John Garamendi has become the first gubernatorial candidate on the Democratic side to speak out publicly about the crime perpetrated on the citizens of California by a dysfunctional process.  

Lt. Gov Garamendi: I’ve been listening to what you had to say about Republicans in the Senate and Congress, we have an infection here and it’s a Republican infection that’s really spreading across this nation. Just what do they propose to do? Shut everything down? They did that with Newt Gingrich. They seem to want to do that in California and we’re saying no way. no how. We’re gonna build, we’re going to go with Obama.

We do have a two thirds vote….And then when you have Republicans that have taken a no new tax pledge and seem to just want to throw this state and really the nation into chaos and further decline in the economy, then we have the gridlock that we see. We need to change our constitution.

We need to hold these Republicans accountable…

The problem is that, as a solution, Garamendi called for a 55% bar for the budget.  That’s a completely arbitrary number, and it undercuts the principle of majority rule for an imagined gain of support in the Central Valley in a way that makes no sense.  But at least he brought up changing the Constitution.

By contrast, Steve Poizner thinks the whole deal should be dumped because not enough rich people like him are getting taxed, because, like him, they’re too powerful.

“They don’t have the guts to raise taxes on rich people because rich people have lobbyists and rich people are mobile and rich people will leave.”

I would like to see the fantasy budget Republican Steve Poizner would submit calling for massive increases in the top marginal tax rates.  He should present that at the California Republican Party’s spring meeting in Sacramento this week.  I’d like to see that.  Oh wait, his budget plan is to do everything but the tax increases as a six-month fix.  What a surprise, he doesn’t have the guts either!

(By the way, there’s no evidence that progressive taxation has caused any flight of bodies from California whatsoever in history.  Thought I’d mention that to pre-empt the trolls.)

Finally, the Governor found his way to Sacramento and made a beeline for the nearest camera, not knowing how to negotiate.  This line will make the 6:00 news statewide:

“Anyone that runs around, I think, and says that this can be done without raising taxes, I think has not really looked at it carefully to understand this budget or has a math problem and has to get back, as I said, and take Math 101,” Schwarzenegger said.

Of course, this was the guy who said he’d “terminate” taxes and lied about Phil Angelides’ tax plans.  So he has no credibility and less relevance, no matter the truth of his statement.

I have to wholeheartedly agree with Robert’s take on how the Yacht Party putsch last night does nothing but highlight the need for fundamental reform and a return to democracy in California.  He did an admirable job going over the history and the menu of options, but I want to make the more emotional argument for a return to majority rule.  Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns and Money did the best and most concise job of explaining why, despite the essential truth of the Republican Zombie Death Cult, it’s the process-based enabling that it the original sin.

Although Krugman is of course right to blame a “fanatical, irrational minority” for the current crisis in California, it can’t be emphasized enough that what really matters is the incredibly stupid institutional rules that empower this minority: namely, the idiotic super-majority for tax increases and an initiative system that both created that supermajority requirement and provides incentives to vote for every tax cut while mandating certain kinds of spending because the issues are isolated. Fortunately, the federal level (while it has too many veto points) is not quite at this level yet, and at least the stupid filibuster rule doesn’t apply to budgets.

It’s very easy to get people excited and motivated about a PERSON.  Not so much about a process.  And yet, as we all know, without the process, the villains in this melodrama would be sidelined.  And I believe that is a fact which serves both parties.

People on the left often obsess over whether the electorate can figure out who to blame in these crises.  The 2/3 requirement is a powerful enabler for that confusion.  Because the elected representatives of the majority party are not allowed to impose their will on how the state is to be run, they cannot be held to account.  Because the elected representatives of the minority party are in the minority party, they cannot be held to account.  Therefore we have a political cycle that mirrors the economic cycle that results from these bad policies.  The powerful stay powerful, the voiceless stay voiceless, people lose faith in the process, leading to more entrenched power and more voiceless, and so on.

Greg Lucas at California’s Capitol makes the moral case for a majority-vote budget along these lines, that it is the only way for true accountability in the system.

If the huckstering of the President’s Day Weekend demonstrated anything at all, it’s that the majority party should be able to pass the budget it considers best for California.

If its awful the governor, should he or she be of a different political party, can slice-and-dice it through the miracle of the veto process.

Should the governor be of the same political party and warmly endorse the spending plan well he or she can be thrown out by voters.

