If the votes aren’t there for taxes and if the votes aren’t there for Arnold’s cuts, then what are there votes for? That’s the key question in Sacramento right now, and the answers we’re getting from inside the Capitol aren’t encouraging. From Matier and Ross:
Budget bailout: The latest plan being floated by state Senate Democratic leader Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento to solve the state’s $24.3 billion budget problem goes something like this:
— Make $19 billion in cuts. [Steinberg’s people claim this is a misquote – see note just below this blockquote about this statement.]
— Tap into $4.5 billion of reserve money.
— And “borrow” a couple of billion from local government.
Steinberg says the cuts will be deep and painful, but that the state will be able to survive without completely gutting education and health care for the poor.
And therein lies the irony.
“It’s a double bind,” said state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco. “We do our best to minimize the pain, and then everyone just thinks we were crying wolf.”
Shorter Darrell Steinberg: “We’re going to have a cuts-only budget.”
Note from Robert: Steinberg’s communications director Jim Evans chimed in down in the comments to say Steinberg was misquoted by Matier and Ross:
Hi all, Actually my boss was misquoted by the fine people of the Chronicle on this one. He told KCBS’s “In Depth” (where Matier got his info) we will do $19 Billion in “SOLUTIONS.” That is different than $19 B in cuts. For reference, the Gov’s framework is about 60% cuts.
Back to your originally scheduled post.
The problem is that nobody will see this as “minimizing the pain” – instead everyone will think, with good reason, that Democrats cannot be counted on to defend the people who voted for them. While the 2010 governor’s race will probably see some higher turnout, there is going to be a big dropoff downticket. Dems aren’t giving people an incentive to vote for them, even though it’s highly likely that the Dem budget strategy is being driven by electoral considerations (i.e. how to position themselves to win the purple seats).
Part of the problem is that Democrats are taking the “no votes for taxes” at face value. Instead of putting in the work to find those votes – votes that the Binder poll shows would be popular with voters and therefore should not actually be all that difficult to produce – Democrats are shutting out those voices demanding new revenues, particularly those from unions that led the fight against the flawed May 19 propositions:
For example, there are pledge forms being passed around to lawmakers by a major labor union that might have attracted takers in budget battles past. The union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, wants the legislators to sign statements of support for up to $44 billion in new or higher taxes on the wealthy, oil companies, tobacco and other industries, products and people.
But so far the drive hasn’t produced a single signed form, even from the Democrats who normally march into California’s budget fights in lock-step with organized labor.
What explains this, as Shane Goldmacher and Evan Halper explain in a devastatingly accurate analysis, is that Dems have embraced Governor Hoover’s shock doctrine:
But even some of the most liberal Democrats say some union leaders are ignoring the reality of an angry public, a sour economy and a state government approaching insolvency. Moreover, more taxes would require Republican support in the Legislature, and the minority party has made clear that there will be none…
The Democratic leadership has largely accepted the governor’s framing of the budget crisis as one requiring deep cuts, quickly. Any taxes they may push for are expected to be limited.
“Of course there are going to be cuts,” said Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento). “This is the worst drop in revenue since the 1930s. We’re going to try to be as surgical as we can in making very difficult decisions, but we will make the decisions.”
Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles), a veteran lawmaker and former caucus leader, said, “When someone tells us ‘No new cuts,’ I say, ‘Look, don’t tell me that.’. . . . There is the sense that we must do what we must do to keep California solvent.”
I suppose in this case “surgical” is meant as a metaphor for outright amputation of limbs.
Totally missing in this discussion is any examination of the economic consequences of the cuts. Instead what we’re seeing is a movement toward a mostly-cuts budget with some raiding of other funds to enable Democrats to say they preserved programs – even if they accede to an evisceration of those programs through 50% cuts. To hear elected Democrats tell it, the real battle will be to find votes for fee increases, which could offset more of the cuts but would certainly fail to close the entire gap.
Instead we ought to be seeing Democrats using the proposed cuts to aggressively assert a totally different message on the budget – that we are in this crisis because of tax cuts and tax giveaways to the wealthy and to corporations. That doesn’t seem to be on the table in either the Assembly or the Senate.
What all of the above suggests to me is that Sacramento Democrats are essentially clueless in how to deal with the budget fight, and have been for many years now. No wonder the unions are fed up and planning to take their cause directly to the voters. Sacramento has failed us. Time to take our state back.
…the Party of the Useless.
They need to be taught a severe lesson. Is it possible to sue a legislator for fraud or misappropriation of funds. I mean we are paying these clowns and I don’t see any real work getting done….
….just a lot of caving it to folks who’ve BEEN WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING FOR FORTY YEARS!
Jes askin’
I’m so done with anyone in the Legislature right now. To hell with the leadership and anyone who follows along in this mad race to burn the state to the ground.
