[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
Daily Email Summary


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics
Event Calendar
September 2010
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 * *
<< (add event) >>

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally

MBA Member

Blue CA Ad Network

What "Fiscally Responsible" Really Means

by: Brian Leubitz

Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:37:30 AM PDT


In this video, you'll see Speaker Nunez talking about the budget being "fiscally responsible".  The problem? Well, "fiscally responsible" is a complete misnomer and straight out of GOP talking points. Here's the thing, would it have been fiscally irresponsible to:

  • Provide for LA's transportation plans? Nope, that would have been truly "responsible" and allow for people to cut their emissions by riding more public transit options.

  • Would it have been fiscally irresponsible to ensure that BART's Transbay tube gets the seismic retrofits it needs to ensure safety? That one rings of how the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bush Administration was "responsible" by not reinforcing the levees. By cutting transportation funds, we are hardly being "responsible", we are putting our collective head in the sand and hoping with all our might that we don't get a major earthquake that could devastate our precarious transportation corridors. Now, tell me how that's responsible again?
  • Was it fiscally responsible to cut tax credits for teachers while providing for an expirement in trickle-down economics? Cities with high costs of living already have problems retaining teachers because they can't afford to live nearby, so we're going to make it harder to be a teacher in LA, SF, and San Diego? Sure sounds like a seven year old getting back at their teachers for giving them a timeout.  And that's pretty much how the Senate Dems are acting right now.

"Responsible" is GOP code for "we're adults and you're not". The funny thing is, this is pretty much the same thing my 3-year old niece says when she's not getting her way. "I'm the adult, not mama". Well, we are letting Republicans convince the public, through their temper tantrum, that they are the adults. When you repeat these talking points, you end up reinforcing the view that Republicans are the adults and Democrats can't be trusted with money, because, like children, they'll go off and spend it at first opportunity. Responsible would be pushing for the removal of the 2/3 requirement so that the majority of this state could actually govern instead of using the budget as a political chit and putting children and the most vulnerable in the crossfire.

I'm not saying this budget is bad given the 2/3 restriction, but we must start informing voters on how they are being disenfranchised by this requirement, how they are being put in jeopardy by this requirement, and how the Republicans are choosing short-term poltical points over our long-term infrastructural and educational needs. It is time to seriously start working this point, and hopefully we can get rid of it during the next governor's administration.

Brian Leubitz :: What "Fiscally Responsible" Really Means
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
By the way (0.00 / 0)
This is adapted from my comment on a thread at California Majority Report. here's that thread

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG, but my opinions are entirely my own.

My issue (0.00 / 0)
with this frame is that the Republicans will always try and beat us to the right on this issue.  Anything that we call fiscally responsible will not be enough for them.  It is a weak argument to say that it is just fiscally responsible enough.  Accepting this frame means that we should share the same goals of having a completely balanced budget, no matter what.

Absolutely (0.00 / 0)
The Republicans have a pre-Katrina approach to spending, believing in gutting state government and preventing any new infrastructure from being built to help us manage upcoming environmental and energy stress.

Attacking Republicans for neglecting infrastructure needs has been a proven political winner. And I do not understand why the Dems aren't hammering the Republicans on that point here in CA with this budget.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave


[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
we know Steve is reading this.  I would be interested to know why Nunez is using this language to justify the budget. Is it intended to defend their cuts, saying they were needed because the outlooks for next year aren't great?  Or is it that they are putting pressure on the Republicans saying what they want to do is not fiscally prudent (a weak argument as I noted above)?  I believe it is the former, which is what Brian is reacting to in this post.

I think we all wish that they were doing more to get a political advantage out of this mess with the language they are using.

BTW Nunez is not the only Democrat using this language to describe the budget. Solorio sent out a press release after the Assembly vote that said "Assemblyman Solorio Votes For State Budget That Is Fiscally Responsible".


[ Parent ]
Can we get a progressive Speaker next time? (0.00 / 0)
Anyone considering voting on the "12 more years for Sitting Legislators" Initiative should consider that it will probably mean 12 more years of Speaker Nunez.

I'm having a hard time (8.00 / 1)
Seeing how gutting the high speed rail plan and leaving the BART tube unretrofitted is "fiscally responsible." Unless they have some magic plan to provide them the $80 billion to expand roads and airports to meet the demand that $10 billion in state bond money (and a measly $50 million in HSR budget money this year) would provide, or to deal with the chaos and catastrophe and costs that a rupture of the Transbay Tube would cause.

It's a shame that the Speaker's office is trying to sell us on the merits of a bad budget instead of slamming the Republicans for their indefensible tactics and budget priorities. Republican legislators aren't popular, nor are their budget goals. Why not hit them at every opportunity, and help bring us closer to the 2/3 mark?

Lipstick on a pig...

