California budget negotiations hit a new snag

[Jasman0717 9]

Wow, even Disney is laying off and Tom Leykis has been given the boot from KLSX

[DEDixon 39]

Ok, so if the principle behind the 2/3 majority required for raising taxes is a larger, all encompassing principle (to prevent 'tyranny of the majority') - why not amend the State's Constitution so that all legislation requires a 2/3 majority?

You realize, we are one Senator's vote away from passing the state budget, and the Republicans in the Senate just replaced their leader because he supported the bipartisan bill with someone else who is now saying 'no' to any tax increase. This is absolutely mind numbing to see such hard headedness. Where's the compromise? Where's the pragmatism that Reagan showed? Or Pete Wilson? I'll tell ya - the state Republicans are voting themselves out of existence....it's just too bad their bringing the whole state down with them.

May as well say it again:

The framers of the California Budget process developed the 2/3 majority rule for a specific reason: to ensure that major issues crucial to the state’s long term survival like the budget plan has to be so well supported that at least 2/3 of the state’s representatives will vote for it.

Now this is not just a support of the Republicans, it works in the reverse as well. If the state was represented by roughly 60% Republicans who recommended the closure of major services that are allocated in the state budget, a group of prudent Democrats who didn’t hold a majority could ensure the survival of those programs because of the 2/3 rule. The 2/3 rule doesn’t create gridlock in the budget process, it ensures the rights of the minority, something I thought Californians valued.

Is there a Democrat out there who wouldn't hold on to the 2/3 rule like dear life itself if the Republicans had a 60% majority?

Edited February 19, 2009 by DEDixon

[dalegg 143]

awesome.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Ok, so if the principle behind the 2/3 majority required for raising taxes is a larger, all encompassing principle (to prevent 'tyranny of the majority') - why not amend the State's Constitution so that all legislation requires a 2/3 majority?

You realize, we are one Senator's vote away from passing the state budget, and the Republicans in the Senate just replaced their leader because he supported the bipartisan bill with someone else who is now saying 'no' to any tax increase. This is absolutely mind numbing to see such hard headedness. Where's the compromise? Where's the pragmatism that Reagan showed? Or Pete Wilson? I'll tell ya - the state Republicans are voting themselves out of existence....it's just too bad their bringing the whole state down with them.

May as well say it again:

The framers of the California Budget process developed the 2/3 majority rule for a specific reason: to ensure that major issues crucial to the state's long term survival like the budget plan has to be so well supported that at least 2/3 of the state's representatives will vote for it.

Now this is not just a support of the Republicans, it works in the reverse as well. If the state was represented by roughly 60% Republicans who recommended the closure of major services that are allocated in the state budget, a group of prudent Democrats who didn't hold a majority could ensure the survival of those programs because of the 2/3 rule. The 2/3 rule doesn't create gridlock in the budget process, it ensures the rights of the minority, something I thought Californians valued.

Is there a Democrat out there who wouldn't hold on to the 2/3 rule like dear life itself if the Republicans had a 60% majority?

DE - then why not require a 2/3 majority for all legislation? It would have been one thing if the current budget proposal was drafted solely by the majority party, but it wasn't - it was put together by the Republican leaders as well as the Governor. I think you're misunderstanding the significance of majority vs. minority rule, particularly when all legislation except tax increases only requires a simple majority. If the Governor chooses, he can veto any bill, which then requires a 2/3 majority - just like our Federal Government. Imagine that.

[almaty 19]

The California Senate passed the state's budget on Thursday morning after a marathon session, and the legislation received final approval from the state Assembly minutes later.

California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg urges GOP help to break the budget impasse.

It now awaits the signature of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The budget package addressing a $42 billion deficit passed after lawmakers agreed to demands from a holdout Republican senator. The package includes tax increases, spending cuts and borrowing to close the deficit, reports said.

"This is not really a time of celebration, when you think about the difficult decisions that we have been called upon to make," Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, told colleagues following the vote shortly after 6 a.m. PT.

"It is, however, a time of great relief that this crisis is behind, not us, but behind the people of California."

The stalemate over the budget had caused Schwarzenegger to declare a fiscal emergency and send layoff notices to 10,000 state workers.

Sen. Abel Maldonado had been one Republican amenable to vote for the measure in exchange for various demands, and lawmakers worked to meet them to get his support.

