A Democrat cannot get elected in the district which represents Bakersfield. Now, some of that would have been true due to the way we sort ourselves into communities, but the 2000 gerrymandering made it much worse … and so long as it’s true, there’s a problem.
I can’t hold my legislator accountable for not compromising with conservatives when the district is by design full of people who want to punish the legislator whenever he compromises with conservatives.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 7/21/2009 @ 8:29 amThis is just a skirmish, one of many. This one and the last one (the special election) have been won by the taxpayers, but the war will hinge on who gets elected Governor in 2010 and whether the reapportionment jury system works as hoped.
If we get another legislative gerrymander and a Democrat governor, the only thing to do is to get out fast. If we get a fair shot at legislative elections and a Republican businessperson as Governor there is some hope.
It will take a long time to deflate state and local government featherbedding, bloated pensions and unneeded programs, but it can be done.
But not if the unions are in control.
Republicans would do well to take this small victory and build on it, rather than fighting over who was purer than whom. If we fight among ourselves, there is no hope.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/21/2009 @ 8:38 amAs aphrael points out there is a severe gerrymander in CA (although the redistricting rules for 2010 are much different).
My house used to be in a competitive district that changed hands now and then, 1990-2000. Then the gerrymander happened and the legislature tacked as many Los Angeles areas as possible onto South and South-Central LA black majority districts. It turns out that if you elect a Democrat with 90% of the vote, or 60% of the vote they are still elected, but there’s a lot of other ballots you can effectively burn if you lump them in the same district.
After the 2010 Census, a jury system will reapportion the legislature instead of the legislature itself. How this will work is anyone’s guess, but it cannot be as bad as having the legislature self-perpetuate. One hopes.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/21/2009 @ 8:50 amwhether the reapportionment jury system works as hoped.
whether it results in a more liberal legislature or a more conservative legislature, it will mean that the legislators are not choosing their voters. that is – regardless of the outcome, democracy will be stronger for it.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 7/21/2009 @ 8:51 amMy one real fear is that the jurors just fiddle with the edges of the current gerrymander.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/21/2009 @ 8:58 am“…local governments would sacrifice several billion dollars in state assistance this year and thousands of convicted criminals could serve less time in state prison…”
Local public-safety agencies throughout the state are contemplating, or have started, reducing personnel levels due to the contemplated pull-back of funding by Sacramento; while, at the same time, Sacramento will put criminals back onto the streets of California, causing increased workloads for those public-safety agencies.
AD - RtR/OS! (8d7b04) — 7/21/2009 @ 9:37 amLocal public-safety agencies throughout the state are contemplating, or have started, reducing personnel levels due to the contemplated pull-back of funding by Sacramento;
It’s not clear how much choice they have — they’ve just had a large chunk of their revenue stolen by the state government, and it’s unlikely that they can raise more.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 7/21/2009 @ 9:41 amWhy would we punt. We’ll try for the 88 yard field goal
The Democrats
Bill (337b4f) — 7/21/2009 @ 10:32 amComment by aphrael — 7/21/2009 @ 9:41 am
It’s just like the Feds closing the Washington Monument whenever there’s a budget impasse between the Executive and the Legislature:
Do something visible that inconveniences the public at large instead of whittling down the deadwood.
At the Fed level in DC they have what I call the 10% list – those people that must show up on the worst winter days when otherwise the Fed Govt is shutdown due to snow blocking the streets.
It would be better to just implement the 10% list and temporarily furlough the other 90%.
At the city and county level, you can’t convince me that it is more imperative to lay-off a cop or fireman than some drone in the planning dept, or a number cruncher over in finance.
Yet, that is what we do.
All this while it is virtually impossible for a law-abiding citizen to get a CCW so that he might protect himself in the absence of police presence; and in an economic environement where actually finding a firearm to buy, and the ammunition to use in it, are currently very difficult due to nationwide demand for both (while our Legislature is attempting to ban the use of mail-order or the internet to buy ammo, further restricting self-defense rights).
