Cali Budget Negotiations hit snag; GOP to remove it's leader

[SirNitram]

Link

Reporting from Sacramento -- As California's government continued its grinding downshift toward insolvency, efforts to close the state's nearly $42-billion budget gap hit a new snag late Tuesday as Republicans in the state Senate ousted their leader.

Around 11 p.m., a group of GOP senators, unhappy with the higher taxes that Senate leader Dave Cogdill of Modesto agreed to as part of a deal with the governor and Democrats, voted to replace him in a private caucus meeting in Cogdill's office.

They chose Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth, a staunchly antitax lawmaker from Murrieta, as their new leader.

Cogdill's ouster could be a major setback to budget negotiations. Cogdill was a lead negotiator on the budget package and had committed to voting for it. Hollingsworth will likely try to renegotiate the deal, which lawmakers spent three months forging.

"It's a shame it ended this way," Cogdill said to reporters. "This budget needs to get out, and we need to put people to work again in this state."

Hollingsworth said he does not want to see a tax increase passed, but he offered no plan for resolving the budget crisis.

"All of that will be determined in the next couple of days," he said.

Soon after the leadership change, lawmakers returned to the Senate chamber, where they voted down the $14.4 billion in proposed tax hikes that are part of the budget package. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders have been trying to get the package approved since Saturday.

The vote, concluded shortly after 1 a.m., was the first on the tax hikes, which had been set aside as the governor and party leaders scurried to round up the three Senate GOP votes needed to pass the spending plan.

That plan could still survive the leadership change. Three GOP senators abstained from voting this morning. They also refused to take part in Cogdill's ouster, sitting out the caucus vote on his replacement. Those lawmakers have been in negotiations with the governor and Democrats about possibly supporting the bipartisan budget plan.

A fourth GOP lawmaker, Sen Abel Maldonado of Santa Maria), voted against the taxes this morning but has stated publicly that he might support them if various government reforms were added to the package. He was sharply critical of his caucus for removing Cogdill.

"I just can't believe in the middle of the night we'd oust our leader," he said outside the caucus meeting. "It's the wrong time to make a change in this process."

The frenetic day had begun with legislators carting sleeping bags, pillows and suitcases to work. Sen. Ron Calderon (D-Montebello) brought a bottle of cologne. Republican Sen. Sam Aanestad, an oral surgeon from Grass Valley, passed out toothbrushes. Cots were ordered from the state Office of Emergency Services.

The anticipated Senate floor vote hopscotched from the morning into the afternoon and then to late night, as tempers frayed. In the middle of it all, as lawmakers struggled to keep California's fiscal fortunes from plummeting earthward, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger took a few moments to honor the Bay Area pilot who safely belly-landed a disabled US Airways jet into the Hudson River last month.

At stake is a plan supported by Democrats and Schwarzenegger, a GOP moderate, that calls for a 1 cent increase in the sales tax, a 12-cents-per-gallon gas tax boost and hikes in vehicle license fees and the personal income tax.

"We need to stop treating the taxpayers across California like a personal ATM," Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Thousand Oaks) said from the Senate floor, hands pounding the air to drive home his point.

"This is a balanced package," countered Sen. Denise Moreno Ducheny (D-San Diego), fixing her gaze on the Republicans across the aisle. "It asks everybody to pay a little bit more in a variety of ways."

"This budget is not fair and balanced," scoffed Sen. Jeff Denham (R-Atwater).

Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), noting that Cogdill helped negotiate the budget and pledged to vote for it, said the Republican's caucus mates should join him -- or replace him.

"You ought to follow your leader or choose a new one," Leno said.

Off the floor, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) warned of "catastrophic consequences" if a budget isn't approved. The crisis has already crimped funding for $7 billion in highway work and other government projects and delayed $3 billion in tax refunds, welfare checks and other payments.

The state may soon have to issue IOUs, and 10,000 workers risk losing their jobs.

