Come to think of it, they like to argue and obfuscate in abstractions, as well. They campaign in abstractions and make abstract pledges until those abstractions turn into something tangible, like a subprime lending crisis or a downgrade from a particular private rating agency.
We spend so much time wading through abstractions that we cannot get to the meat of the issues that face us today. Enough of that.
What really happens in a bad economy? And what is the public's role during these tough times?
As the bills come rushing out, there are a few that are of particular note. One of these is Nancy Skinner's AB 2666, which would require the state to maintain a public record of "tax expenditures." In other words, companies who took big tax credits
The Assembly gave final legislative approval today to heavily lobbied legislation that would post corporations' use of tax loopholes on the Internet.
Business groups oppose the bill, Assembly Bill 2666 by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, so it's uncertain that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would sign the measure. (SacBee)
Now, this is, in reality, a very modest measure. It only applies to publicly traded companies, so much of this information would have been public at some point anyway. This just allows the people of the State of California to conveniently access more information about where their tax dollars are going.
Of course the Chamber and their Republican lapdogs see it another way. They only like openness and transparency when it comes to groups they don't like. But for the voters of California to know that large chunks of their budget is going out on tax credits to single companies? Why, that would be sheer madness. We can't be having an informed populace like that! Sure, services, we have to demand every last bit of accountability, sunshine, and burdensome compliance. But tax breaks? Sunshine is for the lesser folk, don't you know?
In the end, much of this comes down to the fact of whether you think these companies should get to take and take from the government, in services, in roads, in skilled labor, etc, without at least acknowledging that they owe a debt and a fair share of that. But, for some, government is only there for a one way flow. Drown it, and you might just discover that you wish for it back.
Well, this is a smack to the back of the head for Arnold and his short-sighted "furlough them all" policy:
An Alameda County judge has ordered furloughed state employees in nearly 70 departments to return to a regular work schedule next month, but he spared the state from immediately paying hundreds of millions of dollars in back pay while Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appeals the ruling.
Service Employees International Union Local 1000, the state's largest civil service union, figures Roesch's decision affects about 53,000 of its 95,000 members.
Judge Frank Roesch's decision this morning underscored his Dec. 31 ruling that Schwarzenegger should not have furloughed workers in 69 "special fund" departments. Those departments get a significant portion of their budgets from sources outside the state's general fund, which is the shrinking pot of money at the center of the government's serial budget crises. The judge later ordered back pay for the furloughed workers. Schwarzenegger asked Roesch to postpone implementation of the ruling pending his appeal.
Ruling this morning, Roesch said furloughs should end now.(SacBee)
The way the budget generally works is that most of the big ticket items come from the general fund, K12 and higher ed, much of our debt service, most social programs, etc. However, these special funds support a plethora of other programs where either voters (usually) or the Legislature has provided for a specific funding source. Most of these funds are doing ok. So ok that Arnold wants to raid those funds to cover for the general fund. Why not just have 3 headaches when you have one gaping axe wound from the head now, right?
Well, anyway, most of these funds are semi-sacrosanct. So, they aren't so easily tapped, at least without a vote of the people. And that's what much of this has to do with legally. At the very least, it's a slap on the nose.
It seems that's the only way you get Arnold Schwarzenegger to do a damn thing these days. You want to change education? Add some tax credits. You want to cut spending? Add some more tax loopholes, and we'll talk.
And, now, the Legislature has decided to just talk. So, they're throwing in a homebuyer's tax credit (putting realtors over our children) and a sales tax exemption for environmental technology companies (putting another business sector ahead of our children). Yay!
Responding to a demand by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, state lawmakers Monday sent him bills establishing another homebuyer tax credit and a sales tax exemption for environmental technology firms, satisfying him enough to win his signature on a transportation funding bill.
Schwarzenegger last week threatened to veto a Democratic gas-tax maneuver that would save the state $1.1 billion as it tries to close a nearly $20 billion deficit. The proposal was similar to a gas-tax swap Schwarzenegger first proposed in January, but the Democratic version provided ongoing funding for transit programs.
The Republican governor, in a letter, vowed to veto the gas-tax proposal in part because he said lawmakers had not sent him the job creation bills he wanted. (SacBee)
This, my friends, is called hostage taking in the vein of Lucy and Charlie Brown. Arnold proposes a law, gets Dems to buy-in, and then pulls the old veto card out of his hat. Football yanked! Ha-Ha.
