[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

Yay Deal.

by: David Dayen

Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:10:35 AM PST


So Abel's tears found a floor, and the deal is now done.  It's a terrible, terrible deal.  Let's first focus on what Maldonado got, which is less than meets the eye.

• He got his open primary legislation on the ballot, but not until June 2010.  Arnold was interested in it, and so it was likely to get on that ballot anyway.  This won't help Maldo in 2010, which was probably a condition of the deal.  Considering that it affects Congressional races as well as legislative ones, I expect Nancy Pelosi to go all in trying to defeat and I don't expect it to pass.  Open primaries have lost on the ballot in the past.

• The constitutional amendment banning legislative pay increases during deficit years passed; the amendment cutting all legislative pay during a late budget failed.

• The 12-cent gas tax increase was cut, replaced with a slight increase to the state income tax, federal stimulus money (which was always going to fill in because it was more than budgeted for) and $600 million in unspecified line-item vetoes from the Governor, which  are going to be ugly.  Let's just say that the huge corporate tax cut is not the first place Arnold's going to look.

Now, that's what Maldonado got.  Among the other goodies in this budget, besides the corporate tax cuts and the privatization of state highway projects and the rest, are:

• A $10,000 tax credit for homebuyers, but only if they buy new construction.  So a "developer bailout" when there is all kinds of existing inventory sitting on the market and lowering property values inside communities.  And now there's an incentive for them to stay there.  Great.

• Large commercial vehicles are exempt from the increase in vehicle license fees, because... gee, I have no idea.  This is perverse, the opposite of what we should be taxing, which are inefficient vehicles.

• Rental car companies can pass VLF increases on to customers, which they probably would have done anyway, but this makes it even easier.

• One provision allows for the delay of retrofitting of heavy diesel equipment, which will maintain poor air pollution in at-risk communities, and let's face it, kill people.  Don't believe me, take it from the Chairman of the Air Resources Board, Mary Nichols: "There are people who will die because of this delay."

Dan Weintraub is right - this is a budget the GOP can be proud of, because it's a profoundly conservative budget.  Because they hold a conservative veto over it.  And they get the best of both worlds - they don't have to vote for the budget en masse so they don't have to own it.  In short, the hijacking worked.  And that's a function of process, not personality.

As Jean Ross says, "If this year's budget negotiations don't increase public support for reducing the vote requirement for approval of a budget and tax increases, it is not clear what will."

...there are two initiatives that have entered circulation that would repeal 2/3 for budget and taxes, and replace it with an arbitrary 55%.  It should be majority rule.  But it's about to gather signatures.  Budgets and bad policies can eventually be changed if the process is changed.

David Dayen :: Yay Deal.
Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Yay Deal. | 19 comments
My wife wants to give Maldo a big hug... (0.00 / 0)
... I plan to donate to his next challenger. Which raises the question: Should we scourge him more or less than the anti-tax jihadis will?

Two questions:
What's going to be on the May 12 ballot?
How many legislators are millionaires and afford to delay a budget without personal hardship (and how many of them are Republicans?)


I'm voting for "support his challenger." (0.00 / 0)
He didn't do this out of principle, like Cogdill appears to have.  He did this because someone finally found his minimum bribe amount.  It would be tantamount to demanding $50,000 before voting for a budget.

I am greatly relieved that the proposal denying pay to legislators without a budget failed - that was directly an attack on Democrats.  I would certainly like to run someday, but my guess is that I would not have the financial wherewithal to go without pay for months.  Talk about a conflict of interest.


[ Parent ]
55% is an incredibly foolhardy move (6.50 / 2)
As David points out it is completely arbitrary. Why not 58% as it is halfway between reality and what the Republicans want. If we treat this as a negotiation, I'll be Sacramento Democrats can get us to 3/4 necessary to pass the budget.

But seriously, 55% loses al of the messaging around majority rule while granting the frame that a check and balance is necessary.


