 Arnold Schwarzenegger's crazy, reckless budget vetoes have been getting a lot of attention around the state in the last 24 hours or so, and have led Democrats to vow to fight these cuts. So how exactly can that happen, given that Democrats embraced billions in other cuts just last week?
There are three emerging tracks for fighting these cuts. The first is the Courage Campaign's call for a veto override session. (Note: I am of course the Public Policy Director at the Courage Campaign.) We're asking our members to contact Speaker Karen Bass and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg to call the legislature back into session and override the vetoes.
Some might contend that this is either not likely to happen, or if an override were attempted, it would fail. I'm not so sure that's the case. The US Congress overrode precious few of Bush's vetoes, but they came extremely close to overriding Bush's 2007 veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) - the votes were there in the Senate to override, including 17 Republicans, and the veto override fell just a few votes short of the 2/3 mark in the House.
Overriding a gubernatorial veto is less difficult in California, where Democrats are very close to having 2/3rds majorities in both houses. It stands to reason that Republicans would be under intense pressure to override vetoes to protect children's health care, domestic violence programs, HIV/AIDS programs, and state parks.
Sure, we all know that the Republican Party in California is insanely right-wing. But even they have their limits. Several of their number are running for statewide office in 2010, giving Democrats an opportunity to leverage them in support of widely popular programs. Dems would also be able to use a veto override to target vulnerable Republican seats in their bid to win a 2/3 majority in the 2010 election.
The best political strategies are those that have multiple avenues of success. In addition to the Courage Campaign veto override action, legislators are stepping up their attack on the line-item vetoes as being illegal. John Pérez offered this statement today:
"The Constitution gives the governor considerable power over the budget, but it doesn't give him the power to make it up as he goes along. While I consider these cuts criminal morally, they are in fact illegal in the eyes of the law," said Pérez, who has called for an
immediate restoration of the funds that were cut. "It is wrong for ordinary Californians to suffer so the Governor can spare oil, alcohol and tobacco companies from paying their fair share."
The California State Constitution gives the Governor "line-item" veto authority, permitting him to "reduce or eliminate one or more items of
appropriation while approving other portions of a bill" [Cal. Const. Art. IV, Section 10(e)]. However, this line-item veto authority only
applies to "appropriations." When the Legislature takes an item of appropriation - like the budget signed by the Governor and enacted into law this past February - and passes a new bill that reduces the amount of that appropriation, that new bill is not an appropriation because it does not give anyone more authority to spend state money - it takes away spending authority.
While legislators have talked of aggrieved parties taking this to court, Controller John Chiang is reviewing whether the vetoes are legal and constitutional:
While the governor signed the budget revision yesterday, Democratic state Controller John Chiang is charged with carrying out his budget. Earlier this week, Chiang spokeswoman Hallye Jordan said the controller's legal staff was reviewing whether the governor's line-item vetoes were constitutional.
If Chiang does carry out Schwarzenegger's vetoes, expect advocacy groups to file suit against Chiang. If Chiang does not carry them out, expect another legal battle between Schwarzenegger and the controller.
The governor's office is taunting Democrats, convinced that this is all just sturm und drang without any likelihood of materializing into an actual reversal of the cuts:
Department of Finance Director Mike Genest predicted Tuesday that Democrats would not challenge the vetoes because "they have something to lose, too." His comment suggested that Democrats know full well that it is difficult to find another $489 million in savings -- and they might be better off politically allowing the governor to bear the brunt of criticism for the cuts he did implement yesterday.
I read this as Genest wanting to actually avoid a veto session. The cuts Arnold made are extremely unpopular - even Abel Maldonado has called the cuts "too severe". The governor's office probably realizes they would be vulnerable in an actual veto session.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is out on a limb. Let's saw it off by calling a veto session and reversing these heinous cuts.
Over the flip is the email the Courage Campaign sent to our members today. |
