[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

Breaking The Law To Balance The Budget - Again?

by: David Dayen

Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 18:00:00 PM PDT


There's been quite a bit of confusion about whether or not the Governor was able to make line-item cuts in this budget.  After all, it was a revision, not a budget agreement where spending appropriations are made.  In those cases the Governor can make cuts, but this was a revision consisting of a series of cuts and fund shifts, and it's unclear whether the Governor can make additional cuts on top of cuts in a budget revision.

Craig Cornett, the Budget Director in the office of Darrell Steinberg, has sent out a letter to interested parties, which I've reproduced below.  Cornett reiterates the argument that the revision do not constitute appropriations, and should not be subject to the line-item veto.  This is particularly true with any appropriation reductions that passed with a simply majority vote, since a budget vote must have a 2/3 majority.  Cornett offers the remedy here, but he confines it to the courts.

Should the Controller implement these vetoes, we suspect that some party that will be injured by the vetoes will file a lawsuit.  Given the sweep of the reductions, this could come from any of a number of potential plaintiffs, such as children who will no longer have health insurance because of the reductions to Healthy Families Programs, battered women's shelters that will be threatened with closure because of elimination of funding for the Domestic Violence Program, AIDS prevention and treatment programs that will no longer receive state support because of the elimination of Office of AIDS funding, or counties that will see cuts to their Child Welfare Services or Medi-Cal administration funding.

What Cornett leaves out of this analysis is the ability for the Legislature to override the Governor's blue pencil edits.  Obviously that is off the menu, as far as we know.

I don't think it would surprise anyone to see Schwarzenegger break the law to balance the budget - so many provisions in this budget violate the law that it can be seen as a stimulus package for the legal system.

David Dayen :: Breaking The Law To Balance The Budget - Again?
When the Governor signed ABx4 1-the bill that revised the 2009-10 Budget Act-and accompanying trailer bills this morning, he line-item vetoed about $500 million in General Fund expenditures in order to ensure that the state has a reserve for 2009-10.

Budget staff from both the Senate and Assembly worked closely with Legislative Counsel in construction of ABx4 1 and, based on that work, and follow-up conversations, we think that these vetoes-especially those of health and human services programs-are outside the Governor's Constitutional authority, for a couple of reasons.

First, reductions to amounts in the various budget schedules do not actually constitute appropriations and, thus, are not subject to line item veto.  This argument is bolstered by Counsel's long-held view that, unlike new or increased items of appropriation, the Legislature may reduce General Fund items of appropriation with a simple majority vote, and any General Fund action that takes place with a simple majority vote is not, by definition, an appropriation, and therefore not subject to line-item veto.

Second, most of the budget revisions for the health and human services departments were not even included in the scheduled items, but instead were placed in Sections of 568 to 575 of ABx4 1.  These sections of the bill added new Control Sections 17.50 to 18.50 to the 2009-10 Budget Act that reduced the various appropriations for HHS departments in a descriptive manner, thus making it even clearer that they do not constitute appropriations.  These control sections include departments that were specifically included in the Governor's line-item vetoes-Aging, Health Care Services, Public Health, MRMIB, Mental Health, Developmental Services, and Social Services.

Should the Controller implement these vetoes, we suspect that some party that will be injured by the vetoes will file a lawsuit.  Given the sweep of the reductions, this could come from any of a number of potential plaintiffs, such as children who will no longer have health insurance because of the reductions to Healthy Families Programs, battered women's shelters that will be threatened with closure because of elimination of funding for the Domestic Violence Program, AIDS prevention and treatment programs that will no longer receive state support because of the elimination of Office of AIDS funding, or counties that will see cuts to their Child Welfare Services or Medi-Cal administration funding.

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Assuming this is illegal, how do you proceed? (0.00 / 0)
IANAL, so it isn't clear to me at all how this gets in front of a court?  Besides recall or impeachment, how does one force a governor to stop doing this?

as Steinberg's BD says (0.00 / 0)
Somebody with standing, i.e. someone harmed by the cuts, can sue to restore that particular funding.  I'm assuming this would need to go on a case-by-case basis.

[ Parent ]
Very, very general prediction: (0.00 / 0)
and I went to law school with Darrell Steinberg, so I'm as credentialed as anyone else!  A thousand different lawsuits will be filed by a thousand different named plaintiffs, most of which will be simply front people for groups (e.g., Tammy Teacher's lawsuit is funded by CTA, Polly Prison Guard's by CCPOA, etc).  Governator will claim "emergency trumps all" in defense.  They'll all be decided on summary judgment or settled, take five years to wend their way up to the appellate level and get decided or settled, and people might see some pocket change years later...but it won't feel like justice.

It won't feel like leadership either (0.00 / 0)
Especially if these symbolic law suits are instead of calling the Senate back and actually doing his fucking job as leader.

Steinberg does not get a pass on this.  Senate comes back, or Steinberg leaves it.  His choice.


[ Parent ]
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox