Bloviating rather than budgeting

SEPT. 1, 2010

By KATY GRIMES

Speeches, speeches and more speeches, took precedence over cries for “jobs, jobs, jobs,” at the Capitol Tuesday. Posturing, arguing, grandstanding, partisanship and passion were on tap in the Assembly and Senate as legislators debated budget bills, leading many to comment that the impassioned speeches should have taken place months ago.

Dramatic fundamental differences were evident during the debate over budget proposals, with the philosophical debate between continuing government expansion, and the need to cut government spending and taxes.

What also became evident between the parties was a differing opinion over the definition of middle class jobs. Democrats named public employees and police, fire fighters and teachers, as the holders of middle class jobs, and Republicans referenced private sector jobs, and specifically, the loss of manufacturing jobs in the state.

Senate Leader Dennis Hollingsworth, R-Murrieta, opened the Senate debate, and said that the Republican budget proposal was “reflective of the reality in today’s economy.” Hollingsworth explained that after $12.5 billion in tax increases last year, the Republican budget was designed to force the state to live within its means, now reduced to $84 billion. “What family isn’t making due with less?” asked Hollingsworth. “Yes, it’s a tough budget. Yes, it’s tough spending less, but it’s all we have.”

Hollingsworth said that the state was still going to be spending $48.5 billion on education, and needed to cut $3.5 billion out of Cal WORKS, and state paid child care.

Critical of the inaction by legislators on the budget, Hollingsworth said that if legislators had taken up the budget last February, the state would be $3 billion less in debt.  “The Republican budget brings spending in line with reality.”

Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, classified the budget debates as long overdue and about choices. “Governing is about choices,” Steinberg said.

Steinberg gave acclaim to former Gov. Pat Brown, for the “great building” done in the state during his two terms as governor. “Our university system, and the Kindergarten through 12th grade system was once the pride of the country — our state highway system, water infrastructure …  we have been investing in California,” said Steinberg.

Steinberg said the choice was tax credits to corporations or to cut $2.1 billion from public K-12 education. “Do we engage in intelligent tax reform, of which the governor’s proposal contains nothing?”

Critical of the Cal WORKS and child care cuts, Steinberg said the debate was to differentiate the myth from the facts, and do it in detail.

And so it continued for hours — Republicans on a cut-government-and-taxes side of the argument, with Democrats appearing to promise to keep government static and save government jobs.

According to newly elected Sen. Sam Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo, “Republicans are talking of trying to grow manufacturing jobs, which have been disappearing from the state, leaving California with $5 billion less in revenue every year.”

“Choosing to raise taxes is the choice Republicans are facing,” said Sen. Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar. “Families are reducing their costs, but the pro tem said we need to invest to make California great — that means a tax increase. The Democrat budget has that. Ours lives within our means,” said Huff.

“Why are we struggling to make these tax increases – or continue to drive business elsewhere through regulations?” asked Huff. “Pat Brown built infrastructure but didn’t have CEQA (California Environmental and Quality Act), and other regulations to deal with. When they wanted to build a highway system or aqueduct, they just built it,” Huff said.

“We have incentivized businesses to go to Texas, or other states,” said Huff.

Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley, directed comments to the Democrats, and said, “Your version of tax reform, on top of a $12 billion tax increase, is the largest of its kind. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said it is a tax increase for families making $20,000 to $200,000.”

“Average vehicle license fees will increase per family, and the oil severance tax is already the nations highest gas tax at the pump – at .64 cents a gallon, is that really the tax reform we need?” Aanestad asked.

“The point is yes we need tax reform, but to say ‘our budget is tax reform’ (referring to the Democrats,) , we don’t need or want the kind of tax reform you are proposing. The Republican budget is real reform – it does live within our means without a tax increase,” said Aanestad.

“Somebody’s got to show me money for God’s sake,” said San Bernardino Republican Sen. Bob Dutton.” Your budget’s going to require almost another $5 billion in additional tax increases. … Does anybody really think that you’re going to restore the economy by increasing taxes?”

Democrats all argued on behalf of Steinberg’s message. Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, asked, “Who is Grover Norquist and why is he having his way with California?” referring the President of Americans For Taxpayer Reform. Leno criticized Republican reforms as “dismantling all that made us great.”

Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord said, “The myth is to blame the workforce for some of the problem. Public employees are exemplars of achievement, as well as people who don’t do such a great job.” DeSaulnier said that during the last two years, legislators have eliminated 10,000 employees from the state payroll.

Sen. Ron Calderon, D-Montbello, said, “My Republican colleagues talk about job killer this and job killer that. But a study done by U.C. Berkeley said the governor’s budget would lose 330,000 jobs – many of those private sector jobs,” said Calderon. “The Democrat budget is intelligent – you better believe so. It would do far less harm, sparing 250,000 jobs and 18 billion in lost economic input. Cutting is not the answer.”

In the Assembly, Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, asked for support for the democrat “California jobs budget,” and said, “Our plan saves jobs.”

But the speaker’s tone noticeably changed as he directed comments to Assembly Republicans. “We’ve listened to your concerns. We’re not imposing broad based taxes – we know you’ll only reject them.”

“No Republican can say with any honesty that we haven’t met you halfway. You can’t continue to insist ‘no’ on the budget. This reflects our values and your principles,” said the Los Angeles Democrat. “Cooperation starts today.”

62 days late on a budget, both houses of the Legislature failed to pass either budget bill  during today’s “drill.”

