John Chiang Blazes Future of CA Politics

JUNE 27, 2011


As they said in old-school physics, nature abhors a vacuum. Passed last November, Proposition 25 marginalized California Republicans by dropping from two-thirds to a majority the threshold for passing a state budget. That left the Democratic majority in the Legislature unfettered in its spending mendacity.

Into the void stepped Controller John Chiang, a fellow Democrat, to run the numbers and say the budget was unbalanced — that it was no real budget. Therefore, as the guy who writes the checks for the state, he was docking the legislators’ pay.

The pay docking also was part of Prop. 25. Except that the initiative didn’t indicate exactly how the pay was supposed to be withheld. As with almost all initiatives in this state, it was badly written, with the details left to be sorted out by the courts — another full employment program for lawyers.

Excuse the legalese, but here’s the exact wording of Prop. 25 on the pay matter:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of this Constitution, including subdivision (c) of this section, Section 4 of this article, and Sections 4 and 8 of Article III, in any year in which the budget bill is not passed by the Legislature by midnight on June 15, there shall be no appropriation from the current budget or future budget to pay any salary or reimbursement for travel or living expenses for Members of the Legislature during any regular or special session for the period from midnight on June 15 until the day that the budget bill is presented to the Governor. No salary or reimbursement for travel or living expenses forfeited pursuant to this subdivision shall be paid retroactively.

It’s like some lawyers put a dictionary into a blender, then randomly assembled the shards of words.

Abuse of Authority?

Legislators are complaining that Chiang is abusing his authority by withholding the checks. And back in May, two Los Angeles Times reporters wrote:

Fine print in the initiative, drafted by a labor coalition whose main interest was that it also gave Sacramento’s Democratic majority more control over state spending, may have contained an escape hatch.

The law stipulates that merely passing a budget bill — it says nothing about whether the budget is balanced, as California’s Constitution also requires — is enough to keep state pay rolling into lawmakers’ bank accounts. The Legislature passed a budget bill in March that closed about half of the deficit.

“The language … said the budget bill must be passed,” said Greg Schmidt, the Senate’s chief administrative officer. “Technically, the budget bill was passed on March 17.”

Schmidt said legislative attorneys have told him that what lawmakers must do to get paid “has already been done.” A written legal opinion has yet to be drafted, Schmidt said, but officials say such a document is typically a formality.

But if the controller, who writes the checks, isn’t in charge of docking the pay, then who is?

The whole point of the measure, as sold to the voters — including by the Democratic majority that still runs the Legislature — was that a late budget would mean a swift kick in the paychecks of delinquent lawmakers.


I don’t know how much Chiang knows about history. But he seems to be following the admonition of Danton during the French Revolution: “Audacity, more audacity, always audacity!”

Gov. Jerry Brown acted in a similar manner when he vetoed the budget. But his veto would have turned the unbalanced budget into the usual months-long budget grind without Chiang’s bold move. And Brown, at 73, is the past; whereas Chiang, at 48, could be the future. His move obviously is tinged with a potential gubernatorial bid, perhaps as early as 2014.

Chiang’s split with the Democrats also portends something I predicted in March: a split within the Democratic party between the spendthrift wing and the responsible wing. I wrote:

What will happen is that Democrats, as they did in the Sold South of half a century ago, will split into Right and Left….

We’ll still effectively have a two-party system. But it will be Democratic Party A and Democratic Party B. Republicans will become a de-facto third party, winning only in a few areas, such as Orange County.

That’s now happening. Because the reality is that the state is out of money. Raising taxes won’t work; it would only drive even more producers and taxpayers from the state.

With Republicans marginalized, the door was open for a Democrat to step forward and assert adult supervision. John Chiang just stepped through that door.

John Seiler is’s managing editor. His email: [email protected]








Write a comment
  1. Bev Miller
    Bev Miller 27 June, 2011, 12:53

    I’m very proud of State Controller Chiang. I called him and thanked him for staying firm. You can too!! (Sac office: (916) 445-2636 Office; (916) 322-4404 FAX; or LA office:(213) 833-6010 Office; (213) 833-6011 FAX)

    Reply this comment
  2. Rogue Elephant
    Rogue Elephant 27 June, 2011, 15:05

    Here’s some audacity, for you. Here’s an idea to help solve the budget and pension crises – a Windfall Pensions Tax! It would work like this:

    For every $10K in state/local pensions received (cumulative for those collecting multiple pensions) over the state’s median houshold income (two-person household), that income would be taxed at an extra 2%.

    The median household income (two-person) is around $39K. So, a pensioner receiving a $60K pension would be taxed an additional 4% (2 * .02), or $2400. A pensioner receiving a $100K pension would be taxed an extra 6% ($6000). A pensioner receiving $200K would be taxed an extra 32% ($64K), while those reeceving $400K would be taxed an extra 72% (leaving them with $112K, almost 3x the median income). Those being paid $500K (and, yes, there are some) would be taxed at 92%, leaving them w/ $40K – just around the median income. (Okay, maybe we could cap it at, say, 50%.)

    This tax would punish the greedy, who are trampling on California’s working people. It would also eliminate the need for pension reform. (After all, pension reform can do nothing about past pension commitments, only prospective pension commitments.) If you can’t beat ’em, tax ’em!

    C’mon, GOP! Here’s a tax you can support!

    Reply this comment
  3. Adelita por libertad
    Adelita por libertad 28 June, 2011, 03:31

    Rogue Elephant, what a great idea!!! That should be an initiative! I’ll help gather signatures, even if SB 448, which has passed in the State Senate already, passes in the Assembly and we have to wear big dorky signs around our necks while we gather the signatures. We can always wear another sign too, that tells why we defy being shamed into silence and serfdom.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Dubious suit for more ed cash

JULY 19, 2010 By JOHN SEILER On July 12, a coalition of school activist groups sued the state of California,

Post-pension reform law, let the public employee gaming begin

Dec. 5, 2012 By Chris Reed This Orange County Register story about top executives at the giant Metropolitan Water District

The Tobacco Settlement Bait-And-Switch

Dec. 08, 2012 By Joseph Perkins “California’s lawsuit against the tobacco industry has reached a successful conclusion that provides a