With Steinberg vowing to keep lawmakers locked in the Capitol until the crisis was resolved, Sen. Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) grumbled, "I've been locked down for 30 hours, and it's not pretty. . . . You've got to sleep in your suit."

In a bid to end the stalemate, Schwarzenegger met in his office with Sen. Dave Cox of Sacramento, a white-haired GOP veteran in his final term.

The governor and Democrats hoped to persuade either Cox or Maldonado to join Cogdill and GOP Sen. Roy Ashburn of Bakersfield to help push the budget through. Three Republican votes are needed in each house to pass spending plans; legislative leaders say they have the votes in the Assembly.

"It's a huge responsibility and it's people's careers on the line," Schwarzenegger told The Times, alluding to threats by conservative bloggers and talk-radio hosts to retaliate against Republicans who vote for more taxes. "But I think in the end they know they have to make a decision what's best for the state."

Steinberg, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) and Assembly minority leader Mike Villines (R-Clovis) also shuttled in and out of the governor's office as the evening wore on. "In my view, there has to be definition tonight about how this is going to end," Steinberg said outside Schwarzenegger's office, adding that "some very positive, quiet discussions" were underway.

"It is always a very delicate balance," he said, "between pushing hard and then allowing for the conversations to happen around what any member needs."

Earlier in the day, Cox denounced the tax proposal hammered out in recent weeks by Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders. He called the higher levies "the straw that broke the camel's back."

"My concern is it does not fix the problem," Cox said on the Senate floor. "As a matter of fact it may well make the matter worse."

Maldonado, meanwhile, has pressed for a shift to open primary elections that could give moderates a better shot at public office. "I'm only asking for some simple government reforms," Maldonado said.

The fiscal mess even seeped into the Capitol celebration the governor hosted for US Airways Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger III, the pilot who guided a jetliner full of passengers to safety in New York City after the plane's engines failed.

Schwarzenegger said negotiating lawmakers "need a great hero in the state Capitol" to inspire them.

And Steinberg suggested to Sullenberger, who appeared a bit bewildered by his brush with statehouse politics, that the pilot might be needed to guide the Senate to a safe landing. "Maybe after we're done here," Steinberg said, "you could just come upstairs and say 'Aye,' one time."

The audience broke up in laughter.

So. The GOP leader agreed to some tax hikes, and the party has moved to remove it, causing yet more setbacks in getting California back in motion.

The Dems are in majority, but anti-tax crusaders installed a small little law change into California: You need 60 votes to raise any taxes. Which, thanks to how these things work, includes restoring taxes that were once paid.

[General Havoc]

That little provision was inserted into our state laws because the state government couldn't control their spending. It's the same reason that Prop 13 was introduced. I agree that right now, taxes will probably need to be raised, but there's a reason that law exists in the first place. The democrats who dominated state politics for decades saw the taxpayers as a source of blank checks to write to whichever union offered to endorse them, which is how some of the absurdities in the California Education and Corrections systems showed up

[SirNitram]

It's a law that functions only under the concept of good faith. Sadly, alot of laws work like that. In politics no one seems to wonder if a rule will function if the other side is going to operate in bad faith(The Federal filibuster rule was likely written by those who would never have imagined more than a hundred and twenty filibusters in one term of Congress.).

[General Havoc]

No, it's a law that functions under the assumption of bad faith. Past experience showed us that, without absolute controls over their capacity to raise taxes, the California Democratic party will simply hike taxes so as to pay out bribes to their lobbying groups. We therefore made it very difficult to raise taxes, even when necessary. I agree that this provision is making it hard to deal with the current situation, but we but it in because the state legislature does nothing but operate in bad faith. California's republican party is comprised primarily of right wing semi-fascists, and the democratic party here has been in power so long that there's no check on them whatsoever. We had to get the politicians under control somehow.

[SirNitram]

I see. At the risk of verging off-topic, semi-facists? What I usually heard is simply they're vehemently anti-tax. How crazy are they?

[General Havoc]

Oh. Dear. God...

