Legislative Analyst Liz Hill is going to retire at the end of the year. She has served in the psot for 22 years. Her no-nonsense style will surely be missed around Sacramento. From Speaker Nunez in the SacBee.:
"Everyone who values serious advice for meeting California's serious challenges owes a tremendous debt to Liz Hill," said Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles, in a statement. "Her thoughtful, non-partisan stewardship of the Legislative Analyst's Office is an example of public service at its best."
So as expected, Assembly Republicans killed a bill that would bring California in line with every other oil-extracting state and charge obscenely rich oil companies for taking our natural resources out of the ground.
With gasoline prices soaring, legislation to slap the oil industry with higher taxes died in the Assembly late Wednesday in the latest party-line battle over the state's beleaguered budget.
Republicans killed the two-pronged oil tax proposed by Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, which they considered a threat to the state's economy as well as political gamesmanship meant more for public relations than problem solving.
In turn, Núñez said at a news conference before the vote that the GOP could not continue to push "knee-jerk, no-tax rhetoric" without coming to grips with its effect on schools and other public services.
Speaker Núñez is in a tough spot, faced with a recalcitrant Yacht & Oil Party who is wedded to failed ideology. The best he can do is to continue to offer these proposals, argue forcefully for them, and hold the opposition accountable for their votes in November. On a blogger conference call earlier today, the Speaker talked about PTA members from red districts coming to the Capitol to protest these extreme education cuts. The Yacht & Oil Party will absolutely face a backlash if they keep this up. Democrats are making the differences clear, and that's the best we can hope for at the moment.
Another thing - what exactly is up with this argument from the Yacht & Oil Party that the Speaker timed his proposal to coincide with layoff notices from school districts? I didn't realize that POLITICS was out of bounds in the political arena. Of course it coincided; the only way you get people in this state to pay attention to what's happening in Sacramento is by taking advantage of opportunities to show the stark philosophical differences. Saying that "you're not allowed to tell people the consequences of our policies" is a loser argument for a loser party.
Núñez, a Los Angeles Democrat with close ties to education unions, is proposing a two-pronged approach by levying a 6 percent tax on all oil produced within the state, and imposing a 2 percent tax on windfall oil profits.
Together, the taxes would generate an estimated $1.2 billion a year for a cash-strapped state that still faces an $8 billion deficit for the fiscal year starting in July. Under the speaker's bill, ABX 9, oil tax revenues would be dedicated for schoolteachers, who are facing potential layoffs under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's across-the-board budget cuts.
This is basically Prop 87 again, and it's a worthwhile proposal. The article goes on to note that the bill is likely to be opposed by Republicans. Which is probably the point here - to further expose the Yacht Party as out of touch, elitist, and defending the wealthy at the expense of schools.
Sure, this is low hanging fruit, and it's not exactly a permanent solution to the structural revenue crisis. But I like the politics. Even though, as David notes below, we're seeing a remarkable movement come together to protect education, the Republicans remain obstinate, and not as many Californians as we'd like see the need to raise taxes to finally fix our 30-year old revenue shortfall. Calling out the Republicans like this, and forcing them to make a public defense of unpopular companies at the expense of children is a great way to lay the groundwork for what will be a long struggle.
Give him credit: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the first Republican in California's Capitol to begin taking off the budget blinders.
He's actually advocating tax increases, give or take some semantics....
It was clear to Schwarzenegger that, for political and practical reasons, the deficit hole could not be filled with spending cuts alone. He decided to support loophole closings. But advisors were surprised when the governor spontaneously popped out with the idea the next morning during an audience Q&A after addressing Town Hall Los Angeles.
"I'm a big believer," he said, "that when we have a financial crisis like this that we all should chip in. And this is why I totally agree with the legislative analyst's office when she says that we should look at tax loopholes....
Democratic leaders should consider it an invitation to offer Schwarzenegger a tax proposal. The governor finally agrees with them, it seems, that the state does have a revenue problem -- not simply a spending problem.
This is a productive development, as it is becoming obvious that catastrophic education cuts are not the answer to our budget crisis. But even this welcome news has to be tempered by some political and fiscal realities.
This evening, Assembly Majority Leader Karen Bass was elected Speaker of the Assembly. Bass, who I believe is the first African American woman elected to this position, will succeed termed-out Fabian Núñez.