Get used to this Democrats. If Meg Whitman successfully implements her "Buy It Now" program for the governor's gig, this is what every negotiation will look like. If you don't do what she says, she's going to veto everything. Or so she says. But if she's going to go that route, she'd do well to learn from the master. After all, look where all this hard work has brought him. It takes real work to get to be the worst governor ever.
With dueling letters flying back and forth (here's Sen. Steinberg's), it is clear that there is a lot of work left to be done on the budget. In fact, Steinberg is saying that they are at a "mini-impasse" now:
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, suggested Tuesday that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger bears blame for budget inaction after the governor rejected the most significant parts of a budget package Democrats have sent him in recent weeks.
The Republican governor on Monday told legislative leaders that he would veto a gas-tax swap that would have cut about $1 billion from the state's $19.9 billion deficit through June 2011, saying that he wanted a bill that would have cut gas taxes by 5 cents per gallon.
*** *** *** ***
The Democratic Senate leader declared the situation a "mini impasse," though he was confident that lawmakers and the governor would be able to resolve their budget disagreements. In particular, Steinberg said, lawmakers would seek to send Schwarzenegger another bill that helps "short sale" home sellers, perhaps without the corporate penalty provisions if need be. (SacBee)
I recommend you read the full Steinberg letter for additional context, but long story short, they're trying to do a swap of gas taxes for fees. Trouble is, that when other states tried doing a similar move, they ended up losing revenue and the oil companies ended up taking the additional money.
There are a few points of agreement that should be able to get some budget "solutions," but there is still a long way to go to chisel down that $20B deficit.
For the duration of the furlough craziness, I've had a particular definition of "Stupid." (Capitalized, that is.) Specifically, the furloughing of workers paid entirely by federal dollars that ends up losing the state money.
Here's how it works in one example. State worker A reviews disability claims. Worker A is a state employee, but his or her salary is paid by the federal government. Arnold, concerned as he is for simplicity over touchy issues like "facts" furloughs Worker A despite the fact that the state saves no money. Further, the work that Worker A would have done would have pulled down federal dollars into the state, but instead they go unspent. See...Stupid.
Now, Speaker Pelosi weighs in on all that Stupid:
While California must make tough choices as it works to close its budget deficit, furloughing workers whose salaries are fully-funded through the federal government results in the loss of millions of dollars for our state while harming our neediest citizens.
The Social Security Administration's Inspector General has found that furloughs of Disability Determination Services workers would cost our state $30.6 million in lost federal funds while delaying $98.5 million per year in disability payments to disabled Californians. California is also dead last among all 50 states when it comes to paying unemployment insurance claims within 21 days, according to the Department of Labor.
The California Congressional Delegation and I met earlier this year with Governor Schwarzenegger and state legislative leaders to ensure that California will continue to receive the federal funds it needs. Enacting this bill, which passed the Legislature with large, bipartisan majorities, is one simple way to strengthen California. I hope the Governor will sign this bill and end all furloughs for workers funded by the federal government.
So, to summarize...state saves $0 Dollars. State loses $30.6 million. How is this helping the state? Now, the Legislature has approved a bill to end these furloughs. Of course, if Arnold had just not pushed for them in the first place, we wouldn't be in this position. Nonetheless, here we are. Arnold, sign the damn bill, and at least eliminate this one, small bit of Stupid.
Robert mentioned the looming teacher layoffs, but there will be some layoffs that will be coming down the pike right away.
In low-key votes, lawmakers slashed nearly $1 billion from the state's prison system, chiefly from inmates' medical care, and approved a $540 million reduction in state workers' paychecks. The state Senate had approved those measures last week, and on Monday the Assembly passed them on party-line votes. (SJ Merc)
In this series of votes, the Assembly didn't look at the Amazon.com tax nor the plan to change the way the gas tax works.
What it did do, slashing prison health care funding, is perhaps without controversy in the Legislature, but the federal courts might look at this slightly differently. Further cuts to the salaries of state workers, who have already seen cuts due to the furloughs, will increase the strain of many workers who are just struggling to keep their heads above water.
Given that Sen. Steinberg has already said that he wouldn't seek broad tax increases, it appears that cuts are going to be the name of the game. And Arnold doesn't even want to look at simple majority tax/fee exchanges. While the stimulus from DC appears to be doing some good, the biggest of the 50 Little Hoovers is right here in Sacramento.