Senators voted for a measure to revise the state's constitution to permit "open" primaries for legislative, congressional and gubernatorial elections. They also passed another, the removal of a 12-cent additional gas tax increase.

Even though several members didn't like the open primary plan, they still voted for it to get the budget passed.

The Senate worked through the night.

All Democrats were prepared to vote for the budget hours earlier, but one more Republican was needed to reach a majority vote, Steinberg said at a news conference just after midnight.

"We need one more member. One more member. We need one more," said Steinberg, raising his voice as he pointed to a large placard with No. 1 written in red. "My door is open for any Republican that wants to put the state first."

U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, also was there Thursday morning and reminded lawmakers that Democrats in the U.S. Senate were able to get just enough Republican votes to pass President Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan. Interactive: See where the stimulus money is going »

"We have to put aside all this ego and put the people of California first," Boxer said. "The people of California do not deserve the fate they will receive if it is not passed."

Without a new budget, 276 public works projects would have been halted Thursday, an additional 10,000 state workers could have received layoff notices and California might not receive parts of the federal economic stimulus package, lawmakers said.

The Republican governor had butted heads for months with the Democratic majority over easing the state's $11.2 billion revenue shortfall this fiscal year alone. Cuts would save California $750 million for the year. Watch more on California's budget woes »

In Kansas, leaders Wednesday ended a standoff that had delayed tax refunds and state paychecks by agreeing to borrow $225 million from various state accounts, a spokeswoman for the governor's office said.

Republican lawmakers approved moving money into the state's main account to pay the bills after Gov. Kathleen Sebelius agreed to budget cuts, spokeswoman Brittany Stiffler said.

The state resumed processing income tax refunds on Wednesday -- they had been suspended last week because of low funds -- and state employees' paychecks will be paid on time Friday, Department of Administration spokesman Gavin Young said.

Republicans earlier this week denied the Democratic governor's request to move the money, saying they could not approve the certificate of indebtedness, also known as internal borrowing, until they knew the state could repay the money by June 30, the end of the fiscal year.

However, Republicans said they would be likely to approve the internal borrowing if Sebelius agreed to the Legislature's proposed budget cuts for the 2009 fiscal year. On Wednesday, she approved about $300 million in budget cuts.

"She blinked, and that's helpful," Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, a Republican, said Wednesday.

Sebelius said, "I'm just sorry we had to have high drama and worry a lot of Kansans about our ability to pay our obligations."

The Kansas Legislature was one of several to meet this week to address budget concerns in a time when 43 states are starting the year short on funds, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

"This is an equal-opportunity recession. States in virtually every part of the country are suffering. ... Even the energy states are starting to report problems," Corina Eckl of the National Conference of State Legislatures said. iReport.com: What you'd fix first

"For most, it has only gone downhill. They have tried to make up the difference with expanded gambling, with delays of construction projects, with hiring freezes, with fee and tax increases. But almost all of this has failed to regain lost ground, merely serving as a firebreak against worse troubles."

Edited February 19, 2009 by almaty

[one...two...tree 2,762]

what a relief...still 11 billion in spending cuts is going to hurt our state.

[almaty 19]

yes, i think it will be a blow

[Ban Hammer 13,619]

Do you know what happened back on 9 September 1850, 159 years ago?

California became the 31st state admitted to the union of the United States of America.

The State had no electricity.

The State had no money.

Almost everyone spoke Spanish.

There were gunfights in the streets.

So basically, it was just like California today; except back then, women had real breasts and the men didn't hold hands.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The question now is whether it will pass the Assembly, without change.

The budget, as approved in the Senate this morning, contains no $0.12/gal tax increase, no raises for state employees during deficit years, no pay for legislators when budget is not passed on time, open primary elections for governor, assembly, and senate offices, and the state controller no longer gets $1,000,000 for new office furniture.

Governor may sign the bill next Monday, if passd by the Assembly.

[Jasman0717 9]

Do you know what happened back on 9 September 1850, 159 years ago?

California became the 31st state admitted to the union of the United States of America.

The State had no electricity.

The State had no money.

Almost everyone spoke Spanish.

There were gunfights in the streets.

So basically, it was just like California today; except back then, women had real breasts and the men didn't hold hands.