CA: Voting on a Budget

CaliforniaRepublic.org ^ | 7/13/05 | Chuck DeVore

[NormsRevenge]

The California Legislature approved the budget for 2005-2006 last week, seven days into the fiscal year. I voted in favor of passing the budget.

Interestingly, no one asked me for my vote or pressured me – perhaps since I’ve racked up the most “no” votes of any of the 80 members, leadership figured I was an automatic “no”. But, as with all of my votes, after analysis and reflection, I voted my conscience.

In the Assembly, the vote was 63-13 for passage with 54 votes needed for the required two-thirds threshold. Of the 13 members who voted “no” all were Republicans while 19 Republicans voted to support Governor Schwarzenegger’s budget. At the last tally, two Democrats present didn’t vote for the budget, presumably because it didn’t spend more tax money.

Some in the GOP may criticize this budget as too large. I agree. However, given that Republicans in Sacramento barely have more than one-third of the members of either house, the question needs to be asked, could we have done better?

The budget has no new taxes. The budget sticks closely to the governor’s proposal for education spending, rejecting the CTA union and Democrats’ calls to add another $3.1 billion of spending on top of the $3.1 billion increase proposed by the governor. The budget for the first time fully funds Prop. 42 road construction spending at $1.3 billion. And, the budget pays back a year early the full $1.2 billion the state took from local government in recent years. Most importantly, the budget passed will be almost $1.7 billion more in balance next year than the budget last proposed by the Democrats three weeks ago – a budget I voted against.

A budget, unlike a standalone bill, is a product of intense negotiations between the governor and the four legislative leaders – the “Big Five” as they’re called – it is, by definition, a consensus document. Usually, voting “no” on a budget is the default vote for members of the Republican minority. If enough Republicans vote “no” to prevent passage of the budget, the majority swings into action, offering pork or other incentives to lash together the needed votes to capture the two-thirds support required in both houses. On June 15th, not one Republican voted to approve the Democrats’ budget. Because we Republicans held firm under the steady hands of the two leaders of our respective houses, Sen. Dick Ackerman (R-Irvine) and Assemblyman Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), we were able to support the governor’s efforts to trim more fat out of the budget and pre-pay debts. What we ended up with was a victory.

Could we have gotten more concessions? Remember, we only have 32 of 80 members in the Assembly and 15 of 40 in the Senate. Had we tried to hold out, Democrats would have pushed back, dangling budgetary prizes in front of certain Republican members. A good indication of the danger in this can be found in a press announcement from one of my colleagues. The punch line occurs at the end of the release explaining their “no” vote when it is revealed that the budget didn’t spend enough on schools!

Lastly, some complain that this budget increases spending 14.5 percent over last year’s budget. That’s a bogus comparison. The budget enacted last year contained many accounting gimmicks. While it was to have spent $78.7 billion as passed by the legislature, the actual expenditures were $82.0 billion. This still yields a 9.9 percent increase in state spending for the new budget. However, $2.5 billion of that consists of loan repayments to local government and road construction spending (spending that is finally not being diverted to social welfare programs). Excluding these spending categories from consideration, you get an apples-to-apples budget increase of 6.9 percent. California’s inflation rate was 3.5 percent over the past year while our population increased another 1.5 percent meaning that this budget increased real government spending per capita 1.9 percent. Is this too much? Yes. Does it slow the rate of growth? Yes. That’s why the structural deficit was cut in half. This is progress.

The real solution to solving our spending problems is to elect more Republicans. The only way we can do that is to support the redistricting initiative and the paycheck protection initiative during this November’s special election. That, and the extra budget-cutting powers contained in the governor’s “Live Within Your Means” initiative will reshape the budget landscape and allow us to begin retiring some of that mountain of debt built up from the overspending of the Governor Davis years.

[NormsRevenge]

Sorry, Chuck. No cigar.

The paycheck initiative doesn't even have the GUB's support at this time, the redistricting initiative is under assault in the courts, and 'Live within our Means' is smoke and mirrors, imo.

[NormsRevenge]

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore represents Orange County California’s 70th Assembly District.. He served as a Reagan White House appointee in the Pentagon from 1986 to 1988 and was Senior Assistant to Cong. Chris Cox. He is a Major in the Army National Guard. Chuck’s novel, CHINA ATTACKS, sells internationally and has been translated into Chinese for sales in Taiwan.