Arnold Schwarzenegger did a swing on the DC fun ride this weekend. And, of course, he did his standard trip of the Sunday talk shows. This week it was ABC's this week to look on endearingly as Arnold spills a load of bull all over the ground.
Apparently when Arnold enters the Eastern time zone, he becomes all magically magnanimous towards Democrats. Apparently, if you talk trash about your own party, it's big news in DC. There were a whole slew of stories about Arnold trashing the GOP. There's Arnold on the stimulus:
"I find it interesting that you have a lot of the Republicans running around and pushing back on stimulus money and saying this doesn't create any new jobs, and then they go out and do photo-ops and they're posing with the big check and they say, 'Isn't this great! Look the kind of money I provide here for the state! And this is great money to create jobs, and this has created 10,000 new jobs, and this has created 20,000 new jobs,'" Schwarzenegger said on ABC's "This Week." "It doesn't match up." (The Hill)
And Arnold on Health Care and the President:
And he sided with Obama, saying it would be wrong to start all over in preparing health-care legislation for Congress to consider.
"I think any Republican that says you should start from scratch, I think that's bogus talk, and that's partisan talk," the governor told reporters.
*** *** *** ***
"It was truly encouraging to see him being so interested in talking about job creation being his number-one priority," Schwarzenegger said.(CapAlert)
Now, there's two ways to read this. Either it's just Arnold doing what Arnold does best, play showman, or it's Arnold beginning to angle for some sort of position in the Administration.
Look, Arnold has always been something of a wild card, in terms of what he says, but when it comes to where the rubber hits the road in Sacramento, he's the CalChamber's go-to guy. He sides with corporations over people, and fights for corporate tax cuts while MediCal is slashed. Hardly the great bipartisan hope that some would like to depict.
During this whole multi-year budget season, the Republicans have consistently been fighting to put the reduction of taxes as the top issue on the table. And Steve Poizner's "10-10-10" Plan calls for a 10 percent cut in taxes as well as a 10 percent cut in spending. Of course, we've cut far more than 10 percent in each of the last few budget years, so his plan doesn't carry much meaning, but the sentiment is still there.
But, like so many issues facing California, the Republicans are out of touch with the people they are supposed to be representing. In a poll by the Datamar firm (PDF), taxes as an issue didn't even rate. It just got lumped in with "all other issues." Meanwhile, "budget cuts" rated as the second leading issue among all groups except Republican respondents. (They're still hung up on the immigration issue, despite the fact that we are still in the middle of a slow, if not nil, immigration flow on our southern border.)
Of course, the economy is still front and center, as "jobs" and "economy" could conceivably be pushed together in terms of responses. But, as voters are looking around the state, they see the effect budget cuts are having. Transit and roads programs are being slashed, you get charged for 911 calls, and the social safety net is falling apart. Workers across the state are falling into semi-permanent states of unemployment that just become harder and harder to break out of.
So, why then are we still arguing? Why not fix the budget? Well, the Republicans have played their hand well. It's always easier to be a party of no, and as well as they've played that game in DC, they do it better in Sacramento. Because despite the minority's rejection of even the budgets proposed by their own governor, they are attributed a relatively small share of the blame.
SInce 1978, the Republicans have almost always been in the minority in the Legislature, but have wielded that minority as a club to make some serious and far reaching cuts to the system. In addition to commanding the governor's position most of that time, they have been able to bully Democrats into adopting budgets that would never be approved under any majority vote system. It has skewed the actual state of the government and
Yet by allowing just the stray vote or two to cross the lines, they keep their names out of the filth of the actual budget and can blame the Democrats for the perverse effects of a system gone astray. Thus, you get this graph to the left, where the Dems, despite there willingness to give and give to the Governor and the Legislative Republicans being seen as the source of problems. Despite all facts to the contrary, no matter how many ways you can show historically what the supermajority has done to the state, it doesn't matter. You end up with this garbage.
Of course, given our string of pr debacles, nobody should be surprised to see that nearly 70% of Republicans blame the Democrats, while only about 30% of Democrats blame the Republicans in the Legislature. We have simply failed to tell our story. And at this point, it's not even clear if Californians are really wiling to do what is necessary to create a working and sustainable government.