And, if the non-partisan commission created by Proposition 11 last November to draw new legislative boundaries does its job it will be possible to throw out members of the party that passed the budget as well.

I don’t agree about the panacea of redistricting – the available data shows virtually no link between gerrymandering and political polarization – but on balance Lucas is right.  It’s not a marketplace of ideas unless citizens can buy one idea or the other and make their decision based on the evidence.  Democracies work when ideas are allowed to stand strong or wither on the strength of results.  We do not have that here in California.

As to my point that this serves both parties?  Greg Lucas:

Just to sweeten the majority-vote budget pot a little, there’s a fairly hefty number of folks who work both in and around the Capitol who assert that whichever team wins the power to run roughshod over the minority party will be so scared of exclusive blame for any badness in the budget being exclusively their fault that they won’t do anything real drastic.

This is what they are scared of CURRENTLY.  There are lots of checks and balances in political systems.  There is no need for an artificial veto.  Democrats will still be timid to stick their necks out (they’re politicians), but at least they would have no excuses.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is irrelevant and a failure. Democrats are spineless jellyfish.  The Yacht Party is a collection of flat-earthers bent on destruction.  All well and good.  Yet all of these discrete groups are enabled by a political system that does violent disservice to the people of the state and the concept of democracy.  We must have a return to majority rule.  For the sake of accountability.

Apparently that elephant is anti-tax too, and he remembers the good old days!

Among their finds, to be formally announced today, is the nearly intact skeleton of a Columbian mammoth — named Zed by researchers — a prize discovery because only bits and pieces of mammoths had previously been found in the tar pits.

OK, Dennis Hollingsworth’s new name is Zed.

I was just on KPFA’s Morning Show with former Assemblyman John Laird, and we’ll have audio of that in a bit.  But as we see the Yacht Party spiral ever more into neanderthalism, I want to make a couple points.  First, Zed Hollingsworth is crazy but that’s a matter of degree.  Dave Cogdill wasn’t exactly reasonable prior to becoming Minority Leader – I don’t think he had ever voted for a budget before.  In the world of the Yacht Party, actually doing something to move the state forward is the highest treason.

Second, it’s truly amazing to witness the utter irrelevance of Arnold Schwarzenegger.  Asm. Laird had the money quote today – “I never thought I’d be wishing for Pete Wilson again, but I am.”  Pete Wilson was a lawmaker.  He actually cultivated relationships with Republicans, and through carrots and sticks actually persuaded them.  The Yacht Party has grown more entrenched over the years, but Arnold governs by magazine cover and doesn’t even really know who any of them are.  He’s not even in the Capitol today – he went home to Brentwood last night.  The failure of the chief executive to have any power within his own party is a major driver in this crisis.  We don’t need an action hero, just someone who knows the least bit about government.

Short-term, we’re still in the same place.  Darrell Steinberg is “making them filibuster,” keeping the Senate in the building overnight.  The perpetual answer is that something will break in the next 24 hours.  It’s a dispiriting choice between a bad deal and insolvency, but the latter is unthinkable.  Your list of calls is short.

Senator Abel Maldanado (R-Monterey County, 916-651-4015)

Senator Dave Cox (R-Fair Oaks, 916-651-4001)

UPDATE by Brian: Audio of Dave’s appearance with John Laird on KPFA over the flip.

Part 1 of 2:

Part 2 of 2:

After the Yacht Party putsch, Darrell Steinberg called a vote on the $14.4 billion dollar tax package, and the new leader Dennis Hollingsworth said, “I honestly don’t know how the vote is going to turn out.”

Well, it didn’t turn out.  Cox, Ashburn, Cogdill and even Correa all abstain.  Maldonado votes no.  Not good.  Lois Wolk isn’t there because she’s sick, so this had no chance of working anyway.  We’re in uncharted waters now, unless the lockdown is theatrical and Cox will vote for a newly drafted bill in the morning.

UPDATE by Brian: Sen Wolk returned to vote aye on the budget, but it seems the Republicans didn’t change their abstain votes. It’s always worth giving the two Senators in question a call. Senator Abel Maldanado (R-Monterey County, 916-651-4015) & Senator Dave Cox (R-Fair Oaks, 916-651-4001). While you’re at it, it might be worth giving Sen. Correa (D-OC, (916) 651-4034) a call as well as he abstained from one of the votes last night too.