You have to understand, part of being known as a liberal bastion state (which California is) is that it allows one party to dominate the discussion. When one party does that, the other party tends to radicalize out of frustration and a lack of better options. Coastal California (where the bulk of the people live) is left wing, ofttimes absurdly left-wing. The interior of the state however is "God's country", and the California Republican Party is consequently a reflection thereof, and has been for a long, long time.

The few districts that the republicans hold are very VERY safe republican districts. Areas like Fresno, Redding, or Bakersfield. In consequence, all you need to do to become a republican politician is to win the republican primary, and since only die-hard republicans vote in the primary, you need to be a die-hard republican. In consequence, you get people like Darrell Issa, Duke Cunningham, Tom McClintock, Bill Simon, Howard Kaloogian, Bob Dornan, or Duncan Hunter. Right-wing, anti-choice, pro-PATRIOT act, anti-gay, social conservative politicians who are pretty much your only choice other than re-electing the same democrat every single time. Because the only people they need to compete with are other republicans, they go out of their way to be as "salt of the earth" and "militant" as you can get.

Before he got arrested for bribery, as an example, Cunningham was fond of accosting Gay politicians as "homos" and suggesting they go get rectal exams because they were "sick weirdos into that stuff". As another example, I present you with a book of quotations from Bob Dornan, former US representative from California:



A highlight from said book? "Don't use the word 'gay' unless it's an acronym for 'Got Aids Yet?'." This is a man who once outed another representative on the floor of the US congress, as a way to humiliate him. Steve Gunderson. A fellow Republican.

Now there are a few moderate republicans around the state. Arnold is one. Richard Riordan, former mayor of Los Angeles, is another. They tend to be economically conservative, low-tax republicans, but socially fairly liberal, in keeping with most of the rest of the state. The problem is that Republicans like that can only get into office on a fluke (such as the 2003 Recall election), because in Republican areas, they can't get past the primaries, and in Democrat areas, they just get buried by the hyper-liberals. It sucks for BOTH sides, because we wind up with the Republican party comprised of foaming-mouthed racist, quasi-fascistic neaderthals, while the Democratic party goes on a decades-long bender in New Orleans. With no real opposition (until fairly recently), the Democrats simply did whatever they wanted with no debate or need to compromise. Massive payouts for the union officials who support them? Check. New rules saying that candidates can keep the balance of their "campaign" contributions when the election is over as personal gifts? Check. Nonbinding initiatives supporting the Durban Resolution? Check. Mandatory diversity-training courses taught by consultants being paid four times the average teacher salary in every grade taking up five hours of classtime a week? Check. Health benefits for sex-change operations of the spouses of government workers on the taxpayer dime? Check. They simply were out of control, and now we're paying the price for it.

[Cynical Cat]

Havoc is leaving out what is in my opinion Cali's biggest problems, voter referendums on various issues. Not only are you voting for politicians every election time, but you're also conducting a referendum on various different issues. When I've been in California around election time, I've seen far more TV add space go to the various propositions than to specific politicians. Since special interest groups can focus their money and muscle like a laser on the propositions it cares about and if it passes it has the force of law and ties politician's hands, a large chunk of Cali's budget simply can't be touched by the legislatures and their ability to cut expenditures or raise revenue is sharply limited.

This is the state that bailed out Orange County after Orange County decided to invest in high risk investments rather than raise property taxes, their investment crashed, and then refused to raise taxes to pay for anything when flat broke. California's development history has also lead to very expensive property (property tax isn't that high comparatively, but when most of Cali property costs an arm and leg that still ends up being a lot) and long commutes in Southern California being necessary for most middle and working class people. The costs add up and that's before we get to entitlement and status issues that seem rampant in Southern California.

[frigidmagi]

It is my understanding that it would take near a military coup to get rid of the referendums, is that true?

[Cynical Cat]

It is my understanding that it would take near a military coup to get rid of the referendums, is that true?

I don't know how hard ditching the referendums would be. I don't live in Cali, but almost all my relatives do, my parents grew up there, and my family visits fairly often.