Assemblywoman Bass represents the 47th Assembly District - the cities and communities of Culver City, West Los Angeles, Westwood, Cheviot Hills, Leimert Park, Baldwin Hills, Windsor Hills, Ladera Heights, the Crenshaw District, Little Ethiopia and portions of Korea Town and South Los Angeles.
cross-posted at TheLiberalOC.com
The "emergency cuts" discussed here yesterday are expected to pass both chambers of the legislature today and go to Arnold for an expected signature. Education, public transit, and health care face the bulk of the cuts, but most of the plan involves "creative accounting" to defer certain expenditures to the 2008-09 budget year, stabilizing the state's cash flow for the remainder of the 2007-08 year.
That leaves the big fight - the "big kahuna" as Fabian Núñez called it - for the 2008-09 budget. Unfortunately, Núñez is already trying to prepare Californians for acceptance of the Republican frame on the budget, that it must be closed through cuts. As quoted in the Bee article linked above:
"This is just the icing on the cake," said Núñez before the committee vote Thursday. "What's coming in the budget year are devastating cuts."
Núñez has spoken of a 50-50 split between new taxes and cuts to close the budget, but these are not necessary. In fact, no cuts are necessary. The California Tax Reform Association has identified $17 billion in potential new revenues that would help ease our budget crisis, without firing a single teacher, denying health care to a single child, or closing a single state park. When I mentioned to Steve Maviglio that the yacht tax loophole closure wasn't a big deal he claimed that the 2/3 rule blocked more useful tax measures.
But what he hasn't considered is that 2/3 can still be achieved, even for tax hikes, even when you need Republican votes to get it. You have to force the Republicans to vote for it. Back them up against a wall, with a massive public campaign. Already teachers are mobilizing public campaigns to fight the cuts, and over the next few weeks, a coordinated campaign could push the Republicans into a corner where they either have to insist on unpopular cuts and thereby risk their seats in the November election, or go along with a mostly-taxes budget solution.
How do we know this would work? It's what Republicans do to Democrats all the time in Sacramento and DC.
As I've argued before, Arnold is trying to "shock doctrine" us on the budget - create a crisis that is actually the vehicle for pushing through radical changes we would otherwise never accept. As Naomi Klein as well as the WGA have pointed out the only way to resist the shock doctrine is to stop speaking in a language of crisis, start speaking instead in a language of unity and determination to build a better future, and to actually remain united in the face of those trying to divide you.
It's time that Sacramento Democrats understood this. They have a golden opportunity to both reverse 30 years of decline and to benefit at the ballot box by doing so. But if they insist on accepting the Republican frame that spending cuts must be the primary method to close the deficit, they'll accomplish neither.
I am firmly committed to getting a 2/3 majority in both houses of the state Legislature by 2010. Fabian Nuñez believes that, in the Assembly, we can get halfway there by November.
Speaking at the Sacramento Press Club yesterday, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez said Democrats should add three seats to their 48-32 majority in the California Assembly in November's elections.
Nunez made the prediction after new figures from the Secretary of State show a surge in Democratic registrations in all but two Assembly districts, including three held by incumbent Republicans who will be forced to leave office.
They include the desert/Riverside area seat held by Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, the San Diego seat of Assemblywoman Shirley Horton, and the Contra Costa/Sacramento Delta seat held by Assemblyman Guy Houston.
These are clearly the three seats to target. AD-80 (Garcia's seat) has some excellent candidates on the Democratic side, including Greg Pettis and the Hispanic Barack Obama, Manuel Perez. We have good candidates in AD-78 (Horton's old seat) and AD-15 (Houston's) as well - as those Caliticians in those districts can attest. Plus, we not only have registration advantages, but the advantage of a game-changing Democratic nominee at the top of the ticket (whether it's Obama or Clinton) that will bring new Democratic voters to the process. These three seats are prime opportunities, and there are other Assembly opportunities like Greg Aghazarian's seat (he's also termed out), and more in the Senate (Hannah Beth Jackson's bid in SD-19, the possible Jeff Denham recall, Abel Maldonado's SD-15).
However, I want to highlight this nugget about the way Assembly and Senate elections are managed in California.
If Democrats field strong candidates for these seats, we could be looking at a pickup of 2/3+ seats.
