Getting detailed information about the California budget has long been a headache. The state Department of Finance provides online access to decades of information, but the portal is clumsy and difficult to use. There are no easy ways to chart how spending has ebbed and flowed in specific areas or to quickly spot the biggest changes from year to year.

This is why in 2016, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) ranked California as the worst state in the nation when it came to providing “online access to government spending data.”

That wasn’t the first blast coming the Golden State’s way. In 2015, the Center for Public Integrity gave California an F minus – a 25 on a scale of 1 to 100
– on the question of whether “the budget and budget-related information is accessible to the public in an open-data format.”

Assemblyman Vince Fong, R-Bakersfield, wants that to change. He’s introduced what he calls the Budget Transparency Act of 2019. Assembly Bill 62 would promote state budget transparency by establishing an online website that would be “interactive, searchable, regularly updated, and include specified features, including information on each state expenditure.”

The Legislative Counsel’s Digest describing the bill notes that state law already requires anyone with internet access to be able to gather information on the budget. But Fong’s measure would broaden the budget categories to cover all but data “deemed confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under state or federal law.” Presently, state law limits access on some fiscal information, though not on basics like the general fund budget.

Best states used as template for Fong’s bill

The five states that U.S. PIRG rates highest for access to state financial data
– Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Oregon and Connecticut – each offer a readily searchable budget database of the type Fong’s bill details. Ohio’s online budget tool in particular has been cited for its ease of use and comprehensiveness.

U.S. PIRG dismisses the argument that such databases are expensive. Its California chapter (CalPIRG) has estimated it would cost $21,000 to set up with subsequent annual costs of about $40,000 per year.

The chapter has been after the state to do better on fiscal transparency for many years. In a 2009 report, CalPIRG blasted California for providing so little information online about more than $4 billion in corporate tax breaks and subsidies it gave out each year, including about $500 million in breaks for operating in economically distressed areas. It also said the state should provide online tools that would allow users to evaluate whether the breaks had actually helped the economies of distressed areas.

No hearing date has been set yet for Fong’s bill.

Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes, R-Yucca Valley, survived

Nevertheless, anger over Mayes’ decision to work with Gov. Jerry Brown last month and lobby fellow Republicans to help secure an extension of the cap-and-trade program established by AB32 – the state’s landmark 2006 anti-climate change law – remains intense among some lawmakers and many conservative activists. Another challenge to Mayes’ leadership is expected at an Aug. 29 caucus at which an election will be held to determine who leads the Assembly GOP.

Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, perhaps Mayes’ most critical colleague over his decision to help Brown round up seven Republican votes for AB398, is running. Assemblyman Jay Obernolte, R-Big Bear Lake, is considered likely to run as well. There’s also been speculation about Assemblyman Vince Fong, R-Bakersfield.

Mayes’ decision to vote for the cap-and-trade renewal, and to work to bring several GOP lawmakers with him, came after weeks of negotiations with the governor. He believed he had won a major concession from Brown and Democratic legislative leaders that could eventually throttle the state’s costly, problem-plagued bullet-train project. Here’s a description from CalWatchdog coverage last month:

The concession ….  places a constitutional amendment drafted by Mayes before state voters in June 2018. If passed, it would lead to a one-time up-and-down vote in the Legislature in 2024 on whether to continue allowing the use of cap-and-trade revenue to fund the project. But the threshold wouldn’t be a simple majority. A two-thirds vote would be required to allow continued use of the funds – presumably giving GOP lawmakers a prime chance to pull the plug.

But the complexity of the concession and its distant possible payoff didn’t enthrall many Republican lawmakers, whose opposition to AB32 is a core element of their political platform. There was also fury that Mayes rounded up so many Republicans that Democrats didn’t have to pressure two of their Assembly members in swing districts to vote for a cap-and-trade extension that is unpopular with their constituents. AB398 passed 55-25, with one vote more than necessary to meet the two-thirds threshold for adoption.

Meanwhile, an argument that Mayes has increasingly made in recent weeks – that AB398 provided state GOPers with a chance to rebrand themselves and broaden their appeal – has faced ridicule from those who say the party’s core values are opposition to higher taxes and overregulation.

State GOP board issues harsh rebuke

Mayes’ rough month continued last Friday, when the board of the state Republican Party voted to urge Mayes to step down. The vote was 13-7, with one abstention. State GOP chair Jim Brulte was among the yes votes.

More than 20 local Republican organizations have also issued formal denunciations of Mayes.

Mayes, 40, has worked as a financial planner. He entered politics on the Yucca Valley Town Council and also worked as a top aide to a San Bernardino County supervisor. He was first elected to the Assembly in 2014.

Gov. Jerry Brown and Democratic legislators are pitching a transportation-tax proposal they depict as the only means to fix California’s crumbling roads, freeways and bridges. One would be hard pressed to find any policy maker in California who doesn’t bemoan the state of the state’s infrastructure, but the question always revolves around how to pay for it, and Republicans complain there are other ways to fix the current mess.