President Pro Tem Steinberg has brought the Senate into session but there’s no breakthrough to report.  Steinberg had a conversation with Dave Cox, who is seeing lots of his constituents in Sacramento County get pink slips today, and he is encouraged that something will get done today:

“We’re going to get there today,” Steinberg predicted. “I can’t tell you exactly who (will vote for the budget package). We all know who the candidates are. …Today has to be the day.” […]

Steinberg did not elaborate on his meeting with Cox, who was once thought to be the deciding vote but has since said he could not in good conscience vote for the tax increases.

“Dave and I have known each other for almost 20 years, and we have always had a good relationship,” Steinberg said.

On Monday, Steinberg first said he would put up the tax bill at 10 a.m. this morning and keep the roll open — for hours, if necessary — to pressure the final vote.

“There are caucuses and conversations that led me to hold off until noon,” he said.

Anthony Wright and John Myers at Capitol Notes are still Twittering from the chamber.  Myers reports on a talk with the Governor’s press secretary about Abel Maldonado’s ransom note wish list:

McLear: guv willing to look at ways to “augment” budget deal if it gets the 2/3 vote… But won’t comment on specifically adding Sen. Maldonado’s requests… Guv does support, though, both proposals: open primary, legis pay.

I’m more and more convinced that Maldonado is the Governor’s sock puppet.  Arnold has been talking about the same “good government” reforms for quite a while, in particular open primaries.  It’s not that these reforms are completely nutty – no pay for lawmakers without a budget and no legislative pay or per diem raises in bad economic times is fine, I guess – but they are pointless compared to what is needed.  Clearly making Yacht Party lawmakers feel bad or hitting their salaries isn’t going to upend the anti-tax jihad.  And the only definitive outcome of open primaries to this point is a confusingly long ballot and decreased participation, not automatic moderate candidates.  These aren’t germane, and they are just a way to hold up the process to extract more concessions.

You can read the letter that 20,000 state employees got today here.  These are real lives that the Yacht Party is messing with.  And they’re wasting taxpayer dollars by delaying the process in about 10 different ways.

Thanks to everyone around the blogosphere linking to us in the past couple days as we report this out.  In addition, I’ll be on the Bay Area’s KPFA morning show with Aimee Allison tomorrow at 7:00am to discuss the latest.

So there is going to be a reconvening of the State Senate today at 10am.  I know, that’s what they said yesterday.  But the plan from Sen. Steinberg is to keep the Senate on the floor until 27 members vote for passage and the crisis is (temporarily) averted.  Meanwhile, 20,000 layoff notices and the closure of $3.8 billion in state public works projects will take place today.  Things like projects to eliminate arsenic in Live Oak in the Central Valley.  You know, dispensable things.  And the Times has a bead on the three Assembly members who plan to vote in favor – Roger Niello, Anthony Adams and Minority Leader Mike Villines.  This is a representative sample of the countervailing forces that Yacht Party members have to deal with.

Adams, a bearded 37-year-old who was elected in 2006 after working for San Bernardino County as its legislative liaison to Sacramento and Washington, has said he would provide the Assembly’s third GOP vote.

“It’s unconscionable that we let this state go over the cliff,” Adams said in an interview. “My job is to get the best possible deal for Republicans.”

Adams faces reelection next year, and his support for the budget package has antitax advocates interested in lining up a challenger in the GOP primary. And because he represents a swing district, Adams must also worry about a general-election challenge from a Democrat.Adams said he had not asked for specific concessions for his vote, or for assurances that he would get assistance to fend off election challenges.

“I’m not trying to find some soft landing,” he said, “although my wife is going to kill me if she hears that.”

They are not rewarded for their vote, and they fear their own “head on a stick” party members more than the opposition.  And so you get this gridlock.

It occurs to me that what Steinberg is doing is what progressives have asked Harry Reid to do in the US Senate for years now.  When GOP obstructionists threaten to filibuster key legislation, we always say “Make them filibuster!  Make them stand up in the well of the Senate and talk endlessly about how we can’t afford to provide health care for children, or how we have to offer more tax cuts to the wealthiest 1%.  Let the whole country see it!”  Well, we’re basically doing that.  The 15 members of the Yacht Party caucus in the Senate will be locked down and forced to reiterate their arguments indefinitely.

