(CA) GOP senator says he'll vote for budget if it includes constitutional amendments

[question everything]

Source: LA Times

Sen. Abel Maldonado says he reached a deal with the governor to vote for the budget in exchange for changes in the law to allow open primaries and punish legislators for not meeting budget deadlines.
By Patrick McGreevy and Eric Bailey

4:38 PM PST, February 18, 2009

Reporting from Sacramento — State Sen. Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria) says he brokered a deal with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday that may position him to break the logjam in Sacramento and cast the final GOP vote needed for budget passage. But there is a catch -- the agreement could cost some Democratic votes for the bipartisan spending plan that the governor and legislative leaders have put together. And there are none to spare.

Under the deal, Schwarzenegger would support items that Maldonado has demanded from any budget package. They include constitutional amendments, requiring voter approval, that would allow an open primary election, cut legislators' pay if they miss a budget deadline and prohibit pay raises for lawmakers when there are deficits.

(snip)

Schwarzenegger had said this afternoon that GOP lawmakers who insist that the budget could be balanced without new revenue had "a math problem" and that he would not abandon the bipartisan spending plan he helped negotiate, which includes $14.4 billion in tax increases. The governor's remarks at a Capitol press conference came hours after the newly elected leader of the state Senate's Republicans, who replaced his predecessor in an overnight ouster, said he hoped to kill the existing bipartisan plan to wipe out the state's deficit.



Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget19-2009feb19,0,3423876.story

---

These bozos should not be paid until they reach a budget, by now about six months late, I think.

Before they authorize any layoff of a state employee, the salaries of the legislators and their staff should be on hold.

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. I like the way Wyoming does it - meet for just a couple weeks a year.

and if you don't show up, the sheriffs come find you and drag you in.

Makes sure everyone is there; makes sure all their business actually gets the fuck done; and also keeps the politicos from sitting around thinking up new bullshit laws and legislation to justify them being in session year-round.

I think one of the biggest problems we have in the US federal system is that our senators and congresspeople are, in effect, on duty all the time - so they have to keep making shit up.

Fuck that. Give 'em two weeks a year, and hold emergency sessions when needed. That'll fuck with the lobbiests, because the politicians will spend most of their back home, working whatever day job actually pays their living expenses.

[ixion]

5. I agree...politics should be a civic duty, NOT a career path

there should not be profit, power or glamor involved in carrying out the People's business.

[CreekDog]

8. disagree totally, some of the best state laws in the nation were written in California years ago

by career politicians --before term limits.

many of them specialized in certain areas of expertise, Jackie Speier, my current congresswoman specialized in consumer rights, down the peninsula Byron Sher became an expert and author of strong environmental law, Tom Bates from Berkeley was an expert and advocate in education.

now with term limits nobody seems to know anything and when they finally learn, they have to leave office.

[ixion]

9. that can be resolved simply by actively passing continuity

education is a beautiful thing.

That said, for every "good law" (whatever that is) that may have been passed, there are 10,000 crappy ones passed.

So I believe your premise is flawed. Just my opinion. :hi:

[CreekDog]

10. how do you know 10000 bad laws were passed?

you sound like a Republican.

California was the first state to legislate against air pollution, it later passed tough car regulations that are now the norm nationwide, it granted landmark civil rights protections ahead of most states, it has short term disability insurance for all workers (except Feds) at a very small cost, something nearly all states do not have and something that is exhorbitantly expensive to buy on one's own.

California created a free public university and college system in the 1960's to provide every high school graduate with a college education if they wanted one at no cost. Tuition was later instituted but remains less expensive than other states for all but the UC system.

California engineering projects are regarded among the best in the world. Building for earthquakes and building for safety.

These things are not accidents or coincidence, they are the product of civic minded legislators and governors who sought to be experts in state government and many of them were.

I AM NOT wiling to chuck that because of your statement that

"That said, for every "good law" (whatever that is) that may have been passed, there are 10,000 crappy ones passed."

Which I am willing to bet cold hard cash you made up out of thin air. To think you criticize my premise.

Go be a Republican, you'll fit in just fine. :rant:

[ixion]

12. you're the one tossing around insults

not me.

I stated my opinion, and you respond with vitriol. If you would like to discuss something, fine. The insults (and calling me a Republican IS an insult) will get you nowhere.

There are thousands of laws on the books. Sure, there are some good ones, but as I said, for every good one there are thousands of bad ones.