The Democratic plan, which received its first committee approval on a party-line vote Monday, would raise $52.4 billion over 10 years through a variety of tax proposals. It would hike gasoline taxes by 12 cents a gallon and diesel taxes by 20 cents a gallon, plus it would increase the vehicle-license fee from $25 to $175 a year, depending on the value of the vehicle. The average fee boost would be $48 a year. Furthermore, the plan would impose a $100 a year fee on electric vehicles because their drivers don’t pay gas taxes.

“This is mostly about fixing what we already have,” the governor said at a Capitol press conference last week. “If for some reason people try to fight this, and God help us if they were successful, they won’t defeat this, they’ll just delay it and make the expenses go up.” But Republicans focused on the economic impact of the plan on middle-class Californians. They also complain that the state’s cap-and-trade system, designed to battle climate change, will soon drive fuel prices up even further.

“For many households, the total tax hike will easily surpass $300 each year,” said Sens. Pat Bates, R-Laguna Niguel, and Jim Nielsen, R-Tehama, in a statement on Monday. “When combined with the 20 cent diesel excise tax hike and the 4 percent increase on the sales tax on diesel, it is clear that this tax proposal will negatively impact the California economy.”

The crux of the GOP argument: California doesn’t spend its current gas-tax revenue effectively, and it should reform its spending habits before calling on Californians to pay more at the pump – and when they register their cars and trucks. In fact, Republican legislators have proposed a bill that would raise the money without raising taxes. Assembly Bill 496, by Assemblyman Vince Fong, R-Bakersfield, would re-prioritize billions of dollars in general-fund spending toward transportation projects without requiring any type of tax increase.

For instance, the bill would divert $3 billion in sales tax revenue that comes from the sale of vehicles toward infrastructure-maintenance projects, and would move funds collected from truck-weight fees toward transportation-bond payments. The measure has the support of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which recently expressed “frustration” the governor and Legislature have proposed tax increases without first considering other solutions.

The group noted that polls show strong support for returning the $68 billion high-speed rail project to a vote, which would allow some of these funds to be used for bread-and-butter infrastructure projects. “AB496 answers a question that too few in the legislature even bother to ask: how should legislators prioritize a record $120 billion general fund budget? California has seen a $36 billion general fund increase over the last six years, with not one dime of this new revenue spent on transportation projects,” wrote the group’s legislative director, David Wolfe, in a March 27 letter of support to Assemblyman Fong.

The tax-hike proposal doesn’t need to go to the voters for approval, but does need a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of the Legislature because it involves a tax increase. Democrats have supermajorities in both houses, but the governor still needs to woo some moderate Democrats who might be on the fence about such a large increase.

Gov. Brown compared the matter to a leaky roof. There’s no doubt that problems will keep expanding if a homeowner neglects such a problem – and the state’s infrastructure backlog is estimated at $130 billion.

A group of business officials and labor unions applauded the effort: “We are fully committed to supporting the road repair plan and intend to get it and the companion constitutional protection through the Legislature by April 6,” said Michael Quigley, of the California Alliance for Jobs, in a statement. “We need new revenue coupled with accountability provisions to begin to make a dent in the multi-billion dollar backlog of needed repairs to state highways and local roads.”

But critics point to a 2014 analysis of the California Department of Transportation to bolster their view that the state misspends so much of its current transportation revenue. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office “recommends that the Legislature reduce the budget and staffing levels of the program starting with the 2014-15 budget, improve its staffing projects and data quality, and provide the California Transportation Commission with specific oversight and project approval functions that have limited external oversight.”

The analyst pointed to overstaffing by about 3,500 full-time jobs at Caltrans, which amounts to an unnecessary cost of around $500 million a year. Critics also complain about the above-mentioned rail project and the state’s inordinately high administrative costs on transportation projects. These, they say, are examples of misspending. Why should the state’s taxpayers spend more money when there’s little effort to reform current spending?

Wolfe’s letter points to another Republican complaint: The state’s general-fund budget continues to grow each year and has soared to record levels. Yet new transportation projects are, essentially, held hostage to the budget process. Democratic leaders spend money on other priorities, then complain there’s not enough money to deal with the transportation backlog – unless, of course, they are able to raise gas, diesel and registration fees.

Indeed, the governor last year called a transportation special session to come up with new infrastructure revenues, but he has thus far been unable to secure the additional dollars. The tax-hike plan is more likely than ever given increased Democratic numbers in the Capitol. The debate is the same as usual – new taxes vs. reforming how the state spends its current dollars – but the outcome may be different this time around.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. He is based in Sacramento. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

In a joint statement, Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, and Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, announced the agreement with Holder’s firm, Covington and Burling, to deal with “potential” challenges from the Trump administration. 

“The Legislature will work with the governor and our next attorney general to protect California’s economy and our sensible policies on climate change, health care, civil rights and immigration,” according to the joint statement, adding that Holder will lead a team of Covington and Burling lawyers to advise the Legislature in its “efforts to resist any attempts to roll back the progress California has made.”

The statement was short on specifics, like the terms of the agreement (including costs), the timing (prior to the swearing ins of both Trump and the presumptive CA attorney general, Xavier Becerra, who, if confirmed by the Legislature, will represent the state) and why the two leaders made the decision between themselves. Spokesmen for both leaders would not comment on these questions.