Problem is, the whole country won’t be seeing it, the whole state won’t be seeing it, in fact almost nobody will be seeing it.  This is the true failure of a lack of political awareness in California, and a lack of political media.  The pressure points are nearly impossible to hit.  A lot of lawmakers will get tired and need to “bring your toothbrush,” as Steinberg said, but there’s precious little drama outside of Sacramento.  And yet the decisions made in that chamber will undoubtedly impact the entire national economy, not just us.

But that is also good, in a sense, because it means that a sliver of opinion makers descending on the phone lines of the legislature can seen like an army.  I’m going to reprint the email alert that Brian sent out last night, which you may have received, because I think he captured the situation perfectly.  The leadership is making them filibuster.  Now it’s up to us to put on the pressure.

Hey there, registered Calitics user –

If you have been watching Calitics or the news this week, you’ve heard about the budget debacle going on in Sacramento.  For the last three days, we have remained one vote short of the required two-thirds majority for a budget deal, with only two Republicans being willing to join the Democratic caucus in the Senate. You can follow our coverage of the Budget here:

http://budget.calitics.com

To be blunt, the budget deal on the table is a mess. It consists of over twenty bills in each chamber. It guts environmental protections on several major projects, it offers gifts to corporations and a few powerful industries.  It relies on cuts and borrowing far too heavily, and does not provide the real long-term fixes of our revenue stream that we so desperately need. And the spending cap that will go to the ballot in the spring represents a major step backward, and progressives will have to expend substantial resources to defeat it. Yet despite all that, only one thing is really clear:

If we do nothing, the state faces systemic collapse.

Because Republicans refused for years to look at new revenues to balance the state’s budget, California is being hit harder by the economic crisis than any other state. We face a $40 billion deficit, and already the state is running out of money. Schools are looking at cutting classes and laying off teachers. Tomorrow, if there is no budget, 276 infrastructure projects will be halted – affecting 38,000 workers in the state, and the governor has announced that he will issue layoff notices to 20,000 state workers. And the state’s credit rating, already low, will suffer further downgrades, effectively costing taxpayers more money.

The media has now taken notice that the Republicans are trying to bring the state down with them. But the media has little power if we aren’t watching and if our leaders don’t know we are watching them. So, here is what we need to do:

Call Senator Abel Maldanado (R-Monterey County, 916-651-4015) and tell him to give up his list of demands and end this hostage situation.

Call Senator Dave Cox (R-Fair Oaks, 916-651-4001) and tell him that the state deserves better than a Senator who goes back on a deal when threatened by his own party’s extremists.

Tell as many people to do the same thing. Use every tool at your disposal, Twitter, facebook, or just word of mouth. The more people that know about this Republican extremism threatening our state, the better.

The Senate is set to once again resume session, and we might be in for another all-nighter. However, keep at it, because this is simply too important to let Republicans play their dangerous games with the lives of Californians.

I’ve been trying to get confirmation on when a special election would take place if and when this horror show of a budget was to get passed.  Well, the actual language in the budget bills (via Around The Capitol) states that the five ballot measures are being scheduled for a May 19, 2009 ballot.  There would be Los Angeles city general election on that date for any seat that doesn’t get a 50% +1 majority in the March 3 primaries, so with that large election already scheduled it makes a bit of sense.  Still, that is fairly soon, and earlier than expected.

You can read and weep at the other bills here – actually 23 of them in the Senate and 22 in the Assembly have to pass to finish this budget deal.

Meanwhile, the New York Times has taken notice of the madness, which means people in LA might actually read about it.

The state of California – its deficits ballooning, its lawmakers intransigent and its governor apparently free of allies or influence – appears headed off the fiscal rails […]

After negotiating nonstop from Saturday afternoon until late Sunday night on a series of budget bills that would have closed a projected $41 billion deficit, state lawmakers failed to get enough votes to close the deal and adjourned. They returned to the capital late Monday morning only to adjourn until the afternoon, though it was far from clear whether they would be able to reach a deal.

California has also lost access to much of the credit markets, nearly unheard of among state municipal bond issuers. Recently, Standard & Poor’s downgraded the state’s bond rating to the lowest in the nation.

This is something that’s not clearly understood.  We can’t borrow money and that market will not snap back even if we pass a budget, especially since it hinges on must-pass initiatives that won’t be resolved until May.  And yet $11 billion of the budget is based on, yes, BORROWING.

By the way, Abel Maldonado’s effort to get an “allow Abel Maldonado to be able to win a Republican primary” rider tossed into the bill takes major chutzpah.