That being said, it is imperative that we not only continue to fight for the majority of Californians who are more concerned with cuts than taxes, but we frame it as such. Every day, Democrats need to take the fight away from a frame as a fight with the Republicans and transform it into a populist crusade for the rights and values of the majority of Californians.
I'll be on KOGO radio with San Diego U-T editor and blogger Chris Reed at 6:35 this evening. You can listen online or catch it on the radio in San Diego at 600 on your AM dial.
The internet, 15 years into its serious commercial life is still something of a wild west. In theory, sales tax (or its counterpart the use tax) is supposed to be paid on all purchases. In practice, it's only paid where the stores collect it. While the state has begun making a push for Californians to pay use tax on products that they buy from online stores, few people actually do so. I'll admit that keeping track of my online purchases is a pain in the butt. I just end up guessing and paying on that guess. But, I'm just guessing here, but I bet I'm in a pretty small minority here.
New York has gone the additional step of requiring Amazon and other online companies collect and pay that tax. Amazon, and fellow online retailers, aren't so enthused. From Amazon's website:
Effective June 1, 2008, Amazon.com LLC will begin collecting sales tax on items shipped to destinations within the State of New York as New York has enacted a new law requiring out-of-state sellers to collect and remit sales tax based on advertising. Amazon has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this provision. However, as required by the law, we must still begin collecting New York sales tax beginning on that date.
Please note that if you place an order prior to June 1, 2008, your Order Total may not include an estimate of New York sales taxes, but those taxes may still be charged if your order is readied for shipment on or after that date.
But what does Amazon have against this practice? Is it too challenging for them to do the work of collecting taxes? Not really, at this point, payment processing systems can be programmed fairly easy to collect and submit sales taxes.
No, at this point, it is completely about the online stores' efforts to undermine local businesses. They believe that their purchases should not be subject to taxes, while if you go down to the local bookstore, you have to pay up.
Perhaps the idea made sense when the Internet was a struggling venture. Amazon.com is now the world's largest book retailer. More music is sold online than off. The internet does not need any more boost through accounting trickery. These stores should be collecting taxes.
While the loss to the states is relevant here to the budget, of equal, if not greater, concern is the loss to local companies. They have to collect the taxes, and then are left with seemingly higher taxes. It's about time that we level the playing field. Let internet and brick and mortar retailers at least compete on a level playing field. Local businesses already contribute more to the local economy in jobs and recirculating money, why would we tie an arm behind their backs?
Meanwhile, Arnold Schwarzenegger continues to oppose small businesses right here in California, and says he plans to veto the measure if it gets to his desk.
Remember ArnoldBucks? Well, I hope you like them, because they are on their way back.
"Here we go again," said state Controller John Chiang, warning lawmakers that the state will run low on cash this spring unless they make adjustments in the weeks ahead.
California is falling $6 billion short of the revenue it needs to fund basic programs in the current fiscal year and is projected to be short by another $14 billion in the fiscal year that starts July 1.(AP)
Of course, the response thus far has been talk of cuts-only deals and some budgetary gimmicks. Instead of real solutions that will allow the state to provide for the general welfare, we get more threats of increased withholding and other ways for the state to get some interest free loans from the people.
Last year, the ArnoldBucks IOUs ended up costing the state millions of dollars in additional interest, setup and processing, and hurt our credit rating as the world saw our dirty laundry. I can't wait for this year's excitement!
The good Governor Schwarzenegger is pretty fond of his own abilities. I mean, if it were all up to him, those boxes would have been good and blown up by now. Yet that damned meddling legislature is always getting in his way. Oh, and the people have the temerity to refuse his power plays.
But that doesn't mean that he's given up on taking power for himself. The most glaring example is the "seating Abel Maldonado" without getting confirmation thing. We'll see how this turns out, but at this point, he seems like somebody who wants to grow his power at every turn. The courts have served the job of backstop for the separation of powers, but is this really where we want to be? A legislature that has to go running to the courts every week to get approval for its very existence?