It’s clear they don’t know what they’re doing and we Democratic voters need to stop being sheeple and giving people a free re-elect just “because.”
Voters in Democratic San Francisco turned out an incumbent state Senator for various reasons and the world did not end. Surely the rest of us can do the same and stop giving an auto-re-elect to people clearly not qualified to lead this state in a time of crisis.
And I want to see some local governments refuse this “loan” to the state – sue the bastards and keep local money local. I’m tired of seeing the state gobble up resources and provide less and less, and leaving the fallout and the political hit at the local level.
The case study in the robbing of MUNI funds from San Francisco, leaving a beleagured MTA with a hole in their income they could not have predicted 2 years ago, causing mayhem is one of many local govenrments around the state are facing. It’s time to say NO MORE.
I woke up this morning resigned to the idea that California is headed into a depression, and that we will take the rest of the country down with us. Unemployment over 20%, new construction non-existent, severe dislocations in the economy, hunger and homelessness on a level not seen since the thirties. It’s already happening inland.
The level of budget cuts proposed, combined with the loss of federal government revenue and the multiplier effect of money through the economy, will translate into the loss of hundreds of thousands of additional jobs in California, forcing sales tax, property tax, and income tax revenue to drop further. With most families already stretched and over-leveraged, job losses will force another cascade of foreclosures and final acknowledgment that our financial system is completely insolvent.
The size and scale of our current economic problems are so great that our elected leaders can’t begin to grasp the impacts of their actions. At the state level, we’re completely hamstrung by our structure and our politics, and on a national level, nobody in Washington quite sees what’s coming in California and how bad it’s going to hurt the nation.
Sorry to be so gloomy, but Arnold’s outplaying the Dems in the legislature to the point where they’ll compromise by eliminating the proposed reserve, and pushing through disastrous cuts.
Hi all, Actually my boss was misquoted by the fine people of the Chronicle on this one. He told KCBS’s “In Depth” (where Matier got his info) we will do $19 Billion in “SOLUTIONS.” That is different than $19 B in cuts. For reference, the Gov’s framework is about 60% cuts. FYI. Thanks. – Jim Evans, Communications Director, Darrell Steinberg
The more I read on this issue, the more I am happy to have joined the Green Party. It is not just that I don’t have to take responsibility for the mess. I did, after all, vote for Monning for Assembly my State Senator is Maldonado.
However, this is one are where Greens are not backing down, are taking the arguments directly to the people those districts where we already have declared candidates for 2010 as well as Laura Well’s apparent recent decision to run for Controller again.
It could be that the only way to give the Democratic legislative leadership some backbone is to take away a few of their seats.
Speaker Bass and Darrell Steinberg have to deal with the reality of balancing they budget. They know they can’t push taxes through this legislature because of the two-thirds rule. That’s the reality. Talking tax increases that would require 2/3 majorities is a cruel hoax; it gives false hope to those who think that’s a way out of this when it isn’t.
You suggest “putting in the work” to find votes for taxes. With who? The Republicans who are facing recalls for voting for the first go round?
Reality: There are NO votes in the Republican Caucus for taxes and you need Republican votes to pass them. It’s that simple.
You really should use “the Google” to find that both Leaders have talked at length about the economic (and human) consequences of these cutbacks. http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/vi…
Neither of these progressive leaders want to cut a dime. But they are living in the here and now, not a dreamland where they have a 2/3 majority and a governor willing to sign on the bottom line for tax increases.
So, if they don’t do anything, how will it be worse than if they accept the Arnie/Republican plan. If they do nothing, the results will be the same and they won’t have voted for it.
This is a zero-sum game. The Dems need to put their budget with revenue increases on the table and hold. If nothing is done, the Republican plan is implemented the Dems can hold out their plan as an alternative. Let’s see who wins.
The idea that “cuts” are somehow less painful than taxes is not true in this circumstance, and there needs to be some real examination of what measures are penny-wise and pound-foolish.
Program after program that has come up for cuts is actually a program that saves the state money or generates more income than cost.
Other cuts will have huge consequences for California families.
For example, cutting a week of school not only has terrible repercussions for kids and for our future workforce, but it also costs working families money for child care or day camp, $150-$300 per child. A year of lost bus service might cost a family $500.
The cuts in Cal Grants and UC could affect the state’s income stream for a generation.
Programs that save money or generate income should be kept. Not only do they generate revenue, but the loss of people and infrastructure and institutional knowledge will cost us more in the end when we go to rebuild them.
A decade ago our state budget was about $70 billion.
Today it’s almost doubled! For what?
What are we getting today that is so important to double the level of taxation/revenues?
After the largest tax hike in US history, there’s still a massive budget shortfall. Sounds to me like too much spending.
What will it take, 100% taxation levels to satisfy some people?