I am always fascinated by what is described as a "compromise" in politics. Is it a compromise when the Democrats demand a bad policy, and they get some of it? It’s still bad, and saying no to bad policy is not being "unreasonable." More important, saying yes to a bad policy is not being "reasonable." A bad policy is a bad policy, and a leader says no to a bad policy, no matter what the political consequences
Second, did the Democrats sign an "I promise to be a Spendthrift" Pledge? I mean, they increase spending every year, and they claim that any reduction in that increase is a "cut." The budget in 2002-03 was $77.4 billion, $78.3 billion in 03-04, $79.8 billion in 04-05 (the last three years of the last budget crisis) and $91.6 billion in 05-06, $101.4 billion in 06-07, and $103.4 billion last year. Yet in each of those years, Democrats screamed about "cuts" in spending. More important, if you look at special fund spending during that same time, it has grown from $20.5 billion in 01-02 to $41.9 billion in 06-07. After the Sinclair Paint decision, state bureaucrats have been shifting more and more spending to special funds. Spending keeps spiraling out of control, and Dems cry about cuts. What cuts, there are no cuts.
Unless the Dems have signed a "I promise to be a Spendthrift" pledge, it is not a compromise for them to actually reduce spending. They haven’t promised anyone they would always increase spending on everything all the time. Republicans, seeking to actually be true to their word, warned the Governor and the Democrats that the out of control spending of the last three years was going to lead to this crisis. They were vilified by the Governor and the Democrats. Now these same participants in the budget process are demanding the Republicans break their pledge to the voters to cover the spendthrift ways of the Governor and the Democrats. Before the Republicans break their word, they should demand that the Democrats produce their "I promise to be a Spendthrift" Pledge, and unless they can produce that pledge, the Reps should not agree to the tax increase. It is not a compromise to demand Republicans break their written promise unless the Democrats can produce a written promise that they are breaking.
We already know that the Governor is breaking his promises, both by being a spendthrift over the last three years, and then proposing to increase taxes this year, but we haven"t seen any promises that the Democrats have broken in any of these budget negotiations. Where is the "I promise to be a Spendthrift" pledge? What promises are the Democrats breaking by reducing spending this year? More important, a reduction in spending to 05-06 level will solve the problem, and will not hurt anybody. Spending will still be $25 billion above where it was in Davis’s last year as Governor, a full 40% above those spending levels of that year. Is our education system 40% better than 5 years ago? Are our freeways 40% less congested than they were 5 years ago? Is our state government 40% better than it was 5 years ago? If not, perhaps a small cut (less than 5%) won’t hurt anything.
To the Dems: Produce the promise, or shut up and reduce spending. Unless you are willing to break some written promise, you are not compromising anything. And Governor, it is not a compromise to require the Republicans to break their promise, and not ask the same of Democrats. You, once again, are not asking for compromise, you are asking for a Republican capitulation. You may be willing to capitulate, you may be willing to be a "girlie-man" but the real men in the Republican caucus, like Shirley Horton, Bonnie Garcia, and Mimi Walters are going to flex their muscles, and say no. They are going to "pump you up." Be a man again, fight the Dems.