Each of the marquee races are expected to be $1 million+ contests. The new Assembly Speaker will be responsible for raising funds and overseeing the campaigns.
Arnold likes to talk a big game about putting "all options" on the table. In fact, if you search for Schwarzenegger and "all options", you get almost 18,000 results. Now, admittedly, many of those are from eBay, so 12,300 without the ebay results. Which, by the way, it must hurt to see your DVDs selling for 1 cent. Ouch! Anyway, the point remains that he talks about all options being on the table a lot. But, for some reason, all options are not on the table in the budget fight. You see, Arnold has said he will not raise additional revenue. No tax hikes and all that Reagan BS.
So, we move on to Arnold's lame-o "cuts only" budget. It's a ridiculous budget that can't possibly be anything that's connected to reality. So, Arnold either has a plan to float MORE bonds to cover our day-to-day expenditures or is playing some game with his Republican friends. And, if it's the bond idea, well, let's just say that I'll be using this picture of Arnold "cutting up the state's credit card" a lot for the next few months.
This budget deficit cannot be tackled by cuts alone. Well, it can, but it would be disastrous for the state, and we would be in the same situation in a few years when we hit another downturn. We are just too reliant on the boom/bust cycle that is inherent to the income-tax based revenue system that we currently use. Follow me over the flip.
You might as well call it "The Lying Lounge," but I just spent a little bit of time there. It's quite surreal, all this attention paid to people who are saying the most obvious statements imaginable ("My candidate did well!"). But I sought out some of our California legislators, and tried to ask them about some of the issues outside of the debate that we talk about a lot.
• Rep. Hilda Solis: It was great to see Rep. Solis here! I wasn't aware that she was a Clinton supporter (previously she had supported Bill Richardson), and I had to look up at her sign (every "spinner" has a sign) to recognize that after she started talking to me. She said that Hillary had a good chance to explain her proposals in a lot of detail tonight, including on health care and "green jobs." I mention that she was barely given a chance to mention green jobs, and asked her what she thought about the fact that every CNN debate has been sponsored by the coal industry. "I think that's not right," she said. She went on to mention some environmental justice legislation she's co-sponsored with Sen. Clinton, and I asked her to come to Calitics and tell us about it.
• Speaker Fabian Nuñez: I didn't want to hijack the interview, but I really wanted to hear his views in the aftermath of the health care reform failure in the State Senate. Fortunately, someone beat me to it, and wound the conversation around to that. After saying that Sen. Clinton "understands the complexities of the health care crisis," he was asked about the lessons of what took place in Sacramento this week. "That was a question of our fiscal crisis. The State Senate felt we couldn't afford it, and I respect their perspective. But at the federal level, there's a way to do it in a much more flexible way and get it paid for. For all the reasons we couldn't accomplish it at the state level, you can at the federal level." I wasn't able to add the question of what concrete proposals we could get through this year. But I respect that answer, maybe because it's what I've been saying for a long, long time.
• Rep. Xavier Becerra: The Hollywood Democrat is an Obama supporter, and he talked about how to get his message out to Latino voters. He talked about how his life is an embodiment of the immigrant experience and how he has worked with those communities. I asked him about the DTS voter issue, and how to get them educated that they have to opt in to get a Democratic primary ballot, and he basically said "Yeah, we have to do that." Wasn't much of an answer there. I think this is an under-the-radar issue in this primary.
• Secretary of State Debra Bowen: On E minus-5, she seemed calm. Bowen, in her role as elections cop, is maintaining a position of neutrality in the primary. "It'll be harder in the general election," she said. I asked her, in the aftermath of John Edwards dropping out of the race, should California look into Instant Runoff Voting so that people who voted early aren't disenfranchised by having their candidate drop out. She said that's something that the parties should look into ("The Green Party would probably do it immediately"), and that it would take a good deal of voter education, too. There are studies about voters in San Francisco who didn't understand IRV and ended up having their vote eventually not count because they only filled out one choice.
Well, I made the best of it and tried to get the least lies possible.