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave


Fiscally responsible (0.00 / 0)
Seems to suddenly have a lot in common with legislatively irresponsible.

I proudly work to re-elect Barbara Boxer

[ Parent ]
Not to mention contradictory (0.00 / 0)
As the city manager of Ventura notes in a very perceptive LA Times op-ed, CA has little hope of hitting its AB 32 targets unless SoCal finds ways to move beyond a car dependent lifestyle. The Expo Line, which would relieve traffic on the long-burdened I-10 corridor in LA, saw hundreds of millions of funds cut by the Assembly

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

[ Parent ]
Start by Blaming Bill Clinton (0.00 / 0)
He used the term too. As a fiscally responsible Democrat, he turned a multi-billion dollar federal deficit into a multi-billion dollar federal surplus -- only to see it squandered by a Republican President and Congress. It's unfortunate that some progessives can't seem to think that Democrats can be wise stewards of our tax dollars AND fund progressive priorities.

So when State Senate Republicans are saying that Democrats are drunken sailors with spending, it makes sense to say that this budget is "fiscally responsible." It is: our reserve is at $3.4 billion -- the highest in history and $1.3 billion more than the Governor's May revision. The operating deficit is down to $699 million -- $857 million better than the Governor's May revision.

Democrats spent four months crafting a budget. We spent weeks defending it. The budget has a lot for Democrats to like: zero cuts to K-12 and higher education, restoring the Governor's deep cuts to CalWORKS, IHSS, and a delay (not a suspension) in the SSI/SSP Cola.

The Speaker also spent a lot of time talking about the 2/3 requirement (as did the posts on CMR). Amen to start telling voters about it -- but you need a ballot initiative to change it.

And as always, my complaint is why you're not focusing on what's holding up the good things progressives got out of this budget instead of attacking Democrats who got the job done.


The problem with the term (8.00 / 1)
Remains the framing.  It says that Republicans were right all along about Democrats being irresponsible free spenders and that finally a few Democrats have been shown the light thanks to Republican obstinancy. Not only does it undermine the credibility of Democrats, but it legitimizes every other crap buzzphrase that Republicans might want to throw around.  Because really, what's being said here?  That the budget wasn't fiscally responsible until Republicans got their changes?  Are you seriously trying to tell me or anyone else that it took the Republican party to force responsible budgeting? That the "grownups" had to step in and fix it? Christ.

As to what's holding up the good things, it might be that leading Democrats insist on legitimizing rhetorical Republican attacks on the inherent capacity of the entire Democratic party to govern competently.  I'd rather not start every discussion having to prove that I'm not stupid, but that's just me and my personal experience with it not being a particularly advantageous position.

I proudly work to re-elect Barbara Boxer


[ Parent ]
Agreed (8.00 / 2)
As I said, I don't think this is a terrible budget given the 2/3 req. But as Lucas points, the framing is the problem. It puts us in a bad position, and it's a correctable issue.

The transportation issue is related in that we have failed to pay now a cost that could get much worse if we wait. A collapse of the transbay tube would be devastating in terms of lives and money. and we desparately need to work on public transportation options for longterm AB32 purposes.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG, but my opinions are entirely my own.


[ Parent ]
This is why (0.00 / 0)
we need either 2/3 majorities in both houses, or we remove this outdated 2/3 rule! I will have a diary on how we can get to 2/3 up soon.

Check out the 2010 California races and help us take back Red California!

[ Parent ]
I don't see much attacking of Dems (0.00 / 0)
Not here at least. Instead the emphasis is on the irresponsibility of some important aspects of this budget - particularly the massive steps backward on transportation; on how there are unused opportunities to hammer Republicans and help get us closer to 2/3, and about a renewed effort to get rid of that 2/3 rule. There are some criticisms here and there of Dems, but to label each one an attack seems to miss the deeper points we're trying to make.

Of course we need a ballot initiative to get rid of the 2/3 requirement. Prop 56 didn't fare so well in March 2004, but times have changed, and this is not an issue we can afford to walk away from after one failure.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave


[ Parent ]
Prop 56 (0.00 / 0)
failed because it would have made it easier for them to raise our taxes. Propose a simple majority to pass the budget while keeping a 2/3 for tax increases, and it will pass easily

For me, that's what I support in principle. For you, that's pragmatism

The Silent Consensus


[ Parent ]
I'm sorry but... (5.00 / 1)
don't eject saliva on my cupcake and tell me it's frosting

Okay, I agree completely that Clinton was more responsible with the budget than any Republican in the past 40 years.

Unfortunately, the Democrats in California, just like the Republicans were in Congress, are drunken sailors.

"our reserve is at $3.4 billion" Down from $10.5 billion JUST ONE YEAR AGO, mainly resulting from all the money borrowed in 2004. It has gone down $7 billion in just one year

"Operating deficit is down to $699 million" That claim is laughable at best and criminal at worst. Why?

