| So, given that Republicans had the leverage, it's no surprise that we ended up with a budget resolution where the things that Democrats got came with such major strings attached that they aren't really beneficial.
Money returned for schools? Sure, but only if you pass a spending cap and eliminate the ability to get around the 2/3 rule with fee increases.
Tax increases to bridge some of the budget deficit? Sure, but it's going to hit Democratic constituents disproportionately, and they can only be temporary.
Other measures to bring the budget into balance without having to cut many billions more? Sure - borrow from future revenues and eliminate services for children and the mentally ill.
And yet, here we have Bass and Steinberg urgently appealing to Democrats to pass these measures as if they are good for us? No one can reasonably blame them for being forced to eat this big old sh*t sandwich of a budget deal because they were in a horrible negotiating position, so why the pretense that these budget props are a good deal for us?
The only concessions that are in the budget props are there to make it more likely to coopt the forces (unions) that could keep their plan from being passed, and to make fundamentally conservative policies be seen as bipartisan. They weren't offered in good faith, they were window dressing to get us to 50% on the props.
So, why the heck are Bass and Steinberg helping to pass these measures? It's not too late for them to stop pretending these are good for us and just tell the truth: we did our best, but because of the Republicans' leverage these propositions were extracted out of us by threatening to kill the state. Vote against it and let's set about overturning the undemocratic 2/3 rule for taxes and budgets.
Pretending these budget measures were forged by both sides in good faith and are a compromise just avoids dealing with the ditching the 2/3 rule - the only way to force Republicans to come to the table. |
