KOOKY, EXTREMIST, FRINGE DEMOCRATS WITH GOOFY IDEAS

The biggest story this week (besides the recall) was the “secret” meeting of several Democrats in which they plotted to hold up the budget for political gain. This would cause people pain, so they would then try to blame Republicans for shutting down the government, and hopefully increase the pressure sufficiently to force Republicans to vote for tax increases. Of course, they held this meeting in the Capitol, and left the microphone on in the meeting room. Just about every office, the entire press corps, and most of the lobbying community then heard the discussions held in their secret meeting. I guess you could chalk up another political blunder to term limits. The entire event was a rookie mistake.

In trying to defuse the situation, the Director of Finance from the Governor’s Office, referred to them simply as “kooky, extremist, fringe democrats with goofy ideas”. Many of my Republican friends have speculated that the Democrats in the Assembly are extremist, and we know that their ideas are goofy, but it is nice that a long-time Democrat legislator finally publicly acknowledges their extremism and goofiness, even if it was only to try and make light of a grievous error.

The only problem is that these goofy people run one house of the Legislature. They are the chairs of the Education, Natural Resource, Long-Term Care and Aging Committees, and their decisions actually affect people. When they plot to hold up the budget, which would hurt people, they have enough votes to make it happen. They accuse Republicans of wanting to destroy California, but Republicans barely have enough votes to stop a tax increase, much less change policy in California.

That is why this “secret” meeting was such an interesting event. Three months ago, Assembly Republicans proposed the first complete budget plan for the Assembly. Democrats had been having meetings for months, but took no action. Republicans decided to take the initiative to prove that the budget could be balanced with no new taxes. They also said that the details of the budget were negotiable, and invited the Democrats to sit down at the table and negotiate. Assembly Democrats stood silent. They refused to negotiate.

Last month, the Assembly Republicans fine tuned their proposal, and once again invited the Democrats to negotiate. The response of the Democrat majority was to put the budget on the floor, and spend four hours bashing the plan. During that entire time, they proposed no plan of their own, refused to negotiate on our budget proposal, and, quite frankly, chose, once again, to take absolutely no action on advancing the budget.

The problem with that approach to the budget is that they are the majority party. Nothing can happen unless those in the majority want it to happen. They have the votes; they run the house. If they do nothing, the state goes bankrupt, and they are doing nothing. They have chosen to attack Republicans rather than negotiate in good faith.

That is a compliment to Republicans in the Assembly. A party that is confident in their agenda and ideas can take the criticism. A confident majority allows the minority to criticize, works with them where they can, but take responsibility for their actions when they can’t. If the majority knows the public is with them, they do not fear the exercise of power.

The purpose of the acquisition of power is to implement a policy agenda. If the elected official is afraid the implementation of that policy agenda would cost him or her power, then they have a choice. They can be honest with people and abandon the agenda, or lose power. If they cannot be honest, and keep power, they have the wrong agenda. Republicans had the courage to stand behind their agenda. Democrats ran for the hills. Under those circumstances, who should be running California?

EXCEPTS FROM DEMOCRATIC STUDY GROUP DISCUSSION

July 21, 2003

Unidentified Assemblymember [possibly Nunez]: Hannah-Beth, are you saying that if we don’t take it to the point if we don’t get more revenues, we do not support a budget that has an additional $1.5 billion worth of cuts. … At least to start it off at the point of discussion

* * *

Assemblymember Jackson: …the question is how are they going to formulate the budget they are going to send over to us. Where’s the next $1.5 billion in cuts going to come from?

* * *

Unidentified Assemblymember [possibly Nunez]: I understand that, Hannah-Beth. My point is, given that we know we are not going to get new revenues the, is what we’re saying that we just want to have input as to where those cuts are going to be or are we saying we don’t support cuts that deeply into this budget….

* * *

Assemblymember Jackson: …The question is, I think we’re looking at $1.5 billion worth of cuts …

* * *

Unidentified Assemblymember [possibly Dymally]: Hannah-Beth, …what are we asking, what are we saying to the Senate folks?

* * *

Assemblymember Jackson: …We want to know what your plan is…what are you proposing?…the reality is that when the Senate sends it over to us, it is going … it is going to be a problem in 04-05. We want them to respect our input so that we can go out when we do get a budget….