[General Havoc]

The irony is that the referendum system exists as it does because the alternative is actually worse. I know how unbelievable that must seem, but the state constitution was changed to permit this sort of thing because the politicians were so incompetent that this was the only way to get anything done. For obvious reasons, this is a terrible way to run a state, but the state's government, regardless of party, has been so useless for the last forty years, that I really don't know what other option there is.

[Cynical Cat]

The irony is that the referendum system exists as it does because the alternative is actually worse. I know how unbelievable that must seem, but the state constitution was changed to permit this sort of thing because the politicians were so incompetent that this was the only way to get anything done. For obvious reasons, this is a terrible way to run a state, but the state's government, regardless of party, has been so useless for the last forty years, that I really don't know what other option there is.

The politicians, no matter how bad, didn't put Cali in this jackpot. The referendum's did. It's been this way for 30 god damn years and its not working. Coming from a province which is most often lead by people who are fuck ups that I despise and that's just the people I'm on the same side politically, freeing up the politicians isn't the worst thing you can do. The argument that "they sucked forty years ago and they suck now so lets continue on the same course over the fucking waterfall" doesn't cut any ice.

[General Havoc]

Well permit me to suggest Cyncat that the politics of British Colombia and California might be slightly different from one another. Merely because your political dogma insists that a thing should be true does not automatically make it so in practice everywhere in the fucking world.

The referendum system didn't gerrymander every district in the state to the point where seats change hands about as regularly as the passage of Halley's Comet. The referendum system didn't radicalize both parties to the point where neither of them could see past their own ideological blinkers, nor did it institute the 30-year policy of legalized bribery that existed between the California Democratic Party and the various unions that they pay. The referendum system didn't spawn the entirely fictitious California Energy Crisis, nor did it drive PG&E into bankruptcy, nor, incidentally, is it the cause of the current budget woes that California is undergoing.

Referendums are a lousy way to run a state government. The current system sucks in ways I cannot even describe. See Proposition 8. But it's not about "they sucked forty years ago". It's about "they suck right this fucking minute." The referendum system came about because of total incompetence on every level of the state government, which has not gone away, as we can see plainly from every initiative, law, or bill they pass. I would love to get rid of the referendum system as it stands now, especially since the politicians have had enough time to figure out how to game it to their own ends. It's a terrible way to run a government.

But "you must go back to doing the very things that this system was put in place to fix because I said so," cuts no ice either. Find me a system that works, and does not involve the same gang of radicalized idiots using the powers given to them to screw the entire state, and I will vote for it. Until then, this system stays.

[Cynical Cat]

Well permit me to suggest Cyncat that the politics of British Colombia and California might be slightly different from one another. Merely because your political dogma insists that a thing should be true does not automatically make it so in practice everywhere in the fucking world.

Funny, I didn't say they were. Don't put words in my mouth. I merely said even lousy politicians can govern better than the mess referendums have helped put Cali into.

The referendum system didn't gerrymander every district in the state to the point where seats change hands about as regularly as the passage of Halley's Comet. The referendum system didn't radicalize both parties to the point where neither of them could see past their own ideological blinkers, nor did it institute the 30-year policy of legalized bribery that existed between the California Democratic Party and the various unions that they pay. The referendum system didn't spawn the entirely fictitious California Energy Crisis, nor did it drive PG&E into bankruptcy, nor, incidentally, is it the cause of the current budget woes that California is undergoing.

Energy companies pretty much engineered the California energy crisis, aided by lack of federal laws that made it fucking legal. That's on the feds, not the state.

But "you must go back to doing the very things that this system was put in place to fix because I said so," cuts no ice either. Find me a system that works, and does not involve the same gang of radicalized idiots using the powers given to them to screw the entire state, and I will vote for it. Until then, this system stays.

It fixed the problems, did it? Funny they seem worse than ever. The referendum system cripple's state's ability to raise revenues and control spending. The laws that prevent the "incompetent" politicians from ruining the system are allowing a Republican minority to hold up any kind of solution in the short term.