[CreekDog]

13. your statement about for every good one there are thousands of bad ones

prove it.

you have no idea. you don't even know thousands of laws, good or bad.

if you did, you wouldn't feel so safe in your conclusions.

and i called you a Republican because you *are* sounding like one, even if you aren't one, the know nothing, paint with broad brushes is exactly how they communicate and how they govern.

[ixion]

15. walk into any law library, and start reading through your local laws

you'll see what I'm talking about.

All I was saying is that I don't believe that people should make a career out of politics. We shouldn't allow it, because the people who seek office tend to be control freaks looking for money and power. I'm not saying ALL are but MOST. And that's a fact.

T'was ever thus, since the Dawn of Man.

As such, to maintain our perfect union, politics should not be glamorous or profitable. It should be about taking care of the common infrastructure.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. I think there is ample evidence to back it up.

I was hoping you'd discuss this like a mature adult, but it appears you can't do it without insults, so this conversation is over.

[CreekDog]

16. i think you are exaggerating the scale of the insult

also, my local laws were not written by full time legislators in CA state government but by part time local councilmembers.

you are comparing apples and oranges.

you are also not offering anything in the way of evidence that there really are thousands of bad laws for every good one passed by state government.

California has one of the best code's around by the way. When I lived in Arizona, we had a part time, low paid, poorly educated state legislature --and the state was a laughing stock in many ways. California was the opposite.

even the current budget mess was passed by voters, not by legislators.

[ixion]

29. scale is not the point... but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt

So then... are you actually saying that the Cult of Personality is good where lawmakers are concerned?

I really can't see how that is a good thing for We, the People.

Regarding laws: You mentioned that you local laws were not written by full-time legislators. That is false, unless you happen to live outside the US, or on some other planet.

You have city/county/state/federal laws all stacked up on top of one another. There are thousands of these, literally, and you are subject to every one, city or otherwise.

But the sheer number of laws was not my main point. My point is that having lawmaking be profitable and glamorous is not a good thing. It leads to corruption and abuse of power. Again, that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. There is ample historical evidence to back my premise, whether that is the History of Rome or Great Brittan or Mesopotamia. It's all ended the same way. Bureaucracies roll forward, always piling on new laws until they collapse under the weight of that very bureaucracy.

[CreekDog]

34. Where is this cult of personality attributed to any of the legislators I mentioned?

have you heard of Byron Sher or Tom Bates, or John Vasconcellos?

they aren't famous. they were simply good at what they did, partly because they were smart and educated and partly because they did it for a LONG time.

term limits mean that if I as a voter want to keep a good legislator in office, i cannot. and with term limits the quality of our legislature has decreased --this is well documented too. while true we have termed out a few knuckleheads here and there, what we lost by terming out the best ones has hurt California.

[ixion]

36. I do understand your point...

I would be willing to forgo term limitations if they were willing to work part-time for very little money, if any, under strict supervision of a citizens oversight committee, who could fire them on the spot for taking bribes, etc. I understand that certain people are going to have a better aptitude for doing that sort of thing, but at the same time, I think it needs to be thought of more as a civic duty than a career.

Make sense?

[CreekDog]

37. I understand you, but it doesn't make sense to me

because I don't think you can get the quality of people part time for a limited period of time than you can get from people who do make a career of public service.

the people I mentioned would have become experts in something else rather than legislation and government. instead of their expertise going into writing some of the best laws and programs in the country, it would have gone to something else.

if anything term limits have made legislative STAFFS more powerful than legislators because the staffs stick around in Sacramento and know more than anyone else --this was not the case before term limits.

when you have part time people, the STAFF rules and here in California that has made special interests stronger.

[The Brethren]

6. I like your attitude!

I'd love to see the look on their faces when the sheriff comes looking for them. LOL

A relative of mine who works in the Pentagon and has told me that a general rule for politicians, of both parties, is that they spend about 1/3 of their time once elected, when they're suppose to be actually "working", on fundraising for their next election. And that can include anything from calls and letters to potential contributors to lunches and diners, etc. to win over contributors. In other words, peddling themselves on the taxpayers' expense.

And somewhere in all of this they actually take time to vote on laws which is an important part of their work. That is the bills they actually show up for.