AD - RtR/OS! (8d7b04) — 7/21/2009 @ 10:59 amWell, it appears they did manage to cut at least one sinecure-commission – the Waste Management Board.
That’s the right track, boys and girls. More like that. Cut the hangers-on and the political payoff jobs.
mojo (74ba73) — 7/21/2009 @ 12:38 pmThose numbers show that at the height of the gasoline price boom, Californians were divided on the issue, and neither proponents nor opponents of drilling could claim “a significant majority”
That is an indication of the level of intelligence of the California electorate. They think the state is Disneyland where energy comes from some mysterious place that no one sees.
The best chance for the state was lost when Willie Brown bamboozled the voters into voting down a real reform in redistricting that would have had a panel of retired judges redraw the lines. After the election, he joked about his success in fooling voters.
The Republicans have lost all credibility in the state with a few exceptions. When I was on the CMA Legislative Commission we did almost all of our business with Democrats, partly because the Republican Assemblymen (especially) were hacks. It’s the old story, Republicans go into business and Democrats go into government.
Mike K (90939b) — 7/21/2009 @ 12:55 pmA good start for cuts would be to repeal the wasteful and now useless state stem-cell bonds. $4 billion to fund research on now-obsolete methods of creating stem cells is something we can do without.
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 7/21/2009 @ 2:38 pmKevin, since those bonds were approved by ballot initiative, I don’t think they can be repealed by teh legislature.
aphrael (4163e2) — 7/21/2009 @ 4:42 pmThe best chance for the state was lost when Willie Brown bamboozled the voters into voting down a real reform in redistricting that would have had a panel of retired judges redraw the lines
I voted against that measure, because I disapprove of using judges in that fashion.
I did, however, vote for Prop. 11 – the juror redistricting system – last fall.
aphrael (4163e2) — 7/21/2009 @ 4:45 pmComment by aphrael — 7/21/2009 @ 4:42 pm
Most tax-free Muni’s can be called early if the issuing authority is willing to pay the principal back ahead of schedule. They do this in most cases to re-fi at a lower rate, but they can always retire them.
As for redistricting by judges, IIRC, the system proposed would have nominated retired judges to staff these panels, not active ones.
AD - RtR/OS! (8d7b04) — 7/21/2009 @ 4:50 pmBTW, we used a Judicial Commission to deal with re-apportionment following the 1990 Census when there was an impasse between the Legislature and the new Governor (Wilson). That was one of the fairest re-apportionments in decades since one of the guidelines used was to not chop-up communities.
AD - RtR/OS! (8d7b04) — 7/21/2009 @ 4:55 pmaphrael, then you were just as fooled as the rest of the majority that gave us the present crisis. Why did you oppose it ? Retired judges are not honest ? Good grief, man !
There in a nutshell is California’s problem.
Mike K (db3eb5) — 7/21/2009 @ 4:56 pmMike K: retired judges are just as honest as anyone else. But using them for a political purpose will increase the politicization of the judiciary; it might improve the situation in the legislature but it will harm the long-term situation in the judiciary.
aphrael (4163e2) — 7/21/2009 @ 5:01 pmSince all State Judges in CA have to stand for affirmation/reaffirmation by the voters, how is the system not politicized?
AD - RtR/OS! (8d7b04) — 7/21/2009 @ 5:08 pmIt re-enforces to the Judiciary that they are ultimately responsible to the Electorate; since, in a Republic, the People are Sovereign (or so the theory goes).
The problems arise in politics when the elected feel that they are above the voters, and the disease of Hubris sets in – such as when they are confronted on some minor matter, and their response is “Do you know who I am?”
[…] UPDATE: DRJ posts a less outraged and more newsy account immediately below. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » California Budget-Makers Reach Deal by Making the “Tough Decisions” (e4ab32) — 7/22/2009 @ 12:48 am