[fifedom]

"Sorry, Chuck. No cigar." -> "we only have 32 of 80 members in the Assembly and 15 of 40 in the Senate." -> Elect more Republicans, then we can complain.

[tom h]

"Assemblyman Chuck DeVore represents Orange County California’s 70th Assembly District"

Norm, what part of California are you living in? I know Chuck DeVore personally very well (although I don't live in his district) and I will say without reservation that he is one of the finest Americans I have ever known. He is a smart man, clear thinker, moral and honorable, and would make a fantastic US Senator someday.

So while you might not like his analysis, keep an eye on him as he is in his mid-40s and is going places. I volunteered to serve as his chief of staff if he ever gets to the Senate.

[NormsRevenge]

Regrettably, I am in San Jose where we have liberals up the ying yang at all levels of gubamint.

You are blessed if your rep is decent.

Would that more were..

The GOP needs to get its act together and quit diddling while Rome burns. :)

[calcowgirl]

The real solution to solving our spending problems is to elect more Republicans.

Does he mean RINOs, or actual fiscal conservatives? The (R) itself doesn't seem to mean much these days. He must be one of those Orange County "New Majority" type Republicans.

Elite and hip make up new GOP set

Many grass-roots activists are energized by opposition to abortion rights, gay rights and illegal immigration causes, but Makarechian says "the game is in the center" rather than based on those hot-button issues. That is bound to rile some, but so far even some who favor those causes - such as Irvine Assemblyman Chuck DeVore - are giving the group the benefit of the doubt, welcoming their activism and money.

The only way we can do that is to support the redistricting initiative and the paycheck protection initiative during this November’s special election.

When is our (R) Governor going to back the Paycheck Protection measure?

That, and the extra budget-cutting powers contained in the governor’s “Live Within Your Means” initiative will reshape the budget landscape and allow us to begin retiring some of that mountain of debt built up from the overspending of the Governor Davis years.

Has he read this initiative? It authorizes more bonds, thereby deferring more expenditures and increases long-term debt.

Sorry Chuck, I ain't buying your apologist argument. The budget stinks and so does the sham "Live Within Your (sic) Means" act.

[Czar]

My sentiments exactly.

Sorry, Chuck, but we ain't buying any more "it's the best we could do" alibis. Far too late in the game for that.

[goldstategop]

A RINO. The Governor just received back the authority to make mid-year spending corrections. We still have a structural budget situation in which our state spends more than it takes in. Has Chuck De Vore considered the Live Within Our Means measure may not correct the problem? In short, spending money we don't have is not my idea of a responsible budget.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[calcowgirl]

The Governor just received back the authority to make mid-year spending corrections.

How did he do that? It is one of the things included in the "spending reform". Other than that, I haven't read anything else that would imply increased authority.

Has Chuck De Vore considered the Live Within Our Means measure may not correct the problem?

I'm convinced it won't even help.

In short, spending money we don't have is not my idea of a responsible budget.

I'm with ya GSgop. The legislators complimenting this sham look more like prostitutes every day.

[goldstategop]

That was a power included until 1983 in each year's budget and it was one of the few things Sen. Tom McClintock liked about this budget. I'm no fan of the budget but this power will help keep spending in line if the Governor actively uses it. The jury's still out on it.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[calcowgirl]

Thanks. I double checked the thread (McClintock's floor speech). He wasn't saying it was part of the budget, he was saying that this budget is soooooooo bad, that we need to have that authority restored now. He says it is part of the LWOM Act and that the legislature would be advised to adopt it, as an adjunct to the budget (i.e. separate legislation.) They didn't take his advice.

I don't often disagree with Tom, but the other stuff in that initiative stink too much to support it. We need to start an initiative to put a real spending cap on the ballot (We had one with Campbell's proposal, but ARnold rejected it in favor of this sham measure).

(snip)

There is, however, one good thing that this budget accomplishes. It makes it absolutely imperative that we restore to the governor the authority that he held from 1939 until 1983 to make mid-year spending reductions without having to return to the legislature.

This authority served this state extremely well until it was bargained away – over my objections, I might add – back in 1983.

Restoring the authority of the governor to halt this state’s chronic deficit spending is at the heart of the “Live Within Our Means Act,” and with the adoption of this budget, it is now about the only thing that stands between our state and financial insolvency. We would be well advised to adopt that measure right here as an adjunct to this budget.