On the California State Budget
The state budget has now been passed. It is far from perfect. (Indeed, I’m still not sure where about 11 billion of borrowing comes from; and I’m skeptical about assuming any particular value for enhanced earnings from the California Lottery.) But that has not been the focus of the intense criticism of those Republican legislators, and our Republican Governor, who supported it. Rather, they are being criticized because the budget deal includes about 15 billion of higher taxes. That’s matched by about 14 billion of cuts in spending.
Back in December, public works stopped in our state, because of this budget crisis. In the midst of a recession, we stopped building freeways, water storage, schools, airport improvements, port facilities. That was suicidal to California’s recovery. These are good projects, that will make California more competitive for years to come; and in the short run, they will give Californians jobs. We needed them to continue, months ago.
So, I wrote an article for the San Francisco Chronicle, in December, and posted it on my web site, suggesting that an immediate budget deal be forged with 50% cuts in spending matched by 50% increase in gas taxes. A 50:50 deal was, to my lights, the only way to get a budget done, and start public works again. With gasoline falling from its high of above $4 a gallon last summer, I thought it was the least damaging tax to raise.
Gubernatorial Primary Prequel: The Special Election
What’s the real opponent of the package of budget deal ballot measures in the May special election?
The 2010 governor’s race.
The package is an unsightly, unpleasant group of measures put together by an unpopular governor and an irresponsible legislature that deserves little respect. (And I say that as someone who has been consistently supportive of passing the package). Politically, the package makes an irresistible target for every single person running for governor of California.
Look for those candidates – Republicans and Democrats – to compete with each other in the fury and frequency of their denunciations of the package and the budget deal that spawned it.
Summit Considers Constitutional Convention
The main issue many of those who attended the California Constitutional Convention Summit yesterday in Sacramento had on their minds was eliminating the two-thirds vote to pass the budget and raise taxes. That item came up over and over from Lt. Governor John Garamendi to panelists to members of the audience.
Of course, a simple amendment to the constitution can change the two-thirds vote, a constitutional convention is not needed to do that. The question that was not answered at the meeting spearheaded by the Bay Area Council and hosted by a number of organizations: Is there a need for a California constitutional convention?
Presumably, the 400 or so attendees to the conference thought so, or were at least curious about the possibilities. Of course, the meeting was held in Sacramento, which is a “company town” involved with government. There seemed to be a lack of political diversity in the room. However, Bay Area Council president Jim Wunderman promised to extend the exploratory effort and reach out to other parts of the state and other points of view.