Author: Loren Kaye

On a slow news day, Speaker Perez grandiosely announced he would transfer a $1.2 million surplus from the Assembly’s budget to, of all places, the

Every year for the last two-and-a-half decades a lobbyist friend and I
break down the recently-departed legislative session. Our exchange usually goes
something like this:

Me: I can’t believe that crowd, they can’t possibly sink any lower than
this.

Her: Loren, they can always go lower.

In point of fact, the special talent of the Legislature is to find new
and different ways to astonish and disappoint even the most gimlet-eyed
observer.

The spending "trigger," passed by the Legislature at Gov.
Brown’s insistence, hedged a hoped-for $4 billion in new revenues spurred by a
recovering economy with up to $2.5 billion in cuts if those revenues didn’t pan
out.

This mid-year correction was a prudent response to balancing a budget on
notional revenues, when Democrats couldn’t bear to make more cuts and
Republicans couldn’t countenance new tax revenues.

With the economy still in the doldrums, and the trigger more likely than
not to be pulled, legislative Democrats are beginning to feel gun shy. They’ve
introduced legislation to minimize community college fee
increases and to pressure Brown to reconsider making the broader cuts should
the new revenues not materialize. A spokesman for Treasurer Bill Lockyer castigated the move, saying, "The triggers were one of the
strongest features of the budget. It’s unfortunate there’s a possibility they
will be weakened."

President Obama deserves credit for shutting down an ill-advised regulatory effort by
his Environmental Protection Agency, one that would have ratcheted down the
national ozone standard for new emissions. The EPA had estimated the tighter standard would
save 12,000 lives each year but could cost the economy as much as $90 billion
annually.

The President cited the
struggling national economy to justify withdrawing the proposed rule, and faced
withering criticism from environmental advocates. His action is a belated but
welcome recognition that government overregulation threatens economic recovery
and damages our national competitiveness.

It’s no secret that the Legislature has been AWOL on pro-growth
and job-creating
legislation.

Some Senate Republicans proposed tying economic development legislation
to tax extensions for the state budget earlier this year. That effort died on
the vine, but the seeds were planted for limited reform of the state’s
regulatory system.

A tender shoot emerged this week with the announcement by Senate Pro Tem
Darrell Steinberg of legislation to add a beefed-up economic impact analysis
requirement for new state regulations.

Lawmakers returned
to the State Capitol for the final month of this year’s Legislative session.
Having pushed aside state budget woes for a leisurely six months, legislators
have no excuse but to focus on economic recovery.

They can look no
further than a useful document released today by the California Chamber of
Commerce (my employer) enumerating an agenda of policies and activities that
can help the Golden State regain its economic competitiveness.

"State government must adopt a "do no harm" approach
to statewide policy." Not my words – they were written by Lieutenant Governor
Gavin Newsom in his just-released "Economic
Growth and Competitiveness Agenda"

Shorter Gavin: "Yo, lawmakers, think before you
vote."

"Do no harm" must become the watchwords for state
policy as we struggle through the halting steps of the

economic recovery – or face up to the possibility of
a double dip recession, as some observers fear.

Here’s a case that could make a proper conservative’s
head explode.

Conservatives loathe trial lawyers who pursue class
action cases that shake down businesses and stifle innovation.

Conservatives also despise politicians and
bureaucrats who increase taxes without regard to fairness, impact or even
legality.

On Monday, matter and anti-matter met at the
California Supreme Court, when the justices – led by Ming Chin – ruled that taxpayers could aggregate into classes
to fight illegal taxes levied by local governments. The Court stated that where
state law does not spell out procedures for seeking individual refunds of an
illegal tax, then a class action remedy is appropriate. Such was the case with
the contested Los Angeles telephone tax.

Treasurer Bill Lockyer told reporters last week that a proposed state
spending cap on next June’s ballot is unusually restrictive and will force a
significant downsizing of government – and especially higher education.

The Treasurer is a keen observer of and among the
most experienced and knowledgeable players in state budget policy and politics.
But on this issue he’s wrong.

Mr. Lockyer was referring to ACA 4, a proposed constitutional amendment placed
on the June, 2012, ballot by the Legislature. The measure aims to accomplish
two goals: create and enforce a Rainy Day fund for the state’s budget, and
require that unforeseen revenue spikes be spent for one-time purposes and not
added to the general spending base.

Far from "spelling doom" for key programs, ACA 4 will
protect them from irresponsible short-term budget gimmicks.