4 comments

Write a comment
  1. DavidfromLosGatos
    DavidfromLosGatos 2 September, 2010, 10:58

    No jobs have to be lost by cutting the budget. All public employees can collectively take the same percentage haircut. I make 40-50% less (as self employed person) in the present economy than I did three years ago. I don’t like it, but there is nothing I can do about it.

    Public employees want to be immune to the economy. Rather than all take a haircut while providing to the public the same amount of service, they force layoffs of the junior (least paid) firemen, thereby reducing service and protecting the pensions of the senior guys. Pensions matter to the unions much more than public service (what’s that?) or the jobs of their junior colleagues. Or this furlough nonsense where, rather than take pay cut, they take unpaid days off, thereby insisting that somehow their actual labor deserves an unsustainable value.

    Watch Greece and see our future.

    Reply this comment
  2. A State Employee
    A State Employee 3 September, 2010, 05:36

    The private sector employee who is complaining about taking a pay cut also profited when times where good. Those with such volatility are often the ones who attain very high profits not seen in the public sector. State employees do not. That is part of the deal. No complaints on my end. Choosing a career is like choosing an investment option-some opt for volatility in exchange for a chance of making it big. Others, like myself, chose stability.

    The Little Hoover Commission published a report stating my classification of employee was far underpaid as evidenced by vacancies and high turnover. This was before the furloughs. Address this matter and we might be headed in the right direction.

    Currently, wages are often determined by union might and political clout, not experience, education and qualifications. This needs to be addressed. The current system forces unions to play “let’s make a deal” with the legislature, perpetuating government as usual. The unions and legislature must not mingle. The current budget fiasco is an example of a cascade of mistakes on the part of the Governor, legislature and unions. We all share the blame, myself included.

    We should be able to do this drill like a well-oiled machine. We owe it to the public we serve. What is needed is a basic Government Quality Assurance Program (don’t laugh, I’m serious), complete with the implementation of corrective actions. Our government is making the same mistakes it has now made year after year. Totally unacceptable.

    I never complained about the furloughs, but I am complaining about how this government operates in every other way. No hiring freeze until this week? This should have been the first option two years ago. Yes, such will result in compromising services-we must suck it up. We all must make do with less. We all are.

    On a more positive note, we’ll get through this and we’ll be better as a result of it. This is still America after all.

    Reply this comment
  3. Tylerle13
    Tylerle13 3 September, 2010, 10:35

    HAHAHA

    “The unions and legislature must not mingle.”

    So you are basically calling for 95% of the political contributions to democratic candidates to be cut off?

    Keeping the unions out of politics would be wonderful, because if they were not allowed to spend billions on buying politicians, they would have no need to steal “Supplemetal Dues” from their members. Most union members have no idea how much of their money is skimmed off the top of their checks by the unions and sent directly to campaign funds, most of which benefit candidates that the unions members would never dream of supporting if given the choice to choose where their money went. These unions have just turned into a laundering service for campaign contributions for corrupt politicians.

    Reply this comment
  4. Milan Moravec
    Milan Moravec 20 September, 2010, 10:39

    The myth that the workfoce carries about employee loyalty keeps employees from being employable. Read on! Businesses are into a phase of creative disassembly where reinvention and adjustments are constant. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are being shed by Lockheed Martin, Chevron, Sam’s Club, Wells Fargo Bank, HP, Starbucks etc. and the state, counties and cities. Even solid world class institutions like the University of California Berkeley under the leadership of Chancellor Birgeneau & Provost Breslauer are firing employees, staff, faculty and part-time lecturers through “Operational Excellence (OE) initiative”: last year 600 were fired, this year 300. Yet many employees, professionals and faculty cling to old assumptions about one of the most critical relationship of all: the implied, unwritten contract between employer and employee.
    Until recently, loyalty was the cornerstone of that relationship. Employers promised work security and a steady progress up the hierarchy in return for employees fitting in, accepting lower wages, performing in prescribed ways and sticking around. Longevity was a sign of employer-employee relations; turnover was a sign of dysfunction. None of these assumptions apply today. Organizations can no longer guarantee work and careers, even if they want to. Senior managements paralyzed themselves with an attachment to “success brings success’ rather than “success brings failure’ and are now forced to break the implied contract with their employees – a contract nurtured by management that the future can be controlled.
    Jettisoned employees are finding that their hard won knowledge, skills and capabilities earned while being loyal are no longer valuable in the employment market place.
    What kind of a contract can employers and employees make with each other?
    The central idea is both simple and powerful: the job or position is a shared situation. Employers and employees face market and financial conditions together, and the longevity of the partnership depends on how well the for-profit or not-for-profit continues to meet the needs of customers and constituencies. Neither employer nor employee has a future obligation to the other. Organizations train people. Employees develop the kind of security they really need – skills, knowledge and capabilities that enhance future employability. The partnership can be dissolved without either party considering the other a traitor.
    Let there be light!

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*


Related Articles

Life imitates sci-fi: Why CA pension crisis is sure to get far worse

The debate in California over public employee pensions has grown familiar in recent times. Those who demand reform finally appear

Back Scratching At Stem Cell Agency

DEC. 5, 2010 By KATY GRIMES If anyone needed proof that the state’s $3-billion stem cell research agency is highly

Pro Tem Cup: CA Senate Dems cancel event, keep cash

In light of recent criminal cases involving three of their members, Senate Democrats have canceled a large annual fundraising event