Know what you're paying for. The Stimulus Plan ("American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009"): Orig. House version -- http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/RecoveryBill01-15-09.pdf , House spreadsheet -- http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pV-c6t5fOVmNorqMpHvnCMw ; Senate version -- http://appropriations.senate.gov/News/2009_02_02_The_American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009.pdf ; and Senate compromise -- http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1 , Text and $$$ details of Senate compromise -- http://appropriations.senate.gov/News/2009_02_08_UPDATED_Appropriations_Provisions_of_American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act.pdf?CFID=4043629&CFTOKEN=40573040 . In addition to -- http://readthestimulus.org/amdth1.pdf , along with -- http://www.readthestimulus.org/ . Final version, Feb. 13th, 1500 pgs. worth -- http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/arra_public_review/ , more details on the final version -- http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&type=Project&proj_id=1913&action=Headlines%20By%20TCS , including spending -- http://cbs4denver.com/national/Web.government.accountability.2.937188.html

[question everything]

19. This is why we need public fundings of all campaigns

With elections coming around every two years - for members of the House - and with campaigns getting more and more expensive, they almost have no choice but to start fund raising as soon as they get elected.

[The Brethren]

41. Agreed.

The rules around campaign funding that we have in place now is suppose to be considered fair and the will of the people to support with their monies what candidate they want.

Except, I don't support politicians playing their funding circus act while they're suppose to be working. Oh that's right, what the public doesn't actually know about won't hurt use. My little, fem butt! LOL



Know what you're paying for. The Stimulus Plan ("American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009"): Orig. House version -- http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/RecoveryBill01-15-09.pdf , House spreadsheet -- http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pV-c6t5fOVmNorqMpHvnCMw ; Senate version -- http://appropriations.senate.gov/News/2009_02_02_The_American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009.pdf ; and Senate compromise -- http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1 , Text and $$$ details of Senate compromise -- http://appropriations.senate.gov/News/2009_02_08_UPDATED_Appropriations_Provisions_of_American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act.pdf?CFID=4043629&CFTOKEN=40573040 . In addition to -- http://readthestimulus.org/amdth1.pdf , along with -- http://www.readthestimulus.org/ . Final version, Feb. 13th, 1500 pgs. worth -- http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/arra_public_review/ , more details on the final version -- http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&type=Project&proj_id=1913&action=Headlines%20By%20TCS , including spending -- http://cbs4denver.com/national/Web.government.accountability.2.937188.html

[S_B_Jackson]

30. Or Texas...

Instead of letting legislators get together every year, they only allow them to gather every OTHER year & even then only for 140 days.

And yes, if there is a denial of quorum effort, the Speaker of the House or the Lt. Gov. (who runs the Senate) has the authority to issue warrants for the DPS to "escort" absent law-makers to appear before whichever body it was that issued the warrant. :-) Makes for great entertainment...

Several years back, several Republicans (termed the "Killer Bs") who were attempting to halt the legislative efforts of then-governor Mark White. A sufficient number of state Senators made themselves scarce - went fishing, hunting, etc - that the Senate didn't have a quorum...and had to be retrieved by the then-Democrat majority before the end of the legislative session.

More recently though, we had the valiant attempt by the first the House & then subsequently the Senate Democrats in 2003 who fled the state - and outside of DPS' jurisdictional authority - to try and de-rail the Bugman's mid-decade redrawing of Congressional district lines. I still can't believe that we haven't managed to rid ourselves of the traitor John Whitmire, who caved and allowed the Perrymandered districts to be given the imprimateur of legitimacy.

[No Elephants]

31. I hope they don't try again to apportion California's electoral votes.

[Thothmes]

42. Virginia is that way also

The legislature rotates between a 45 and 60 day schedule every two years. No mans life or property is safe when the legislature is in session.

[Hawkeye-X]

2. Agreed. And the Republicans should be footing the bill for this whole debacle.

Bill it to the California Rethuglican Party.

And all Rethuglican employees (state) paystubs are frozen, courtesy of Rethuglicans, whilst Democrats and the rest of Californians get their money.

[Hawkeye-X]

3. Also, I propose an consitituional amendment

that says the the minority party (in this case, Rethuglicans) must AGREE to all budget votes and if they don't, they don't get paid for their obstruction - in fact, a visit in the PMITA prison should do nicely for the Rethuglicans.

Hawkeye-X

[Luminous Animal]

4. The amendments are bullshit...

The Republicans are destroying California. This is the Shock Doctrine in action.