With the collapse of the Schwarzenegger/Nuñez health care plan, the obvious inequities in a broken system continue. And legislators who have the motive, means, and opportunity to do what they can to reverse that have an obligation. Here's what I wrote in Speaker Nuñez' diary on the day of the Senate Health Committee vote:
...for whatever reason, your compromise isn't going to pass today. Now do you stamp your feet and wag a finger at those who submarined it and sit in the corner, or do you work to enact something that would be meaningful to California's many uninsured. That's the position of the moment, and so don't tell us why others have messed up your deal, tell us what you're going to do right now to pick up the pieces and move on.
Núñez suggested that support for a government-run, "single-payer" system lurked in the background and wound up undermining AB X1 1.
Schwarzenegger vetoed a government-run proposal in 2006. Another single-payer measure, Senate Bill 840 by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, is pending in the Assembly.
Núñez vowed to subject it to the same kind of scrutiny his now-dead plan received. "I think it's time," he said, "for us to have an honest conversation about single payer."
He said that lawmakers "cannot create the false sense of hope that we can do something better if it hasn't been tested and put through the same type of scrutiny that our effort was put through."
What good is this "You drank my milkshake, now I drink your milkshake!" strategy? Is it really worth it to 6.5 million uninsured Californians to react to the demise of one health care plan by bulldozing another health care plan? This solipsism, the lashing out, the power plays, is exactly what's wrong with Sacramento.
The lessons of 1994 are that a combination of bad timing and the lack of openness in the process is what killed the Clinton health care plan. That's exactly what derailed this plan, and the proper response is to fix the eternal budgeting problems that will always make an overhaul supremely difficult, and to build a coalition that includes the grassroots in a deliberative way. The opportunity is going to be there if the budgeting structure is righted. But the CDP would need to get behind it on the ground. The groups that do appear, and let me stress that word, appear to be holding out for single payer, need to be brought into the process rather than assailed. There are national allies like MoveOn and the Campaign for America's Future and the whole of the progressive movement that could be invited into the process. And there are small-bore reforms that we could enact right now, that would prepare the ground very well for a national program like Ron Wyden's Healthy Americans Act or the proposals of the Democratic candidates, which have a much more stable federal fiscal structure on which to balance.
Too much of this process has been focused on tearing each other apart, and it's very upsetting to see the leadership continuing down that path.
(Another perspective on AB 1x, from the Assembly Speaker. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
The health care reform bill the Assembly approved in December is within hours of either making history or being killed in the State Senate. Killing AB 1x would be a victory for tobacco companies, the insurance industry and the shameful status quo. That makes this a good time for a gut check.
AB 1x expands coverage to 3.6 million uninsured- including 800,000 children - helps make coverage more affordable for people who already are insured, and puts an end to a lot of unsavory practices in the insurance industry.
Even though it's a compromise we had to negotiate with a Republican governor, the health care reform plan is far- reaching and achievable and moves us way down the road toward the universal coverage Californians want and deserve. It's more progressive than anything under serious consideration in other states and a model for at least one of the presidential candidates.
Though I've gotten some assurances, I honestly don't know what the Senate is going to do. I do know anyone working to kill AB 1 has the duty to tell us exactly what they propose instead, whether it's single payer or something else. Not the dream - the details. Will it work? Who pays for it and how? Will it get the governor's signature? What about support from the voters?
It looks like the dream of major health care reform is over in California, at least for this year. The LA Times reports:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's yearlong effort to arrange medical insurance for nearly all Californians will be rejected by a state Senate panel this afternoon, according to people familiar with the decision.
The move would effectively kill one of the governor's most ambitious policy goals.
Senate President Don Perata (D-Oakland) made the decision after canvassing Democratic senators over the weekend and finding almost no support for the measure, which the Assembly passed last month.
There was some thought that Perata would use some parliamentary maneuvers to ensure the bill's passage, but apparently he couldn't find anyone to create a majority for the measure.
Anthony York openly wonders whether or not this spells the end of the current leadership structure in the state Legislature.
But watching the California Legislature in action last week felt like watching the end of an era -- and bearing witness to the creation of a power vacuum. In a political ballet that played out over several days, the prospects for two seemingly unrelated but intimately connected political issues -- a healthcare reform bill and a change in the state's term-limits law -- withered simultaneously. And as their fortunes sank, so did the power of the current legislative leadership [...]