1. Over the past 2 months, we've taken in $600 million LESS than expected. This budget pretends we still took it in.
2. Arnold's administration has agreed to a $330 million increase in prison guard salaries next year. This budget doesn't account for it. No wonder we pay more than twice per inmate than Florida, by the way!
3. A robust boom in real estate is predicted, and $190 million more than the LAO says is prudent
4. $1 billion depends on selling EdFund. EdFund has never been appraised and some experts believe it's 1/5 of that
5. Similar problems exist with $200 million from tribal gaming revenues
6. This budget depends on $400 million from seizing personal property (escheat) after 3 years of inactivity, DEFYING THE COURT'S ORDER

So when you say it's "fiscally responsible" I disagree in the strongest possible terms

Back in the Pat Brown days, we were producing a lot more at a far less cost. Our minimum debt payments are now more than the entire UC budget. We're spending a larger portion of people's earnings and producing LESS! The only thing that's changed is public policy

We spend $42,000 per inmate when Florida only spends $18,000. We pay $163,000 to build a prison bed when Michigan only pays 1/3 of that. We pay the 3rd highest tax per gallon of gasoline and rank 43rd in per capita spending for our highways. We've almost doubled per pupil spending on our schools in the past 10 years and achievement has remained stagnant.

Go back to paying market wages and benefits for public employees. Decentralize administration and eliminate the middlemen. Go back to competitive bidding for services

You wanna eliminate the 2/3 requirement? Fine, exclude tax increases from it and it will pass easily. Even Tom McClintock supports that! (seriously)

The Silent Consensus


[ Parent ]
I understand (0.00 / 0)
what you are trying to do.  But the messaging the left needs right now is a reason why the Democrats made the operating deficit and reserve greater than what Arnold the supposedly "fiscally responsible" governor wanted to have.

Why do we need to pay off $1 billion in bonds early and take over $1 billion from transportation?  Justifying these moves using a right-wing frame will only bring more questions.


[ Parent ]
You are right about... (0.00 / 0)
repaying the debt. If we are paying off debt while running a deficit, we are using borrowed money to repay borrowed money. That gets us precisely nowhere

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
The frame (0.00 / 0)
The best defense is a strong offense. Democrats put it out front that we are being conservative with spending because we know the Republicans come right at us with their tired "wreckless spending" charges. By noting where we have done better than the Governor, we help blunt those attacks. It's that simple. That's why Bill Clinton did it. That's why we do it.

Bill Clinton is super and all (8.00 / 1)
But how'd the national party do while he was legitimizing every critical term lobbed across the aisle from Republicans?

If you want to seize the "fiscally responsible" mantle, fine.  We'd probably disagree on how to go about prioritizing these programs, but that's a policy discussion.  Strategically speaking though, the better time to come out for fiscal responsibility would probably have been before Republicans forced it on you.

I proudly work to re-elect Barbara Boxer


[ Parent ]
explain to me exactly what the need is (8.00 / 1)
to blunt Republican attacks, in heavily gerrymandered California when the GOP brand as displayed by their leader stands at roughly 25-30%?  The "reckless spending" charge is tired because NOBODY BELIEVES IT'S TRUE.  So why waste one minute of your valuable time pushing back against it?

[ Parent ]
If the best defense is a good offense (8.00 / 3)
Why not go to the voters and explain to them that it's the Republicans who are demanding reckless and irresponsible cuts to public transportation and public safety? If you believe the "fiscally responsible" frame is a good one, wouldn't it make sense to link it to how the Republicans are behaving irresponsibly? I doubt that voters who ride BART everyday, or are stuck in traffic on the 10 in LA or on the 5 in southeast LA County think paying Wall Street instead of relieving their safety or congestion concerns is a great idea.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

[ Parent ]
I agree... (0.00 / 0)
this "early debt prepayment" is pure window dressing. By paying off debt while running a deficit, we're using borrowed money to repay borrowed money.

Arnold's trick is not to enter those payments into the state's checkbook, now try that at home and you'll be hearing from your bank. We can only afford that gimmickry for now, because of the borrowing we did in 2004

The Silent Consensus


[ Parent ]
No, the best defense is a strong offense (0.00 / 0)
What you're describing is a fall-back-slowly defense.  It's not an offense at all.

[ Parent ]
Assemblyman Leno on Budget Reform & Internet (0.00 / 0)
If he sounds a little tired, this was recorded Friday and he hadn't slept for 40 hours. Here are his thoughts on the budget process as Chair of Assembly Appropriations.



Mark Leno - The Best Choice for Change


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


Support Calitics:

Shop on Amazon.com

Advertisers

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

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch
Powered by: SoapBlox