I just got off a blogger conference call (primarily on budget issues) with Speaker Nunez. Julia Brian, Rick Jacobs, Robert Cruickshank, Brian Leubitz and I got to ask questions. Below the fold you’ll see some notes that I took on the conference call. My apologies is some of the stuff seems inconsistent.
Transcript of sorts below the fold.
Julia here I am going to go in an clean up a few pieces here, add some information in brackets where Dante missed a bit of the things the Speaker said. I am told there will be a video coming in YouTube format. We will get that up when it is available. Let me emphasize that these are notes, not a real transcript.
Brian here: I added the video that the Speaker’s office uploaded. The playlist contains pretty much the entire call. I know I’d like to thank the Speaker for spending some time with us, and for fighting the good fight. Now, to get some of those transportation funds back…and the Vehicle License Fee.
SPEAKER NUNEZ: wants to let everyone know what’s going on with the budget impasse. Will take questions. The budget that was approved by the Assembly was described by George Skelton as a Republican budget. He [Nunez] doesn’t believe that. It’s not the budget he would have liked for California, but we don’t have the two-thirds power to pass a budget that he thinks would work, so he has to compromise. They compromised on the blind, disabled and the elderly, they agreed to deep cuts to public transportation. We cut over 900 million on local transportation agencies. We had to make deep cuts in that area. But I was able to protect higher education and public education, and many of the important social programs that people need to have dignity in their lives. We were able to concoct a responsible budget with $3.7 billion in the account, with a deficit of $700 million. And not having that would have required deeper cuts to education and social programs that were outside of my values.
Some people were critical of a tax package. I want to be very clear. I don’t support tax credits or corporate giveaways, but I support the Hollywood production tax credit because it generates more revenue for the states, but I don’t support the other types of tax credits. It was very clear to me and Sen. Villone that this will never go to the Senate because we did it at the 11th hour. It was a way for the Republicans to exercise some of their values.
Senator Ackerman began to denounce the Assembly and demand deeper cuts in the budget. Already, there were $7 million of line-item veto cuts in the budget. Any type of tax credit, as long as I’m speaker, we won’t do that. #2, I won’t entertain a discussion to dilute the AB32 bill to reduce greenhouse gas issues. The Republicans want us to dilute it. A 25% decrease by 2020. And that is real leadership to combat global warming. I won’t entertain a discussion to dilute it. #3, if Senator Ackerman wants me to re-engage the budget, I’ll want a restoration of public transportation, restoration of the SSI/SSP, and restoring the social programs in California. I also won’t entertain discussion of corporate tax credits or borrowing more money for water storage for as long as I’m speaker. We as Democrats need to draw the line in the sand on the ultra-conservatives like Mr. McClintock who are hijacking the budget. As a reasonable legislator, I won’t reward that type of behavior. I’m done negotiating this budget unless I get more of what I want in it. It had votes from Republicans in the Assembly. We’re at a budget impasse, and I’m hoping that the gang of 14 in the Senate finally allows their members to approve a budget to the people of this state.
RICK JACOBS: Thanks for doing the call. I have a question on public perception, with everyone in the state saying that the legislature is just a trainwreck and can’t agree on everything. I want to talk about how to help prevent that. Second, how do we start to frame everything that is happening by this small group of Republicans along two lines: First, they’re obstructionist, they don’t want the state to pay its bills, and that along with the fact that politically they’re trying to divide the state with this new electoral vote scheme, and when can we use this to say that prop 13 isn’t a good way to run a state:
SPEAKER NUNEZ: These are very good questions. On your first point, the conservative Republicans, not just here but nationwide, are trying to figure out how to make a comeback. They’re trying to follow the Gingrich model of shutting down government. They think that if you shut it down, the Republican ideology prevails. So if you’re not paying your bills to elderly care or child care, then they think they’re winning. SEIU members are working every day, so is the legislature. [This was in the context of Nunez discussing radio ads SEIU is conducting that calls on the legislature to come back to work. The Speaker notes that the Assembly did their work and they were not the hold up.] They’re very confusing messages. I did an interview today on Spanish TV, and they say, you’re the speaker, you solve the problem. But we have a 2/3rds vote requirement on the budget. When stuff like this happens, it makes people think that government doesn’t work, and that’s what Republicans love. They don’t want governments to work for other people. Now, about the initiative, it’s a total power grab and a very clever ploy. They want to take those districts, and that can help keep a Republican in the White House. They’re pretty well coordinated. This could put in danger not only California, but the future of the whole nation. Through manipulation, lies and deceit. We have to be careful. And about Prop 13, the way we tax in this state is very antiquated. It’s modeled based on the economy 50, 60, 70 years ago. We’re a sales-tax based economy. We need to rethink this strategy and look at the growing industries that are playing a critical role. People purchase things over the internet, and people don’t pay the state sales tax on that. Business properties, for instance-you’ll pay taxes based on the cost of a home, but on a business property, it doesn’t work that way. You’re not paying based on value, you’re paying it based on whatever it is based on whoever purchased it 20 years ago. It’s inconsistent. That discussion needs to happen, but the real discussion needs to be the 2/3rds vote requirement. If we can change that, we can be well on our way to being thoughtful about how to balance the budget.