* * *

Assemblymember Nunez: No. But, you know, there’s a very responsible perspective to that, in that precipitating the crisis does not necessarily mean that -- if you’re thinking about this is, the strategy for the 55 percent, all the polls, all the polls suggest that if you don’t have a budget, that it lent itself to help support the effort for the 55 percent. That’s what the proponents say - CTA and the others - are saying about that. In addition, in terms of the recall, the extent to which the Governor can do a good job of making a connection between having no budget and the Republican [inaud] on the recall -- I don’t know if any of you have heard the Darrell Issa commercials on the radio, but they’re all about the budget. It’s all about what’s going on right now. That’s why he wants to be governor. And he’s saying “we don’t have a budget because of Gray Davis.” The folks that are heading up the anti-recall effort think if you don’t have the budget, it helps Democrats in the recall effort. If you don’t have a budget, it helps Democrats on the 55 percent. So if you’re looking strictly at outcomes in terms of how we’re preparing and gearing ourselves to win the war on the 55 percent, there are, [inaud] I mean, there’s…

* * *

Assemblymember Goldberg: The question that I have, is that - and I go back to both ‘92 and to ‘78 - when people never saw what, they never got to see really up front and close what Prop 13 really did. Because what we did in education was is that teachers started subsidizing their classrooms, and we cut out art and we cut out music and we cut out drama and we cut out sports in some areas and, cut out tutoring and [inaud] teachers and we raised class size. And people thought: look, schools are all still open, this didn’t hurt anyone. Some of us are thinking that maybe people should see the pain up close and personal, right now.

* * *

Assemblymember Goldberg: …they are 10, 10, and 5 over there. Ten want to hold out for [inaud], ten want to [inaud], and five [inaud]. We’re going to try and find out tomorrow where we are. “
* * *

Assemblymember Goldberg: But we have to figure out what we do think. And I do think it has to be in line with two things, and that’s one of the reasons that I asked Mr. Dymally to get us together. One is how it impacts the 55 percent proposition. And secondly whether or not - if there’s going to be a crisis to happen - if there’s going to be a crisis, whether it should be this year or next year, in terms of members of our House who want to get re-elected, in terms of members of our House who [inaud]. Personally, I think the crisis is better off this year than next year. But that’s a discussion that I just want to make sure you have, and that’s happens, and that’s why [inaud]…

* * *

Unidentified Assemblymember [possibly Laird]: …to talk with her about the budget and see if that’s the thing that we feel like those concerns have been removed and that it’s worked as a political strategy. If we got every Dem but Marco and Richman to go up on it, and suddenly … I mean that’s the first line that can be crossed in public. Politically, there’s some statements.

And if the Senate is about to send something worse, they might be in a better position and it might even force the out-year issue. I think that’s a strategy worth taking a hard look at. And maybe an intermediate step is meeting with them to see if, strategy-wise, if that is something worth recommending to this group. And should we toss that out?

Assemblymember Goldberg: I will say that Canciamilla reported that Richman would not go for that budget. I hear that if it didn’t include a commitment on workers’ comp -- 17200 and other structural needs.

Unidentified Assemblymember: So technically it’s (inaude)

Assemblymember Goldberg: So here’s the question.

Unidentified Assemblymember: You said both of those and some other structure.

Assemblymember Dymally: Alan? Alan?

Assemblymember Jackson: We need to also keep in mind there is another factor here. We’ve got a problem. Excuse me, but don’t Mr. Brulte and Mr. Cox dislike each other? So, will Cox automatically accept a Brulte budget, or is there something else?

Unidentified Assemblymember: That’s another story

Assemblymember Jackson: Well, yes that is another story.

Unidentified Assemblymember [possibly Levine]: It’s our story. It’s our story. If we’re sitting there getting hit. At some point, the decision, as John said, has got to be 28 Republicans or 26 Dems; it’s really their budget. So, that more Republicans go up and yet the Cox/Brulte thing – you know, they hate each other – because… I don’t want to go up on that budget.

Assemblymember Goldberg: Yes

Assemblymember Laird: And whether it’s two of us who have less than 50 percent Dems in our district that have high green turnouts or something like that. You know (inaudible).

Assemblymember Goldberg: It’s up to my successor…..

Unidentified Assemblymember: Yes, that’s not where we need to be put up our budget. So, there needs to be a lot of Republicans up to give some people a pass and the Cox-Brulte thing is very much trouble.

Assemblymember Goldberg: That won’t happen. I think it’s very unlikely that a Democrat will get a pass on any of these budgets. I just don’t think that’s going to happen. If I might just say, I think Allan and Patty both worked on that budget didn’t you? I think it would be wonderful if we could find out in Canciamilla and Richman.

Unidentified Staffer: Excuse me, guys, you can be heard outside.

Assemblymember Goldberg: Oh, shit.

Unidentified Staffer: The squawk box is on – you need to turn it off right there.

Assemblymember Goldberg: How could that happen?

- 30 -

Brilliant points. Much needed to be said. I feel like I am alone on here sometimes giving credit to the CA GOP for what they did accomplish in the budget. Too many cynics not realizing what they went through to keep taxes from being raised. BRAVO!

More importantly, their actions are changing my mind on the CA GOP in general. With quotes like this maybe it isn't that the party is as feckless and RINO as I thought, maybe the problem is papers like the LA Times, the SF Chron, and SJ Mercury are so far Left they refuse to use good quotes like these and people like myself don't even know what they think.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.