[shanti]

18. exactly - and open primaries?

they just want to be able to pull some more shenanigans.

[Bette Noir]

7. California is paying the piper for Prop 13.

We guaranteed ourselves an inadequate tax base decades ago. Rachel Maddow explained it very succinctly on her show tonight.

[CreekDog]

11. Prop. 13 is the culprit, even Warren Buffett said so

It has got to be reformed but it will take a ballot measure to do so.

One of Prop. 13's limits was dealt with before by initiative, and that is to allow passage of school bonds with 55% of the vote rather than the 67% previously required by Prop. 13.

These reforms need to apply to the amount assessed value can increase per year, with protections to the poor and seniors who would get kicked out of their homes because their fixed incomes can't keep up.

These reforms need to allow assessed value to increase to full market value on commercial property.

All these things could be phases in over a decade to make the transition smooth. The other good thing about that is that voters may not feel threatened by something that kicks in fully 10 years after they vote for it, they may be retired in Arizona by then.

In any case, something has got to be done to keep California from remaining ranked near 50th in funding for education.

[slackmaster]

39. Property taxes aren't even paid to the state in California

They never have been.

One of Prop. 13's limits was dealt with before by initiative, and that is to allow passage of school bonds with 55% of the vote rather than the 67% previously required by Prop. 13.

That is true, but most school bonds are at the county or municipal level and have no direct impact on the state budget.

[CreekDog]

40. Boy are you wrong, counties pay the state from the property and other taxes paid to them by us

...and get a small portion back.

also, property taxes don't constitute all school funding in California, some sales tax revenue goes to education, and those taxes are originally collected in the counties.

where Prop. 13 comes in is that it limits increased is assessed property values to 2% per year maximum. thus, when inflation is at 5% (with teachers health benefits increasing at 10% for example), it's going to be very hard for a county in a built out area with little turnover in home ownership to keep school funding up with inflation in the long term.

also because California relies in large part on sales tax to fund education, funding available for schools is highly dependent on economic cycles.

i never said local school bonds have a direct effect on the state budget (however, statewide bond measures do), i said their passage was limited by Prop. 13 and initiative changed the margin needed for passage from 67% to 55%. initiative could change margin needed for passage of state budgets, bonds, and other tax increases to a simple majority of voters or legislators or whatever the initiative says basically.

got it?

[slackmaster]

44. Revenue paid to the state by counties is a small percentage of the state budget

See Figure SUM-02 on page 6 at http://2008-09.archives.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/Revised/BudgetSummary/FullBudgetSummary.pdf

Revenues handed up from the counties to the state are a piece of the $16.5 billion "Other" line of the summary, out of $129 billion in revenue. About half of that is for the Proposition 98 fund, earmarked for schools. The other half of "Other" includes federal money.

...it's going to be very hard for a county in a built out area with little turnover in home ownership to keep school funding up with inflation in the long term.

Yet by some mysterious miracle, statewide spending on education (and just about everything else) has exceeded what would be needed to cover both population increase and inflation. The problem with our budget is not Proposition 13 and has very little to do with a small decrease in property tax revenues. The problem over the long haul is spending.

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/California_state_budget

Beam me up, Scotty!

[CreekDog]

45. from your own link:

:eyes:
* Account for about 41% of the state's operating budget.
* State spending on public education on increased 1% a year for each of the last ten years, adjusting for inflation and enrollment growth.
* Schools received $56.5 billion in state general fund and local property tax revenues in the 2007-08 fiscal year.
* Schools are likely to face a real reduction in state revenues over the next 18 months.<1>


And if you think 1% increases in education funding (after inflation) is a spending problem in an expensive state that already spends far less per pupil than other expensive states, then i don't know what's wrong with you.

You sound a lot like Deukmejian's budget director whom i had the displeasure of meeting in 1987 when he explained to us that our large class sizes were not due to budget cuts (class size increased from around 25 to 35) but due to spending on administration (our school had fewer counselors that year too) and barely any administration.

[slackmaster]

46. I'm a strong supporter of spending for schools - It is and should be the state's #1 priority

Especially K-12. The 1% annual increase in education spending is only a small piece of the overall increase. Schools aren't the issue.

We face a situation now where spending on education will probably be cut, because of the irresponsible manner in which the legislature and Governors have handled the budget over many years.

If they'd saved some of the surplus that we've had during good years, we wouldn't be looking at cutting school funding.