The St. Abel issue isn't the only one. Take this instance of Arnold unilaterally deciding that a law is inconvenient:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had no legal authority to disqualify everyone with a felony record from working in the program that provides in-home care to 430,000 low-income elderly and disabled Californians, a judge ruled Thursday.(SF Chronicle)
The actual law states that felons are ineligible for ten years. You can see why this regulation is in place. These are people who are vulnerable, and we want them to steer clear of possible con artists and all that. But Arnold's recent stunt of cutting off all convicted felons has nothing to do with that. Rather, it's some sort of crazy budget issue. He's trying to save money by firing any IHSS workers who currently have a client and have a criminal record, and then hoping that they won't be able to find a replacement for a while. You know, save a few bucks while the disabled person has no care and has to go looking.
It's all about instability. Instability breeds confusion, which causes less people to take advantage of state services. It's a really crappy, and cowardly, way to try to save money. Arnold, if you're going to try to make cuts, do them honestly, and let the people know what you are doing. Come tell the recipients of IHSS care that they are going to have to go to a more expensive residential facility. Oh, right those facilities don't exist. So, how about this, Governor, why don't you just go ahead and tell these people that you wish them well as they struggle to survive.
And maybe if you toss in a copy of Terminator 2, all will be forgiven.
When Arnold came to Sacramento, riding a populist wave that was based, in substantial part, to a populist anti-tax message, he promised to "blow up the boxes." In the 6+ years since then, not only did he dig a deeper hole in the budget with his "car tax" cut, but he also managed to further mangle an already broken system.
But structural concerns pale in comparison to the toll in lives that we may face in the next few years if something substantial isn't done to curb his recent budget plan. One key item that will send the state reeling? The in-home support services (IHSS) cuts. Arnold's current plan is that if the state gets a bunch of money from the feds, he'll cut 87% from IHSS. If the state gets nothing, he'll completely eliminate IHSS. The depth of the tragedy this would entail is really quite hard to imagine.
If IHSS is eliminated, there simply would not be enough institutional beds in the state to handle all of these cases. People will literally die in their homes, or because financial support is also being cut, more likely in the streets. And in that respect, Arnold is just like his hero, Ronald Reagan. Reagan dumped millions of people in the streets, and Arnold is attempting to do the same thing
For Capitol insiders, it's easy to chalk it up as a bluff when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposes terminating welfare-to-work and in-home care for the disabled if California doesn't get billions in federal money he's requested.
But it's no chess game for a welfare-to-work mother seriously trying to find a job, or a person in a wheelchair whose living stipend has already been slashed twice in one year.(SacBee)
And the dumbest part of this? IHSS actually saves the state money.
If Darden moved to a nursing home, the state couldn't take away these benefits because federal law prohibits withholding services critical to the health of the disabled. At the same time, the state acknowledges that the public cost of institutionalizing disabled people is far greater than if they live in their own homes.
There is a certain set of core services that a government is expected to provide. If Arnold has his way, California will not be in the business of providing care to the disabled, and leave survival of the fittest to do its best to the state.
Arnold's legacy? Just look to the streets in 3 years and see for yourself.
Speaker Bass has been put in some tough situations as Speaker, and I have disagreed with her on several decisions. However, on this much, we agree:
In an interview, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) criticized the governor's tone and called the spat "unfortunate." She said she too would like to change federal formulas and obtain more aid but would do it in "a collaborative relationship with the California delegation."
"I don't think he's doing it in a way that strengthens the relationship," she said. (LA Times)
The latest salvo in the back and forth was a letter that Arnold sent Wednesday pointing to some comments that DiFi made...in 2003. The comments focused on formulas for medicaid and other federally mandated state expenses. Of course, seven years is a lifetime (or two) in politics. Why, back then, Arnold was talking about blowing up the boxes. Since then, well, boxes in place, walls even higher.
This confrontation with DC seems to have taken on a life of its own, without any real purpose.
After a series of credit downgrades during our budget crisis last year, the score stabilized a bit during the down time. Now, it's been nudged back to "A-" by S&P today.
Citing serious risks in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget plan, Standard & Poor's on Wednesday downgraded California's national-low credit rating from "A" to "A-minus."
The ratings house sees a gloomier picture this year for California's finances because "the state's options have narrowed considerably" and Schwarzenegger has made risky calculations in his latest budget plan to bridge a $19.9 billion deficit.
*** *** ****
S&P cited the governor's reliance on "extraordinary federal cooperation" and voter approval of $1 billion in transfers from mental health and child development funds as risky assumptions. It also said the unlikelihood of the Legislature reaching a quick deal on "deep cuts as proposed" could hinder the state's finances. (SacBee)
Of course, you and I know that California is constitutionally required to pay debt before it pays anything else. Apparently the credit agencies aren't so sure about that.