Then more bad news for the healthcare bill. Mid-afternoon Wednesday, Gloria Negrete McLeod (D-Chino) announced that she too was voting against the legislation, citing concerns about the affordability of the mandated insurance.After her vote, a senator who sits on the committee characterized the situation as a "total implosion." He told me that the rumored poll numbers on Proposition 93 were making it harder to get the healthcare bill out of committee. If the prospects for the initiative's passage were as bad as the numbers suggested, he said, the stigma of a lame duck, and a corresponding loss of influence, might attach to Perata and Nuñez.
Let me say that health care reform may end in California for now, but it does not end nationally, and indeed one has little effect on the other. This is still something in which Americans are broadly in favor. And it's still a framework that every Democratic candidate has laid out. With a new Democratic President, health care reform will be at the top of the agenda, and at the federal level it has a far greater chance of being fiscally sustainable. There are still significant measures that could be taken in California that would improve conditions, in particular mandating guaranteed issue and expanding public programs. But the perils and pitfalls of balancing an enormous overhaul on an unsteady budgetary picture proved too great.
I'm not shocked, or even particularly saddened, by this. It never really looked to me like the finances worked out, and though the political coalition around the bill was heartening and impressive, the rabid dead-enders of the Californian GOP (they're actually worse than national Republicans) wouldn't allow even a cent of new money, and without a truly stable funding source, you really can't do this at the state level. Indeed, money is why all these state plans fail. For fiscal reasons, this has to be a federal initiative. Because states are more politically flexible than the federal government, they can often seem a more viable arena for health reform. But the policies always collapse.
Remember when Democrats were pushing George Bush on the War in Iraq? Remember when presidential candidates were getting heat for having supported the War - or their being wishy-washy about getting us out? With California's presidential primary in just two weeks, we were supposed to have a Proposition on the February ballot - making it official policy that the people of California support withdrawal. State Senate President Don Perata championed the issue and the legislature voted to put it on the ballot, but then Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it. If Democrats were serious, however, they could have gathered signatures to put it on the ballot - regardless of what Arnold did. Doing so would have boosted Democratic turnout, kept the issue alive and held all presidential candidates accountable. Instead, we have allowed Iraq to slip from the consciousness of politicians - eluding a golden opportunity to help end this quagmire.
Disclaimer: I am paid by exactly no-one to advocate for any political position. I've heard rumors that certain people would actually pay me to stop.
There's been a lot of heat, and not as much light as would be ideal, generated around Proposition 93, the ballot initiative to extend (a bit) the current legislative term limits. I have already turned in my absentee ballot, and I voted for Proposition 93, despite its manifest flaws. If you're interested in why (and my take on those flaws), it's below the fold.
The massive health care reform plan brokered by Governor Schwarzenegger and Speaker Nuñez has been fraying at the edges a bit in recent weeks. State hospitals appeared to waver on supporting the fees that would be charged to them under the plan, and hearings in the Senate Health Committee were delayed a week pending an analysis from the Legislative Analyst. That hearing is currently scheduled for Thursday tomorrow, but State Senator Leland Yee just put a major wrench into that plan.
On the eve of a hearing for landmark health legislation, a spokesman for Sen. Leland Yee said the San Francisco Democrat will oppose the health care measure. The move throws into limbo whether the legislation has the necessary votes to move forward.
"The costs are a big concern for him," said Adam Keigwin, a spokesman for Yee, regarding the $14 billion health care price tag that coincides with a projected $14.5 billion budget hole [...]
Keigwin said Yee conferred with labor leaders in his district over the weekend who were "almost unanimous" in urging Yee "to vote no."
With Health Committee chair Sheila Kuehl already opposed to the bill, this means that it would be unable to get out of committee without a Republican crossover vote. And even with moderate (for the GOP) Abel Maldonado on the committee, that is unlikely.
I don't think this is the end of the bill by a longshot. Yee or Maldonado could have their arm twisted, or Kuehl could let the bill pass without a recommendation.
What happens next is unclear, though options certainly remain for passage.
For instance, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata could ask Kuehl to grant the measure a courtesy vote, allowing it to proceed to the Senate floor despite her personal opposition.
In an interview Tuesday morning, Kuehl reiterated her position, saying, "I've been very clear with all the advocates and everybody that I do not favor the bill."
She said she had not been contacted by Perata or his staff to support the bill. Asked if she would consider granting a courtesy vote if she was, she replied that she "can't answer that."