Twitter: @BobBrigham


Look how much easier this messaging is (5.00 / 2)
From a John Burton email:

If the last 48 hours has proven nothing else, we can no longer allow Republicans to hold the people of California hostage and therefore dictate to the Democratic majority the terms under which the budget is passed.

California should join the 47 other states who don't require a supermajority to pass the budget.

If I am elected as the next Chair of the California Democratic Party, I will make majority vote budget a top priority.



Twitter: @BobBrigham

[ Parent ]
yup (4.00 / 1)
if republicans want to run the state, they should convince california voters to give them the majority.

surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

[ Parent ]
Talking points (0.00 / 0)
It's the "Majority Rules" or "No Extortion" initiative to reduce the budget threshold.

It's not the blanket primary or open primary, but the "Maldonado Blackmail" primary.

As for the good Senator himself, he's clearly "Dishonest Abel".


Two to four years in the clink (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the great summary, Dave.

As Dante clearly described earlier, what Maldo did is unquestionably illegal and California's Penal Code mandates that it is punishable by two, three, or four years in prison. Section 86 of the Penal Code states:

86. Every Member of either house of the Legislature, or any member of the legislative body of a city, county, city and county, school district, or other special district, who . . . gives, or offers or promises to give, any official vote in consideration that another Member of the Legislature, or another member of the legislative body of a city, county, city and county, school district, or other special district shall give this vote either upon the same or another question, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years . . . .

This is a clear, simple, and straightforward law. And what Maldo did clearly and unquestionably violates it. The argument can (and has) been made that "hey, this is just the way Sacramento works." The argument also can be made that the ends justify the means. Well, that's all fine and good. But unless and until the law is changed, what just happened is a crime.

I doubt Jerry Brown has the guts to do his job and charge Maldo with violating section 86. But let's not ignore the fact that we just witnessed a crime on the California Channel.



perp walk him (0.00 / 0)
Can't believe nobody on the floor picked up a phone and called 911.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

[ Parent ]
Bass and Steinberg called 911 on December 17 after Arnold vetoed the budget (0.00 / 0)
They went in front of the media, started a website on the fiscal crisis, and generally tried to generate a groundswell of protest.

Unfortunately, almost all the activists were exhausted from the election and getting ready for the holidays, so nobody answered the call.

Now that we have a Democratic president, maybe we can all focus more on saving our state.


[ Parent ]
what are you talking about? (0.00 / 0)
December 17? That is when the budget was passed, but leadership wasted weeks by not even sending it to the governor to be vetoed in the first week of the new year.

Leadership had a pathetic communication game, but since their strategy was even worse it didn't really drag anything down.

Twitter: @BobBrigham


[ Parent ]
Low income earners see their taxes increased... (1.00 / 1)
...while the commercial real estate barons of California only get wealthier.

Thank you CA Democratic Party.

And the sate and federal reps will shoot down the open primary system.  So "yay" for the incumbents in both parties.


And your solution is... (8.00 / 1)
Oh, yeah, that's right.  Expel students and lay off teachers who are then no longer needed, because y'know, some of those students are just ineducable, and  what California really needs is to formalize the creation of a nice big prole underclass.  Once they're expelled, maybe we can lobotomize them too, so they're less trouble, like Huxley's Deltas and Epsilons.

Your spite politics are really astonishing -- malformed, incoherent and hateful.

This is a Republican budget.  The only reason there are Democratic votes on it is because they are trying very hard to postpone the suffering of the poorest (the people you pretend to care about).  I think that was the wrong answer, but it's at least intelligible.  All that you seem to want is for people you don't like to suffer.


[ Parent ]
Uh... that's not what I reccomnended at all... (0.00 / 0)
Repeal Prop 13 corporate provisions first.

And if you are naive enough to think that NO child should ever be expelled or No teacher should ever be fired.  Well good luck with that.

