Let’s set aside one notion at the front. Prop 25, the majority vote measure, probably could have won without the legislative pay issue. I suppose reasonable minds could differ on that one, but given the way the rest of the night went in California, and the weakness of the opposing campaign, it probably passes with or without punishing the legislature. But, that is speculation at this point, and those who drafted it faced some very serious questions that the legislative pay provision addressed. So, Prop 25 carried a provision that punishes the legislature for not passing a budget on time.
Of course, the word “balanced” has been read in there by John Chiang. From the perspective of the long-term power of the Controller’s office, it is something of a boon. From the perspective of a legislature able to follow their conscience during some rough times, perhaps not so great.
And, as George Skelton points out in his column today, it might not even be that good of politics. Sure, kicking the legislature is always a fun sport, but it’s never so simple:
State Controller John Chiang’s conclusion that the gimmicky budget passed by the Legislature and vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown didn’t merit legislative paychecks heaped pressure on the lawmakers to quickly pass an honest spending plan. Absent a sudden Republican epiphany on taxes, that almost certainly will result in more sharp cuts to public schools.
That, in turn, will infuriate the teachers unions whose financial backing Chiang will need if he ever tries to run for governor. State employees unions also will be livid if there are deeper program cuts and layoffs. (LA Times)
Overnight, Chiang has gone from being the guy who stood up on behalf of state workers to Arnold Schwarzenegger, to being the guy who helped to enable a nasty budget. That won’t do any good for your popularity in the general session of a CDP convention.
But, there’s something else here. Kicking the legislature, especially the Democrats that tried to pass some sort of real-world budget (well…almost). Thing is that while some of the Legislators can afford to be without a month of pay, this will be a serious strain on others. Whether they would be willing to put their name on a lawsuit is another question, but this sort of thing matters. Their salaries have already gone done by almost a quarter over the last few years, and this adds insult to injury.
The pay provisions might make a budget happen sooner, but how much do you want to bet who gets pushed more on this. Democrats need every vote, while only a few Republicans need to vote yes. The pay provision will only push us towards a scary cuts-only budget faster. Demonizing the Legislature is fun, but in the end, counter-productive. We need a legislature with the strength to stand up to bad budgets and not be forced to agree to something on the basis of their mortgage payments.
I have never seem Calitics publish something so entirely wrong.
This is a hilariously bad reading of the situation, simply absurd.
I think you have to take a step back from the politics a little for a second.
You say it was Chiang that read “balanced” into the Prop 25 language. That’s one way of looking at it. But if the legislature can pass any budget it wants to satisfy Prop 25, it’s a dead letter. And I am not sure that a court hearing that argument would agree. Surely, at a minimum, it must at least meet the Constitutional minima for what is required of a budget.
I know Mark Paul is freaking out about Chiang’s “coup.” But for a guy who wrote a great book about California’s Constitutional problems, that betrays a certain ignorance of the difference between our high school civics class ideas of separation of powers and the reality of the way California’s Constitutional law works. It’s really an a fortiori point to Paul’s demand for initiative reform.
But that, and ideas about who should do what, don’t reflect what the law is now. These policy arguments aren’t legal ones. We don’t have a normal three branch state government. They are not separate nor co-equal-the executive branch isn’t even unified with one elected officer! It’s fundamentally different than the US government. You can’t import arguments about structural constitutional ideals into it without adjustment.
If Chiang had signed off on this, Prop 25 is a dead letter, some other group is in court, and they probably have a good chance of success. If the Dems in the legislature disagreed, they could have fought it, but they haven’t, have they?
Now, personally, I think all of these budget restraints are insanity incarnate. They should be removed. Until they are, they are nothing but demonstrable proof of their own insanity.
But I don’t see what else Chiang could have done regardless of his purported political aspirations of supposed political masters.
I frankly don’t have the legal expertise to read this stuff–which is a good reason most of us shouldn’t be voting on it in the first place. The unintended consequences of our ignorance are already clear.
But I digress.
Is the requirement for a balanced budget part of prop 25? Or was that already in the state Constitution? Either way, does the relevant legal language spell out what constitutes balanced? And who gets to make that determination?
To me, those seem the relevant questions in the issue. I’d be grateful if anybody has the answers.
that my head is spinning.
Leave aside the merits of whether the budget passed by the Dem caucus was balanced or not. There is literally no constitutional, statutory, regulatory or common law authority given to the Controller to make this call.
The constitution merely calls for the budget bill to be passed by midnight on June 15th. Whether or not the budget bill passes the “balance” test under Prop 58 is a legal matter that is for the courts to decide, not the Controller.
This may seem like a trivial distinction, but nobody seems to be playing this tape to the end. If you think that a newly elected Republican Controller won’t pull this stunt with his own set of balance “criteria” you’re deluding yourself. What Chiang has done is make the Controller a player in every budget discussion from here till eternity (or until someone challenges his legal authority in court).
By fiat, he has given the Controller an effective second veto over the budget. One might imagine that even if a Governor signs a budget, the Controller forever more could decide to indefinitely withhold legislator pay until the Controller, not the Governor, is satisfied that the budget is balanced. Put a Chuck DeVore, or Tim Donnelly into the Controller’s job, usually an afterthought when most Californians are filling out their ballots, and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. Just when you thought the budget process couldn’t possibly get more dysfunctional, Chiang has actually made the problem exponentially worse than it was pre-Prop 25.
I love John Chiang, I think he’s been a great Controller, but in this case, the unpopular move would have been the grownup move.
to be the governor significantly. thwarting schwarzeneggar’s bullshit, and the legislature’s bullshit (understanding that the GOP’s BS is the root of the problem here)?
voters love that kind of independence, and loathe the state legislature. if brown’s bluff-calling game of chicken here pans out – and i suspect that it will – chiang will be well positioned as his successor, IMO.
insider support is important, but a statewide reputation as an independent straight-shooter is golden.
Long before this, I hoped John Chiang would be willing to someday run as Governor. I would think the public would now consider him much more a household name, and would admire his independence and ethical sense. He has always served the people, no matter what position he held. He’s young and brilliant, and can explain difficult issues in a way that people understand.
I think that John would remain his modest — but confident — self as governor, quite unassuming, willing to meet with the public any time and anywhere, anxious to do what is both fair and just (not always the same thing!)
Sharon Toji
Will you forgive a brief rant? If not, please move on.
I HATE sweeteners. When the authors of Prop 25 put in the provision to dock legislator’s pay, all they wanted to do was sweeten the initiative to attract a couple more votes. This is hardly the first time artificial sweeteners have been added to initiatives, and they might taste good for a few seconds to voters without brains, but many of the sweeteners end up causing some serious illnesses.
Will wealthy legislators hold sway over those who live paycheck to paycheck? Does anyone care? We think of these people as non-humans and can’t understand when they don’t use common sense. Perhaps what we most lack in California today is empathy. We have a complete disability to think and feel like someone else. We cannot think like a person who might serve in the legislature.
Who thought that legislators were actually being petulent and lazy in prior budgets and that once their paycheck was in danger, they would get down to serious work and pass a budget. What kind of soft melon brain would come up with that?
OK. I’m done. Sorry.