"In the Senate, we generally are equal as members," Kuehl added.
Don Perata could also kick Yee off the committee and replace him, although he hasn't exactly been wildly supportive of the bill thus far.
What will happen is anyone's guess. But for the moment, this is a major blow to efforts to overhaul health care in California.
There are rumors that the report of the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, to be released soon-tonight or tomorrow morning-will not be all that favorable. That report had been sought by Senator Perata in December to further vet and test the assumptions made so that voters would not be faced with a ballot measure with shaky financial underpinnings in a year of a massive budget deficit, cuts in other programs including health, and uncertainties.
Making it even less likely that Perata will act. But the pressure on him must be intense.
Conversations with press like this happen every day, every hour in the Capitol; it's why the building exists.
But I guess most conversations aren't on the subject of the insurance industry's number one priority-which is to pass an "individual mandate" law. And most conversations don't happen as a gigantic fake healthcare reform bill seems to be careening to an ugly defeat.
Which is why most conversations don't end with patients being cited for a misdemeanor.
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez has one priority this February: pass Proposition 93 so that he can remain Speaker for another six years - even if it means betraying Democratic constituencies. When Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed budget cuts last week, the Governor had at least one good idea: release 22,000 of the state's non-violent offenders (most of whom are low-income people of color) who are overcrowding our prison system. But while Republicans predictably cried "betrayal," the big surprise was that Nunez backed them up - saying such a move would "put the public at risk." Did Nunez do this because the prison guards gave $100,000 to pass Prop 93?
If so, it won't be the first time that Fabian Nunez sold out to advance his career. A while back, the former union organizer allowed the 4 wealthiest Indian tribes in California to pass anti-labor gaming compacts - after they threatened to campaign against Prop 93. As voters consider Prop 93 in February, they should wonder what the price is to keep Nunez in power?
(Sacramento) - Inmediatamente despues de la presentación del presupuesto del Gobernador para el 2008-09, el Presidente de la Asamblea Fabian Núñez respondió diciendo que el enfoque solamente en recortes del Gobernador no va a resolver la crisis fiscal del estado y va a afectar negativamente a los californianos mas vulnerables. El Presidente Núñez añadio que este es el momento para ser creativos y ejercer un liderazgo valiente y con compasión. Es el momento de defender a los más necesitados y encontrar soluciones a la crisis que reflejen los valoress de los californianos.
El Presidente de Asemblea necesita parar este presupuesto.
Really small. He wants to suspend Prop 98, and cut funding for pretty much every state program and department. You can find his press release about this stinker of a budget at his website. You can find the video of both pressers here. For a more reasonable summary of what this budget does, here's Speaker Nunez:
"The budget proposed today is what a cuts only budget looks like and the proponents of a cuts only approach need to own it," Speaker Núñez said. "This budget isn't going for an up or down vote today. Clearly if passed as written, it would cause a lot of permanent harm."
Specifically, the Governor's proposal:
ü Drastically cut funds for public schools and universities, healthcare, services for the poor, and law enforcement;
ü Proposes across the board permanent cuts to services;
ü Targets cuts on children, the poor, the elderly, and the middle class;
ü Results in the closure of 48 state parks and beaches.
ü Proposes drastic cuts to special education, class size reduction, and career technical education;
ü Requires giving back hundreds of millions of dollars to the federal government that we can't match, particularly for healthcare; and
ü Results in tens of thousands of inmates being released early from prison.
Even with the Governor's permanent cuts, the Administration still estimates that our out-year operating deficit will be close to $3 billion.
"It's time for creative thinking and courageous action," Speaker Núñez said. "This budget isn't particularly creative or courageous. But if we have the will, and we stand up for California values then the ultimate budget solutions we come up with can be."
Both the Governator's and the Democrats' Pressers will be on the Cal Channel. Arnold just finished his, the Dems' is at 3:30 this afternoon.
So, we move on to Arnold's lame-o "cuts only" budget. It's a ridiculous budget that can't possibly be anything that's connected to reality. So, Arnold either has a plan to float MORE bonds to cover our day-to-day expenditures or is playing some game with his Republican friends. And, if it's the bond idea, well, let's just say that I'll be using this picture of Arnold "cutting up the state's credit card" a lot for the next few months.