“It is all about branding and symbolism,” said John J. Pitney, Jr., a Roy P. Crocker professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College. “If Trump does take action on immigration, for instance, there are many qualified lawyers who specialize in that field. No disrespect to Holder, but U.S. attorneys general spend their time managing a bureaucracy, not arguing cases in court.”  

Republicans respond

Responses from Republicans in the Legislature trickled out throughout the day, with many arguing there are already plenty of problems facing the state that have nothing to do with Trump.

“This is a distraction from the very real problems facing everyday Californians,” said Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes, R-Yucca Valley. “Donald Trump did not cause California’s transportation crisis, nor did he play a role in our state’s sky-high housing costs.”

Newly-elected Assemblyman Vince Fong questioned the need for more counsel, calling the move “political.”

“The Democrat leadership’s hiring of Eric Holder to be a consultant dedicated to obstructing the Trump presidency is a waste of taxpayer dollars,” the Kern County Republican said in a statement. “The Legislature already has immediate access to legal counsel within the Legislature and in the Attorney General’s office.”

More details

The Sacramento Bee reported the contract with Covington and Burling will be initially for three months and the $25,000-per-month legal fee will be split between the Assembly and Senate, while the Los Angeles Times, citing legislative aides, reported the funds will “come out of both chambers’ operating budgets and would not require additional state funds.”

Holder served as U.S. attorney general from 2009 to 2015, under President Barack Obama. He served as a U.S. deputy attorney general under former President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001.

Holder was the first sitting member of a presidential cabinet to be held in contempt of Congress, in relation to the investigation into a botched federal law enforcement program, Operation Fast and Furious, where federal agents lost about 1,400 firearms, two of which were eventually found at the murder scene of a U.S. border agent. 

With a little luck at the ballot box, Republicans in the Legislature are set to expand on their increasingly diverse delegation, a far cry from the “Party of Old White Men” it’s been thought of by some for years.

And while Republicans have the primary goal of holding the relatively few seats in the Legislature they already have, increased diversity would show a modernizing party that could expand is electoral appeal. 

“Our party does not engage in the identity politics of the left, but we have placed an emphasis on recruiting and supporting the best candidates for every district,” said CAGOP Vice Chairwoman Harmeet Dhillon. “In our culturally rich state, that candidate is often someone with a minority background.”

Diverse candidates

In a district that includes much of Bakersfield, termed-out Republican Shannon Grove appears set to be replaced by Vince Fong, of Chinese descent. Fong won the primary with 60.8 percent of the vote in the largely Republican district.

Dante Acosta is poised to replace termed-out Republican Scott Wilk in a Republican-leaning district that includes Simi Valley and much of north Los Angeles County.

Acosta, of Mexican descent, came in second in the primary behind Democrat Christy Smith, who won 44.8 percent to 35.9 percent. However, Acosta split a majority of votes among two other Republican candidates.

In a largely Republican Orange County district, termed-out Don Wagner may be replaced by Harry Sidhu, who came to the United States in 1974 from India. Sidhu split a 67 percent majority of the vote among six Republicans and came in second behind the lone Democrat.

Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang, who was born in Taiwan, is running to replace Bob Huff, the only termed-out Senate Republican, in a competitive district that straddles Orange and Los Angeles counties. Chang faces longer odds than the others, as she advanced to the general with two Democratic candidates splitting a 55 percent majority of the vote.

If Chang does win, she’d increase diversity in the Senate Republican caucus. And filling her seat in the Assembly could be Philip Chen, of Chinese descent. Chen, like Acosta and Sidhu, was the second-place finisher in the primary behind a Democrat, splitting the vote with four Republicans in the Republican-leaning district.

“As an immigrant myself, I am proud to see more and more Republican candidates that other Californians with diverse backgrounds can identify with when they visit the polls,” said Dhillon, who was born in India. “This trend increases voter turnout and enthusiasm.”

Does it even matter?

California is a huge state, filled with diverse pockets. It’s often said that as the demographics of the state changed, the Republican Party failed to keep up.

Since becoming CAGOP chairman in 2013, Jim Brulte (along with Dhillon and other party leaders) has tried to change that trend in candidate recruitment. As he said in 2015: “In a neighborhood election, the candidate who most looks like, sounds like, has the shared values and shared experiences of the majority of the people in the neighborhood tends to win.”

In 2014, California Republicans sent a relatively large delegation of women to the Legislature, with a large Asian bloc that included Chang. In 2016, they’ll aim to expand on that with Acosta, Chen, Sidhu, Fong and Chang. 

“Under the leadership of Jim Brulte, California Republicans have done yeoman work in recruiting candidates who look like their constituents,” said John J. Pitney, Jr., a Roy P. Crocker professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College. “It’s a smart move: monochrome does not fit California, and in the long run, this strategy could help the party rebuild its strength.”

But, Pitney cautioned, the effect Trump — the presumptive nominee who has a tendency to say things sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly viewed as racist — will have at the top of the GOP ticket is unclear.

“The problem is that people tend to see political parties through the prism of presidential candidates,” Pitney said. “Trump could ruin much of California GOP’s progress.”