Democrats, who had already given into Republicans’ long-held dreams of large tax cuts for small businesses and for some of the entertainment industry and a proposed $10,000 tax break for first-time home buyers, balked at Mr. Maldonado’s request that the legislature tuck a bill into the package that would allow voters to cross party lines in primary elections.

Mr. Maldonado, who is also seeking a constitutional amendment to prevent lawmakers from getting paid if budgets are late, defended his request that the open primary bill be included in the budget package.

“There needs to be good government reforms in this budget, and no member should be getting pet projects,” he said. “I think with an open primary, we would have good government that would do the people’s work.”

While he’s at it, why not a law making his votes count three times as much as any primary opponent?  I mean we need good government reforms like that.

…CapAlert reports that Maldonado has a “list of demands” – open primaries, no pay for lawmakers any day after a late budget, bans on legislative pay raises and per diem increases in down years, and “cutting out the pork” in the budget, which is just a revival of his nonsensical John Chiang feud.  In other words, Maldonado wants some populist notches on his belt, and he wants the laws of the state tipped in the direction of his statewide electoral prospects.  This part made me laugh out loud:

He wants an open primary system similar to those used by local governments in which the top two vote-getters regardless of party run in the general election. The system is said to favor moderate candidates, such as himself, rather than encourage primary hopefuls to woo voters at their party’s extremes. He acknowledged he plans to run for statewide office, but sold the open primary as more of a “good government reform.”

Um, yeah, Abel, if you are making up LISTS OF DEMANDS as a condition for your vote, the last thing I’d call you is “moderate”.

The Senate is now scheduled for a floor session at 6pm, depending on how much tissue is needed to keep Maldonado from crying.

…John Myers has audio of Abel’s demands.  Amusing to hear him not deny that these demands are entirely based on his desire to run for State Controller, coincidentally against his new feuding partner John Chiang, in 2010, and act like he’s some kind of good government independent voice (“What are the Republicans afraid of from an open primary?”) in the process.

I just want to thank Don Perata for threatening every Democrat out of Maldonado’s re-election last fall.

I’ve been thinking about this one for a couple days, and the most recent Capitol Notes podcast just brought it up, as reflected in John Myers’ Twitter feed.  First, the equation:

2/3 of 39 = 26.

See, right now there are 39 State Senators.  Mark Ridley-Thomas’ seat is vacant until a special election.  Under 2/3 rules, a full Senate would need 27 votes to pass a budget or a tax increase.  The state Constitution requires 2/3 of “the membership” for passage, which is very consistent throughout the document.  Percentages of “the membership” is always the language.  Here’s an example:

(d) No bill except the budget bill may contain more than one item of appropriation, and that for one certain, expressed purpose. Appropriations from the General Fund of the State, except appropriations for the public schools, are void unless passed in each house by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring.

And if “the membership” is defined as the current membership, then only 26 votes are necessary in the State Senate as currently composed.

So is it really the case that the legislature sat through marathon weekend sessions with still no resolution because everybody forgot to do the math?  Can that really be?

I think Steinberg might as well send the parts of the bill with 26 votes to the Assembly or to the Governor for signage, and if anyone pouts about it we can go to court.  The originalist interpretation is clearly that just 26 votes are needed.

Update by Robert: Unfortunately this may not be workable according to Article IV Section 2(a) of the Constitution:

The Senate has a membership of 40 Senators

I too liked the idea of pushing 26 votes, but the Constitution seems clear on defining “membership” as 40.

Update by Dave: Robert’s argument is compelling, but Anthony York’s article cites a law professor who says it’s not entirely clear.

Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution says the “Senate has a membership of 40 Senators…”

But if there is a vacancy, does that change the membership for legal purposes?

“It certainly isn’t out of the realm of possibilty that would be considered a valid interpretation of Article IV,” said Floyd Feeney, a law professor at U.C. Davis. “Courts make interpretations like that every day of the week.”

Feeney said he was not sure if there were other provisions in state law that might contradict, or supplement, the language in that section of the Constitution.

“Clearly, I’d want to do a lot more research before I sign an advice letter on something like that,” he said. “But there certainly would be an argument.”

Of course, getting this adjudicated would likely take longer than even this interminable process….