[Left Coast2020]

23. Thank you.

And get rid of the F'ing term limits too. And don't forget the 2/3rd's majority rule. What a crock.

[mike_c]

32. exactly so-- but doing something about it is damned near impossible....

It would require a ballot referendum, and the republicans and corporate lackeys will saturate the airwaves with ads depicting grandmothers living on the streets if such a referendum ever comes to a vote. Anyone hoping to fix the damage Prop 13 has done will be pilloried as Snidely Whiplash on steroids.

Prop 13 was a poison pill coated with just enough sugar to make it impossible to resist.

[slackmaster]

38. If we have an "inadequate" tax base, please explain something to us...

How do you explain the FACT that Californians pay the highest state income taxes, fuel taxes, and sales taxes of any US citizens? Personal income tax is where a large majority of the state's revenue comes from.

http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/ind_inc.html

Vermont has a higher rate as of January 1, but you have to earn over $375,000 to start paying it. California's top rate of 9.3% kicks in at $44,815. That's middle class. The NEW top rate will be something like 10.6%.

(BTW - The only tax that is statutorily limited by Proposition 13 is property tax, and that's not paid to the state.)

I'm really, really tired of the silly argumement that the reason the state of California is in trouble is that working people here and homeowners don't pay enough in taxes. The numbers prove that to be false.

http://www.dof.ca.gov/budget/

Look at the historic budgets. Every year in which the state had a surplus from the preceding year, e.g. 2000-2001, the legislature and Governor treated that as money to spend. They never saved a dime of it.

If you think for a second I'm defending Schwarzenegger here, forget it. Spending increased faster under him than any other recent Governor.

Cue the sound of crickets chirping. Nobody has ever come up with a reasonable argument against what I've said here. Blaming our budget situation on Proposition 13 is bullshit.

And yes, I did vote for it in 1978 because I saw how property taxes were hurting my parents and a lot of other people. I was 20 years old. I'd vote for it again.

[Deep13]

14. How about about he votes for the budget...

...or the D.s and the Governor make sure he can never go back to his home district without being lynched.

[davidinalameda]

17. I have few problems with the proposed amendments

I'll vote for two of them-not the open primary one though

if this is what it takes to get a budge in place, then you gotta make that deal with the devil

we need to go back and get rid of the ridiculous 2/3 requirement

[question everything]

21. Which 2/3 requirement?

I think that no amendment should be approved in less than 2/3 of the votes. The way we do for Federal Amendments. Had this rule been in place, Prop. 8 would have failed.

[davidinalameda]

24. in California

budgets have to pass with a 2/3 vote of the legislature

has nothing to do with amendments

[question everything]

25. Thanks. Was not sure (nt)

[mike_c]

33. agreed....

On all points.

[tomhayes]

20. Screw this clown

And screw California. We deserve everything bad that happens since we ousted Davis.

[SoCalDem]

22. They should do away with referendum/propositions on the ballot

MOST of the shitty "laws" we have, are a result of those things.. BIG BUCKS sugar daddies show up, to push their favorite "wish list" items, and then we all have to live with it..

We hire legislators to legislate...and they should do that job..not farm it out to special interests..

[question everything]

26. Agree. When I lived in California, as a matter of principle I would vote NO

on all ballot measures. This is why there is a legislative body: to debate, compromise and finally pass a law. Ballot measures have to be a simple YES or NO answer and most things in life cannot be framed into yes or no, or black and white (except for the freepers). And many of the measures were based on yesterday's news: three strikes law, term limits, even Prop. 13, not to mention Prop. 8.

If most laws are passed at the ballot box, why have full time legislators and staff?

[Thothmes]

43. When referendum, initiative and recall laws were being written

around the turn of the century, they were considered among the most progressive legislative action around. They allowed the citizen to take action on issues that the legislatures would not. Unfortunately, the systems has been bastardized over the last 30 years or so.

[w4rma]

27. No open primaries. Bad. (nt)

[radfringe]

28. without knowing the details of these amendments

in the short term it looks like Maldonado is trying to knee-cap Dems

in the long run - if it becomes part of CA constitution it will bite the NOPers in the butt

[CreekDog]

35. he wants to win the Republican primary for State Controller

as a "moderate" Republican, he has little chance of doing so if the Republican primary only includes Republican voters.

this is not about his current Senate seat since he is termed out.