JULIA ROSEN: A couple of questions. First, what initiative were you referring to?
SPEAKER NUNEZ: They’ll be out collecting signatures that will change the way we collect electoral votes. It will require the state to deliver electoral votes based on Congressional districts as opposed to winner-take-all. For it to work, it would need to happen in every state, but these people are looking to place a Republican in the white house. This is in the works. They haven’t started collecting signatures yet, but they’re trying to raise money for it and we’re going to try to defeat it.
JULIA ROSEN: What would it take to remove that 2/3rds requirement?
SPEAKER NUNEZ: A constitutional amendment that we’d have to put in front of the voters. We’re clearly in a bad situation. 38 days late, a lot of people aren’t getting paid. We need to use this scenario to demonstrate that the problem is the 2/3rds vote requirement. We’re one of only 3 states that does this, and the ultra-conservatives are holding up the budget and they’re demanding that I negotiate it, but the only thing that will come out of that is more cuts. And I’m not going to do that. The 2/3rds vote threshold is allowing the 10% minority to hold this up. And hopefully, we can be taken to a 55% or a simple majority budget, which we’ve tried before but didn’t win. This isn’t just the legislature holding it up. This is the ultra-conservative Republicans in the Senate.
ROBERT CRUICKSHANK: How does this affect the healthcare bill?
SPEAKER NUNEZ: My hope is that it won’t affect AB8. This is not a fully done proposal yet. This is 3.8 million people that will now have insurance if this bill passes. If we can get a couple of Republican votes, 2 in the Senate and 6 in the Assembly, then we can get this done. And if Congress expands SCHIP, then we can cover more children through federal dollars for people 300% above poverty level. It’s a simple majority bill, and Senator Perata said something about not taking up any legislation in the Senate. That was news to me. I don’t think we need to hold the Democratic agenda hostage to those who are holding the budget hostage. The good Democratic bills need to move through the legislature. My hope is that we can negotiate AB8, get back to the table and get it to the governor’s desk.
DANTE ATKINS: could you discuss the term limits initiative? A lot of people are saying that it’s just a way for people already in office to stay there.
SPEAKER NUNEZ: My consultant is one of the ones on that campaign. What it does is very simple. Under current term limit rules, any one person can run for office for 12 years. When I’m termed out of the Assembly, I can run for the Senate in 2010, and serve 8 years in the Senate. That would be 14 years. This initiative would reduce my lifetime service to 12 years, or to go to the Senate. The idea is to incentivize members to stay in the House that they were elected to so we don’t have this musical chairs problem. We’re supposed to be policy makers but we’re focused on being politicians and our careers. We need to be thinking long-term. Best example is what we’ve done with the prison system. Since the term limits law was enacted, we have been increasing sentences left and right and we have a system that is overpopulated, and the highest recidivism rate in the nation. They’re a bigger danger when they get out, and that’s because politicians want to say they’re tough on crime so that they can run for another office. And they want to say that they fought to increase the penalty for something. It’s not working for the people. I do benefit because I get six more years. I don’t intend to be there that long, but we need people with experience. It reduces the total number of years, but it allows people like me to stay in the Assembly.
BRIAN LEUBITZ: In the 2008 budget the high speed rail initiative has suffered dramatic cutbacks. Will you restore it next election?
SPEAKER NUNEZ: The Republicans are demanding zero deficit, which has required big cutbacks. There are some tough decisions we have to make. The filter I’m looking at all of this through is making sure that we improve quality of life for the people of California. You can come to three basic conclusions. The more you borrow, the more debt you incur for infrastructure, the deeper hole you’re in because you have to pay interest on it. So you need to take it from education, public safety or services. You’ll find a lot of Republican votes to cut education or services, but not public safety. I’d love to get high-speed rail, but I’m dealing with sacrificing programs for poor people to make these long-term investments. It’s a tough issue to grapple with, and I don’t know if we can do high-speed rail in the next election.