Observations on Passage of the California State Budget

Yesterday’s debate on the budget began in the Assembly shortly after 7 p.m. and was finished shortly before 11 p.m., after two caucuses of both parties, where members disappeared from public view and then reappeared perhaps eating a bit of food. The Senate, which began its session at 7:30 p.m. passed the budget and associated bills within about an hour and adjourned, leaving the “drama” such as it was to the lower house.

Bills were amended on the floor, and reams of newly printed paper were showered on the desks of members. At one point, Assemblymember Jackie Goldberg, a conscientious soul who likes to have some idea of what she is voting on, asked the chair “Can you hold something up to show me what it looks like” I have a lot of paper on my desk.” On another occasion Assemblymember Loni Hancock said of the just amended SB 1137, which changes provisions of Proposition 36, the drug treatment law passed by the voters, that she could not read and understand all of its provisions in time to vote on them. She asked a question, citing page 5, line 9 of the measure (not yet available for public viewing) that went unanswered.

This is the largest budget of any state, and is second only to the Federal budget in size and scope. If you want to delve into what the we are spending, you can read AB 1801 and two of the trailer measures, or you can read or peruse the 2006-2007 STATE BUDGET ACT FLOOR REPORT.

Here are a few of the stories from last night.

The “fab four” (The Democratic leaders of the Assembly and Senate and their counterparts the minority Republican leaders) actually reached an agreement on the budget a week ago. What delayed passage of the budget was “trying to reconcile our differences with the Governor” according to the Speaker of the Assembly, Fabian Nunez. This was revealed at a press conference by Speaker Nunez and Assembly Republican leader George Plescia shortly after the legislature had adjourned. Nunez was waxing eloquent about how the Democratic and Republican leaders had developed a sense of trust and we’re able to work together. He cited as evidence that “Most of this was cooked a week ago. Yet nothing got out to the press.” This led to the follow up question of what then did hang up the budget.

The children’s health care issue that led to the brouhaha about immigrant children getting some of the medical treatment then in the budget, and was the subject of intense speculation in the press, had in fact been taken out a week ago by the Democrats because of Republican insistence, and was not part of the hang up.

This is being touted as an “on time” budget, a rare occurrence in California, because it was passed in time for the Governor to make his changes and sign it before the beginning of the new fiscal year on July 1. Many reporters and today’s headlines have framed it that way—but the state constitutional deadline is actually June 15. There is no penalty attached to that date, and the last time the constitutional timing was met was in 1986. this is the first state budget passed before the fiscal year began since 2000.

Republicans tried to spring an amendment on the floor to SB 1138, one of the trailer bills, to include a “sales tax holiday” on disaster items purchased for a ten day period later in the year they dubbed “the disaster season.” This amendment, which was “laid on the table” and squelched by the Democrats, had not appeared in print, and might be interesting to read when it can be obtained.

The health trailer bill, AB 1807, passed only after an ugly debate, in which Assemblymember Mountjoy, who is running against Diane Feinstein for the US Senate, engaged in a lengthy diatribe about abortion, the sale of baby parts, and genocide. Assembly Democratic Floor Leader Dario Frommer, held up a copy of the bill and stated that none of these items at all were in the trailer bill. Republican Assemblymember LaSuer, complained about the groans from the Democrats when Mountjoy was speaking, and said that the Democrats “Just don’t care.” He was joined in by Republicans LaMalfa and Runner, who also bemoaned the lack of parental notification for minor’s abortions in the bill, as was in defeated Prop 73 from last year’s special election, which was described by LaMalfa as the “leading vote getter” of all the measures on the ballot.

Multiple votes were necessary for the budget to pass and measures needed to be put “on call” as it took hours, caucus meetings, and arm twisting, to get the votes of Republicans in the Assembly, even though their leadership had agreed to the compromises that went into what was eventually passed. What does it mean when there is an agreement by the legislative leadership if Republicans can’t deliver their votes? What, if anything, was necessary to eventually secure their votes?

What else is in the budget and the trailer bills that we will discover in the next few days? Stay tuned. If you have any tips, send them here.