Robert mentioned Oregon's sensible budget solutions last week. With 36 states facing budget deficits, we have many examples of what others are doing to face the economic reality of lower revenues, increased need for services, and a lesser borrowing ability than the feds.
Arnold seems intent on blackmailing DC and the people of California. His first plan, which I agree with the ends, but not the means, is to get more cash from the feds. He points the finger at California's congressional delegation for not bringing back enough pork. He points at Sen. Ben Nelson and the sweet deal he got for Nebraska in the health care bill. Unsuprisingly, this has resulted in a lot of angry Congress members. Oh, and a stream of snippy press releases and a little war of words with Senator Boxer. Boxer accusing him of ignoring the stimulus when calculating the 78 cents on the dollar figure he's been citing, and Arnold accused her of being "not as effective as Sen. Nelson." I don't even know where to go with that one.
Rep. Joe Baca responded to the little attack by pointing out that California's take-up rate for federal programs is low across the board. And for food stamps? Well, we are dead last. So, perhaps the state could do a better job using the federal resources offered seems to be the response from DC at this point.
And this is the problem with Arnold's approach to getting more money for the state. Clearly, state governments in general need a lot of help, and California needs an amount commensurate with our population and economy. And, that should be part of a second stimulus which should have happened, oh 2 months ago. But Arnold isn't really helping things with his confrontational attitude. Rather than working to get powerful DC types, say, like DiFi, on board with the "give California a bunch of money" plan, he's been on the war path.
And instead of proposing viable solutions, he's demanding another cuts only budget. Even in our red state neighbor of Arizona, the Republican governor acknowledges that they have to face up to the reality of the economic situation and raise taxes. In her state of the state speech, she called for a sales tax increases, in addition to some rather vile spending cuts, of course. But at any rate, instead of talking about a ridiculous pig and her friend the pony, Gov. Brewer actually tried to present solutions.
But Arnold never was really one for that, was he? Look, I'm not saying there are any perfect solutions out there. There just isn't. But we can't get stuck in Arnold's frame of putting a gun to the head of the people of California in some crazy hostage scenario with DC. It's a dangerous road to hoe.
You can check the speech at the California Channel. More details to come. Full text of the speech over the flip.
Some instantaneous notes:
I don't know who is the pig and who is the pony, but he keeps talking about them.
Tax reform, tax reform, tax reform: the rich pay too much of the tax burden.
CA Forward gets a shout out for their reform plan.
Budget system is cruel, because it pits worthy people against each other.
We face more cuts. This means more pain. "We have no choice." He pledges to protect both K12 and higher education. Wants to limit prison spending.
Wants a constitutional amendment that will not allow prison spending to higher education. Prison spending wouldn't be allowed to go above higher education. Wants prisons to be privately run...thinks that would save the state money.
Wants more money from the federal government. Points to states that get up to 2x the amount they send to feds back. We get about 80 cents on the dollar.
California is paying for undocumented immigrants, the feds should be paying for these. Wants to fix formulas.
Worries about funding for health care reform, says California gets a bad deal. THinks CA delegation should either vote no or get same deal as Sen. Nelson of Nebraska.
Pension reform. Wants to meet current promises, and reduce burden going forward.
UPDATE by Robert: Already some interesting stuff:
• Arnold says "I will protect education funding in this budget. And we can no longer afford to cut higher education either." No word yet on whether that means he'll back an oil severance tax to restore some of the previous cuts.
• But Arnold is proposing a constitutional amendment that says prison spending can never exceed education spending. Is this an effort to get CCPOA to join forces with CTA so they both get the money they want? Wouldn't it be better to reform sentencing laws?
• Arnold is also reportedly going to propose giving some sort of EIR lawsuit protection to 20 big projects as part of a jobs measure. Will high speed rail be one of them? I've written before about the flaws with CEQA but I'm not sure exemptions are the right answer.
• He's also proposing to spend $500 million on job retraining as an effort to put people back to work. As Steve Levy points out, that doesn't make sense - employers are more likely to hire those recently laid off who have experience at a certain job rather than someone newly trained.
