In the so-far-unsuccessful quest to find enough Republican votes to pass the budget monstrosity, the focus has been on termed-out legislators. One would assume that the reasoning for this is that these members won’t be seeking re-election in two or four years and therefore voting to raise constituents’ taxes won’t come up in a campaign. But what about any future campaigns for higher office? Are these lawmakers the rare breed that has no ambition for higher offices?

Even if they’re satisfied with their “service” thus far, maybe these members should be worried about even finishing the current term. When word leaked that Senator Abel Maldonado might be caving on the budget vote, a web site was purchased with the address RecallMaldonado.com. Considering the success of past recalls for mismanaging the state government, Senator Maldonado might want to reconsider voting for this particular tax-increasing budget. As of this post, RecallAshburn.com was still available…

Registrant: MAPA Strategies

5235 Mission Oaks Blvd Suite 1000 Camarillo,… Read More

With the State Senate adjourning for the night, a $14.4-billion package of outrageous tax hikes remains precariously close to passage. This got me thinking about how good a thing it is that California doesn’t have certain tools the federal government has.

Things like simple-majority legislative approval for tax increases, or its own currency. With control of money supply, the feds are currently preparing to try to spend our way out of a recession with money they don’t have. Of course California has tried that, in a way, by borrowing just to get by. This has resulted in postponing structural reforms to the point that California’s tainted credit will limit further borrowing.

So what other options does California have? Well, there’s tax increases, which are only an option when approved by the voters or two-thirds of the Legislature. Yet even the federal government realizes that increasing taxes can have destructive effects on a weakened economy.

The other tool California government still has is budgetary and governance reform. If state leaders had the will – inspired by the threat of bankruptcy perhaps – they could fundamentally… Read More

Don’t know for sure what is happening right now, but word is the Dems are asking for reconsideration on everything. They may be pulling off the deal, or it may just be the procedural requirement to adopt the new deal language, I don’t know yet, but I am sure we will find out soon.

As for the comments of Mike Der Manouel, I understand Assemblyman Villines concern. It is extraordinarily difficult to be a Republican Leader under these circumstances. I feel for both Cogdill and Villines, both of whom I like and respect. This deal, however, is a game of chicken. The two cars are racing toward each other, and the winner will be the one with the most nerves. The Dems will not let the state go bankrupt, they can’t. Their constituency groups cannot afford what will happen if all the union contracts are reopened, and deals negotiated. The Dems have a lot more to lose than the Reps if things go bad.

That being said, no one is reinforcing the "stand tough" stance for those leaders. They are walking into this gunfight (to mix my metaphors) with a sling shot. Even Republican budget staff is saying they have no choice but to raise… Read More

I’ve only been able to talk to Villines staffers and they tell me that his about face on the tax issue is directly related to a fear of the State going bankrupt. He is said to have a "moral conviction" against this happening.

Obviously, this is a very big miscalculation on his part. Whatever "reforms" there are in this budget will be short lived, the taxes won’t, and bankruptcy, at this stage is the best possible option and the only way the State gets its obligations and spending under control.

I would, if given the opportunity, strenously argue that bankruptcy is the only true moral option at the point, as it will in fact save the State in the long term.

This whole thing is sickening. I can’t believe we are being played ……. AGAIN.… Read More

As i get ready to doze off, and figure out if government grew while I slept when I wake up, I was just thinking that it is sure great that Tony Strickland won his seat in November. If he wasn’t in Sacramento, and instead Hannah Beth "Taxin’ Jackson" was up there — this would all be done, and Californians would have the honor of being the highest taxes Americans in the country.… Read More

This morning, treating the members of the California State Legislature like they are criminals, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the Assembly literally have the Capitol on "lock down" — no legislators are allowed to leave the building. Why is this?

EARLIER THIS MORNING, SENATOR DAVE COX ANNOUNCED THAT HE WILL NOT SUPPORT THE BIG-5, BIG-TAXES BUDGET PROPOSAL. COX HAS JOINED WITH TWELVE OF HIS SENATE REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES AND BECAUSE THERE IS A VACANCY IN THE SENATE, THERE ARE NO LONGER THE VOTES TO GET A TWO-THIRDS FOR THE MASSIVE, RECORD-BREAKING $14 BILLION++ IN NEW TAXES.

Our message to Senate Republicans is loud and clear: THANK YOU AND KEEP HOLDING THE LINE.

Millions of California families that the Democrats would punish because of Democrat over-spending, slapping families with a projected annual tax increase of over $1200 a year (some say it’s over $1500 a year) are COUNTING ON YOU.… Read More

I will happily acknowledge that I am NOT a policy wong. Some of the back and forths below from policy-wonks on the language of the proposed spending cap (that would go before the voters, tied to extending taxes that are raised in this Big 5 deal) are above my pay-grade.

That said, my "open question" on the cap is this?

I am going to throw out there that there is distinct possibility that Republicans joinin hands with the Democrats for a plan that includes $14.8 billion in tax increases is going to cause a big problem for the GOP, and that it may very well lead to losses of seats in the Senate and the Assembly. When the smoke clears after the 2010 election, Democrats may have a supermajority of the legislature (yikes).

If that were to happen, AND the spending cap as proposed in this deal were in place (having been passed by the voters) — is the cap strong enough to keep Democrat supermajorities from racheting up spending (beyond the cap)? In otherwords, when we are forced off the beach, and back onto our landing craft, have we left some protection behind?

As I understand it, there is a big gaping hole in this proposal. To put… Read More

Over the last months of budget negotiations, there has not been evidence of a proposal forwarded by a state legislator of either party that reduces spending by the $40 billion necessary to balance the budget without a sizable tax increase. If that proposal exists, it has not benefited from sufficiently wide support from that legislator’s colleagues to become part of the budget debate.

Because of a lack of an alternative that balances the budget solely through spending cuts, it’s been apparent for some time that the final budget agreement will ultimately involve a considerable amount of additional taxes. That’s not a good thing, but it’s a thing. So at this point, Republicans have two options: either continue the stalemate indefinitely or propose that alternate budget. The lack of a state government holds great ideological appeal, but creates practical difficulties. So the question is: where is that alternative budget and the plan for building public and political support for it?

The budget before the Legislature is no cause for celebration. It’s unlikely that the Republican leaders who have been part of the negotiations –… Read More