How bout some quick math here: 54+27+1=Budget
2/3 vote minimum required to pass a budget in both houses,
54 in the Assembly, 27 in the Senate and the Guv’s signature once the blue pencil has been put away.
In the Assembly are: 48 Dems, 32 Reps.
In the Senate are: 25 Dems, 15 Republicans.
Senate Republicans call for improvements to the budget document that came from the Assembly
$700 mill [or more] upside down, that it be truly balanced on a "non-election year, non-get-out-of- town" excuse basis…a goal that many columnists, editors and opinion leaders have shared publicly.
So, what do we get?
The same tired, lazy math equation every year that says, in the Assembly, 54 equals 48 Dems plus calling out 6 Reps to hold their noses and vote it out with mostly Dem priorities and spending habits.
That formula in the Senate: 25 Dems, plus catcalls from the Left all over the state to get 2 Reps to capitulate on a budget, to ‘kick the can down the road’ one more year and watch the ’08-’09 budget blow up big time in all our faces.
MAYBE THE OPINION LEADERS CAN CALL FOR DEMS TO JOIN REPS IN A RESPONSIBLE BUDGET BALANCING ACTION. A REPUBLICAN BUDGET PLAN WOULD NEED ONLY 22 DEMS TO HOLD THEIR NOSES AND JOIN 32 REPS TO PUT IT OUT OF THE ASSEMBLY.
SAME DEAL IN THE SENATE, 15 REPUBLICANS CAN BE JOINED BY A MERE 12 DEMS CAPITULATING TO THE HARSH REALITY OF MATH AND BALANCED BUDGETS AND VOTE ONE OUT.
Not much ink being written about the majority quitting and not coming back til Aug 20, nor of the majority ignoring a solution offered by Senator Denham to appropriate interim special funding to pay the bills, to vendors who have been going to work and to those Californians in great need, the constituents the Dems claim as "their own" until the budget food fight-in-chief is solved. Who is showing solution-oriented leadership here? Looks like Denham to me… and Senate Republicans.
Oh, but why should the majority party stoop to the minority demands? California is a blue state, we like it this way, we can spend our way into oblivion. There was a majority in D.C. that finds itself on the outside looking in, in part because of spending. There was a historic successful recall 4 years ago on that basis too. Yet now we’re in a bum’s-rush to jam a budget through to move on to the socialiazed healthcare debate and allow the A.G. to sue everyone who builds things.
Now, the drumbeat gets louder to have a simple majority budget vote with nothing to prevent unchecked "fees" [taxes] from the spending appetite of a single party philosophy that the 2/3 vote check-and-balance reins in. Go ahead, the big spenders can crash this thing into the ground harder and faster and we’ll be there to pick up the pieces and clean up the mess, just like fiscal conservatives always do after the voters recover from their hangover and the "if it feels good, do it" crowd gets kicked out of office.
So if the majority Dems want to continue using the poor as leverage, the Medi-Cal patients, the clinics that serve them, to pass a budget that spends more than it receives, that blows up the future for these same people in need, come on up. I can show the Guv, the Dems or anyone else interested another example of a clinic, right here in my Assembly District, that can make one more pay period before they have to take radical steps. I’d be interested to hear why the interim proposal by Senator Denham is wrong and why balancing the budget long-term is wrong and I’d be very interested in watching it explained to the good folks running or using the clinic.
Do the right thing, pay the people, the vendors supplying the services to the state.
In the mean time, quit boring me with how Republicans need to buckle under to these #@^&#*& games and supply votes for bad fiscal policy.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Welcome to the budget debate, Mr. LaMalfa. Apparently you’ve missed the articles on this site as well as in the MSM about the budget debate, Mr. Denham’s bogus proposal, and the legislative recess.
The budget isn’t a blue or red document; it’s a compromise reflecting the values of both the majority and minority parties in the state.
Unfortunately, Senate Republicans, and sadly, you, seem to think it should simply reflect the demands of less than one-third of the legislature. Incidentally, more than two-thirds of the legislature, which includes your Republican colleagues, supported the balanced budget that also has the support of our Republican Governor.
If you’d like to see clinic workers who want a budget passed and don’t support the CYA attempt by Senate Republicans, I urge you to visit http://www.camajorityreport.com to view what real people think about Republicans trying to link environmental policy and heaven knows what else to the budget.
The following will probably will win you support on this website, but it’s worth showing that your interest in voting for a budget that is a compromise is, shall we say, rings quite hollow.
Doug LaMalfa’s Budget Voting Record:
03’-NO
04’YES
05’-YES
06’-NO
07’-NO
August 14th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I think that the point the Assemblyman La Malfa is trying to make, Steve, is that it is clear that this particular proposed budget does not meet the constitution muster of having the support of 2/3rds of each house of the legislature.
The State Legislature (most notably the Assembly, but now both chambers) is AWOL because legislators should never have left the Capitol until a final budget was passed by the Senate and Assembly, and placed on the Governor’s desk.
The other point that the Assemblyman was making is that it is bogus to go around the state and point out the ill-results of not having a state budget when:
a) state legislators aren’t even in the Capitol working towards a solution that can pass constitutional muster; and,
b) it is well known that Republicans have proposed an appropriate appropriation to pay these vital services WHILE a responsible budget is worked out. If your boss doesn’t want to call the Assembly back into session to pass this kind of temporary funding measure, knowing it will pass, then he (and not Senate Republicans) can take the blame for any consequences.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jon, What difference does it make if legislators are in capitol when Senate Republicans (except one) can’t decide what they want, nor what their exit strategy is? Or when legislators are listening to the likes of Sen. McClintock, who has never voted for a state budget in his (too) many years here?
That’s the point I was trying to make.
As for the “temporary funding measure,” we both know it’s just a CYA ploy. And no one is buying it.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Steve actually makes a really good point here. The budget document is supposed to reflect the values of BOTH political parties.
The Constitution specifically calls for that with the 2/3rds requirement, ensuring that the budget reflects the values of both parties.
So, we’ll give you the millions of dollars in ridiculous and overlapping government programs that didn’t get eliminated…
…if you give us a balanced budget and a mere semblance of fiscal responsibility.
Deal? :)
I am personally so proud of the “Magnificent 14” in the State Senate, and my former client, Senator Jeff Denham, in particular.
We’re watching and we’re depending on you, Senate Republicans…keep up the fight for fiscal responsibility in our state!