Fun and games by the Dems in Calfornia - and they are yelling like stuck pigs about it

By Dan Morain, Senior editor
dmorain@sacbee.com <mailto:dmorain@sacbee.com> The Sacramento Bee
Published: Thursday, Jun. 23, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 11A

Democratic legislators undoubtedly have found a new place to cut
spending – the department overseen by the previously obscure Controller
John Chiang. <http://topics.sacbee.com/John+Chiang/>

Chiang, responsible for signing state checks, made a name for himself by
declaring that the budget approved last week is out of whack and that he
would not be paying legislators.

Legislators quickly denounced him for grandstanding. He blatantly
breached the separation of powers, they said, and created a
constitutional crisis. His power grab is not grounded in the law, they
said.

It may all be true. And they have no one but themselves to blame.

Democrats and their organized labor allies wholeheartedly embraced
Proposition 25, the too-cute-by-half initiative approved last November
that granted legislators the power to approve budgets by a simple
majority vote.

Like so many other initiatives, Proposition 25 was poll-tested, slickly
packaged and sold to the electorate like soda pop.
<http://topics.sacbee.com/soda+pop/>

Its goal was to give Democrats power to approve annual state budgets by
a simple majority, without Republican votes. But to win at the polls,
Proposition 25 needed a sweetener. Promoters added a provision saying
legislators would forfeit their pay if they failed to approve a budget
by the June 15 state constitutional deadline.

All initiatives are loaded. Most voters can only guess at their
long-term consequences. In this instance, however, professional
politicians didn't seem to fully appreciate the implications, though the
opening paragraph of the argument in favor of Proposition 25 in the
official voter pamphlet offered voters a clear summation of its intent:

"Prop. 25 reforms California's badly broken state budget process, so
taxpayers, schools and services are protected, while legislators are
held accountable if they fail to pass the budget on time. No budget, no
pay – and no payback later."

Armed with the ability to approve the budget without Republican votes,
Democrats quickly wrapped up budget votes on June 15, like kids rushing
through their math homework.

They seemed surprised when Gov. Jerry Brown quickly vetoed the budget.
They were truly dismayed when fellow Democrat Chiang invoked Proposition
25 – along with a previously ignored 2004 initiative that requires a
balanced budget – to cut their pay.

"Voters wanted to put a stop to all the games and all the shenanigans,"
said Ray McNally, the consultant who took the lead role in favor of
Proposition 25. "The controller recognized that. He is doing that what
people wanted done."

Not everyone in McNally's coalition agrees.

"It's a misuse of Proposition 25 and a misuse of the state controller's
office," said Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, who donated $25,000 to the
Yes-on-25 campaign.

Chiang told me he is "open to the possibility of being sued" but warned
that legislators who sue "do so at their peril."

"Voters may come back with harsher terms," Chiang said. "They may say
'part-time Legislature.' "

Chiang won't be getting flowers from many legislators. But he is not
isolated. Brown has been willing to help cut legislators' pay. As
attorney general in 2009, Brown issued an opinion that the Citizens
Compensation Commission had the power to reduce legislators' pay.

Brown was interpreting a series of ballot measures,
<http://topics.sacbee.com/ballot+measures/> including a Trojan horse,
<http://topics.sacbee.com/Trojan+horse/> Proposition 112 of 1990. Placed
on the ballot by legislators, the measure was pitched as a way to stamp
out corruption – that worked, right? – but created a commission that,
until recently, raised legislators' pay.

Brown readily acknowledged that interpretation ran counter to a 1972
constitutional amendment, also approved by voters, which said
legislators' pay could not be cut midterm.

Brown also was getting ready to run for governor and knew his stand
would be politically popular. That lesson, no doubt, was not lost on
Chiang, an ambitious politician.

In very real ways, Democratic legislators find themselves in a worse
situation now than before Proposition 25's passage. At least they would
have gotten paid during budget standoffs in past years.

Proposition 25 allows them to pass budgets by a simple majority. But
they still need Republican votes to attain the two-thirds supermajority
to approve tax increases.

Unable to win Republican support for taxes, they are left with the
unhappy prospect of cutting deeper into state programs – though some
might be delighted to trim the budget of at least one statewide elected
official.

"Oh," Hancock told me ever so innocently, "that never occurred to me
until now."

Perhaps pay forfeiture will hasten a resolution. Maybe that solution
will be sound. Maybe Democrats and Republicans will hold hands and sing
"Kumbaya."

Legislators need to pay the rent. Economic self-interest could force
them to vote for a budget they would otherwise reject. That would be
understandable – and a breach of their duty. It also would be a
consequence of an initiative that was too slick for its own good.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

World News

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Fun and games by the Dems in Calfornia - and they are yelling like stuck pigs about it - they did it to themselves

No comments:

Post a Comment