• Further, if job creation is one of Arnold's goals, why not just expand the state employment rolls? It's a tried and true method of economic stimulus and job creation. Every state worker helps create jobs through their spending in their communities.
• Now he's calling for private prisons. Oh lovely. Those have had some truly awful records in other states and countries.
• Arnold's now attacking the federal government, opposing the federal health care reform. Way to score points with the vast majority of Californians who support the bill.
He's called so many that it's hard to remember if there is such a thing as a regular session. I've heard there is such thing, but for the time being, the Legislature will have to deal with this special session on the budget.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger intends to call the Legislature into emergency session to confront a nearly $6.3 billion budget gap in the current fiscal year. The governor is expected to outline his proposed solutions by Friday - when he will unveil his new budget for the 2010-11 fiscal year that begins July 1.
The emergency declaration, authorized under voter-approved Proposition 58, requires lawmakers to act within 45 days on his proposals or pass their own combination of cuts and revenue increases. There is no penalty if the Legislature fails to perform, although lawmakers are barred from adjourning or considering other issues until they act on the governor's plan. (CapWeekly)
Not that we really needed anything to focus us back on the budget, but here it is. Steinberg had been hinting around action in the next couple of weeks, so this essentially just fomalizes. Of course, as the Weekly points out, they will be doing this in the context of Abel Maldonado LG Confirmation hearings.
That become increasingly important as the Governor's plan includes some tax increases that would require 2/3 vote, and almost certainly require Maldo's vote. Of course, that all hinges on the Assembly mustering up the three votes again and Sens. Ashburn and Cogdill coming along for the ride as well. Now, that's some fun math.
The Governor seems to be trying to play a game of chicken with the Feds, trying to force their hands. If what has been trickling out is accurate, Schwarzenegger wants to make the budget contingent on federal dollars coming in to the state. While it isn't necessarily a huge long shot, as the second stimulus is likely to include additional state aid, it attempts to put the trigger in the hands of the federal government. Rather than the state elected leaders taking the blame for the cuts (or tax increases if the votes are there), Arnold and Krew get to blame the feds. Nice move if you can pull it off.
It's going to be yet another hellish budget season.
In my long running series of anti-stupid posts, here is yet another remark on the stupid furloughs. You know, the ones that end up costing us more than we save. Yes, that kind of incredibly ridiculous stupid that can only come from the ideological black hole that seems to have taken up residence in the Horseshoe.
Furloughs of the state workers who carry out federally-funded benefit programs have delayed delivery of monthly checks to people with disabilities and impeded an already slow system for getting cash assistance to jobless Californians, according to a new report by the Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes.
The oversight office found great frustration among federal officials, one of whom decried the furlough policy as a "ridiculous" impediment to benefits that can keep the most vulnerable Californians from homelessness.
The report analyzes the effect of furloughs on the unemployment insurance program and two Social Security Administration programs that serve people with long-term disabilities.
All three programs are paid for with federal dollars. So cutting by 14 prercent the pay of the state workers who administer them does nothing to help the state's general fund or cash flow. In fact, the report concludes, the three-day-per-month furloughs will cost California an estimated $18 million to $31 million in lost state worker salaries by July 2010, when furloughs are scheduled to end. (CapWeekly)
Of course, Arnold will come back with something like this: we can't shield state workers from the hard economy. Yada, yada, yada. Yet, this isn't about shielding anybody, it is about delivering services that Californians desperately need. And if these federally funded workers are furloughed, they can't provide these services.
We save no money, none, zip, zilch, by having these furloughs, yet we reduce the capacity of our state government. Sounding pretty Shock doctrine-y there, isn't it? Long story short, we have Arnold once again putting his ideology over the best interest of the state. Same ol' story, I guess.
Our Governor is always talking about the lack of money coming into the state. Perhaps there would be more if he would pay his taxes:
According to documents filed in L.A. County Superior Court, Arnold Schwarzenegger owes the IRS $39,047 from 2004 and $40,016 from 2005. In total the Guv owes $79,064.00 ... and as we all know, he's definitely not saving the money for rainy day traffic violations.
An official at the L.A. County Recorder's Office tells TMZ their system shows the lien is still active.(TMZ)
It seems that's the only way you get Arnold Schwarzenegger to do a damn thing these days. You want to change education? Add some tax credits. You want to cut spending? Add some more tax loopholes, and we'll talk.