Just a thought or two on this whole mess while we wait for the Senate to reconvene.  While I didn’t think it was the best strategy to announce a deal and start voting on it before there was an actual deal in place (although the rumor that Dave Cox reneged on a handshake deal changes my perspective a bit), Darrell Steinberg seems to have backed into a strategy of playing Yacht Party obstruction out very publicly, so that the essential insanity of their anti-tax, sink-the-state agenda can be well-described by what’s left of political state media.  So George Skelton does the math and refutes the Yacht Party assertion that cutting spending alone can solve the budget crisis, and Dan Walters manages to describe the situation accurately.

And we all sit at our computers and type out our “even Dan Walters and George Skelton believe” articles, eternally hopeful that this is the corner-turning event, that the public will find the right people to blame for the sorry state of affairs, and punish them repeatedly forever more.  Only it’s wishful thinking.  First of all, I hate to break it, but nobody reads George Skelton and Dan Walters.  They are opinion leaders to about .001% of the electorate.  Second, there was another audience watching Sacramento this weekend, and they were the bondholders, who would be crazy to allow California to borrow one more red cent from them given the political fracturing (and this budget calls for 1.1 trillion red cents, or $11 billion dollars, to be borrowed).  Even if this passed tomorrow there would need to be lots of short-term debt floated to manage the cash crisis until new revenues actually reached state coffers, and with the bond rating the lowest in the country and the dysfunction being played out, I don’t see it happening.

The other point is that this is, let’s face it, a bad deal for Californians.  Among the sweeteners thrown in the deal to attract that elusive third Republican vote are a $10,000 tax break for home buyers to re-inflate the bubble and set the state economy up for an even bigger crash; weakened anti-pollution laws that will cost the state additional public health and environmental cleanup spending in the long-term; a potential budget cap that will make it impossible for public schools and social services to meet demand; and much more.  The tax changes, which are short-term except for a huge break to multinationals, tax things that we want to encourage in a downturn, work and consumption.  What the federal government is offering to spur demand and get the economy moving again is exactly what the state government will be cutting to balance the budget.  That’s not an argument to kill it, but it’s a reflection of reality.

So there will be at best a kind of zero-growth stasis, and at worst a further crumbling of the local economy, with shrunken revenues likely to require another round of this by summer.  Ultimately, the media cannot help the Democratic Party solve this problem.  The bill is coming due for 30 years of anti-tax zealotry and the belief that we can provide whatever citizens need without paying for it.  There isn’t a light at the end of the tunnel.  That some opinion leaders are coming around about 20 years to late doesn’t wash the blood from their hands.  And that the Democratic Party is finally thinking that they should maybe fight against the 2/3 requirement that has relegated them to a functional minority in Sacramento since is was instituted doesn’t absolve them for 30 years of inattention.

It gives me no pleasure to bear the bad news, but there’s no wake-up call on the horizon.  Even all 38 million Californians coming to the same “Hey, GOP is suxxor” conclusion at the same time doesn’t change structural realities.  Those must be fought for over years if not decades, and it is not defeatist to wonder whether it’s too late.

…I think Joe Matthews says it fairly well.

It’s clear that he doesn’t.  He probably thinks it will cost him his re-election in 2010.  That may or may not be, but certainly it’s his point of view.  There is no other reason why the vote was rescheduled.  And it’s certainly why Dem leaders are offering him incentives (someone less charitable might call it a bribe):

In what some might call an amazing coincidence, a measure to give Orange County an extra slice of the state budget pie was included in Saturday’s deficit-closing proposals, the fate of which rested heavily on the vote of an Orange County state senator.

The senator, Lou Correa of La Habra, was the only Democratic member of the upper house reported to be “noncommittal” on whether to support a $40 billion package of tax hikes, spending cuts and loans designed to close the gap in California’s budget.

Correa’s vote is vital because Senate Republican leader Dave Cogdill of Modesto said that for any Republicans to cast votes for the package – and three are needed to give it the 27-vote two-thirds majority it needs – all Democrats will have to vote aye. “I just don’t think it gets out if he (Correa) doesn’t go up on it,” Cogdill said earlier this week.

Capitol sources, who asked not to be named while commenting on private negotiations, said language had been inserted in the massive 33-bill package that would give Orange County $35 million in additional property tax revenues in the coming fiscal year; $35 million in the 2010-11 fiscal year, and up to $50 million annually after that.

Further delays mean he’s further away from saying yes to the whole thing.  And of course, this is another perverse outcome of the Yacht Party’s stranglehold on the budget process – Correa’s marginal seat shouldn’t really hold the key to whether or not this passes.