And once again why didn't any of the Dems put the Prop 13 corp provisions on the table?

And that formalized underclass already exists and cramming classes full of kids who don't want to learn and teachers who can't teach only hurts the kids that are trying to learn whom you apparently don't give the slightest concern to.

And suffering is inevitable (such is the human condition) the idea that you can save everybody and have a utopia is foolhardy at best.  And you are right the Dems gave the worst elements of the republican party the exact bill they wanted.  They knew the math didn't add up and now they have it both ways they vote against it and the state is saved for th3 next 6 months until the bottom REALLY comes out of the RE market.

Name calling (and I'm spitefull???) someone who holds a contradicting view to your own on certain issues is pretty sophomoric.


[ Parent ]
No Child Left Behind (0.00 / 0)
And if you are naive enough to think that NO child should ever be expelled or No teacher should ever be fired.  Well good luck with that.

But I think the conservatives may have been talking about The Rapture.

Aside from that, you leave no strawman behind and undemolished.

And suffering is inevitable (such is the human condition) the idea that you can save everybody and have a utopia is foolhardy at best.

I totally agree but I think you are closer to the "utopian" here, as are these so-called "conservative Republicans". They are a particularly noxious synthesis of glibertarianism, free market fundamentalism and anarcho-capitalism. No less utopian and just as harmful and unachieveable. Believe it or not, you are an ideological analog to those failed ideologies and policies and being a left pragmatist and realist myself with the only philosophical or ideological goal of harm reduction (look it up) or the most good for the most people, I doubt your brand of faux populism would achieve that.


[ Parent ]
Didn't address ANY of my points :-( (0.00 / 0)
So should any kids be explelled or teachers fired?

And yes the Repubs are quite utopian and stupid in their own way.  And harm reduction and the most good for the most people are quite general terms.

Doesn't repealing Prop 13s corporate provisions do less harm and more good than what has been given us in the current budget?

And I'm not very analogous to Republicans at all.  I believe in single payer health care and taxation that is truly progressive (though not unfair).

Though philosophically yes I am a libertarian (small l) that believes that individual freedoms/rights/responsibilities are vital to a stable social framework.

Thinking you can achieve a great good by government (which will always be inherently corrupt) involvement in every element of life is a concept I can't subscribe to.


[ Parent ]
Heh... (0.00 / 0)
So should any kids be explelled (sic) or teachers fired?

Bizarre beyond words. Why this keeps rattling around in your head or how it is even relevant to any of these issues is beyond me, and, I suspect most people here. Perhaps a clue to this is contained in another of your admissions. That and your affinity for men of straw.

And harm reduction and the most good for the most people are quite general terms.

It's a recognized philosophy in the field of public health applicable in many other public policy areas.

Though philosophically yes I am a libertarian (small l) that believes that individual freedoms/rights/responsibilities are vital to a stable social framework.

I figured that, whatever that means. At least you are for single payer.

Thinking you can achieve a great good by government (which will always be inherently corrupt) involvement in every element of life is a concept I can't subscribe to.

Sounds like a GOP talking point to me. Wait, who's the idealist and utopian here again?


[ Parent ]
Arnold's presser (0.00 / 0)
What a f-ing joke. First of al, did he really need to speak the outline numbers on his speech?

He totally f-ing used Maldo to get what he always wanted in the open primary. What a jerk. I'm so glad

"we have to bring people to the center"

Screw that, you want the legislature to work for the people? Why not try eliminating 2/3

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


Wait wait (0.00 / 0)
Screw that, you want the legislature to work for the people? Why not try eliminating 2/3  

I don't want to eliminate 2/3 of the legislature.  Just a bit over 1/3 would suffice.


[ Parent ]
Open primary (0.00 / 0)
Would it be possible to explain the "Open primary" thing in the budget for those unfamiliar with California politics?  I generally don't like them, but I'm curious who is advocating for them and why.

Yay Deal. | 19 comments
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