Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Our latest headlines

Arnold's Freedom to Choose: Subprime Lending Regulation and the Bubble in California
California and the Nation’s Financial Mess: It’s About Transparency
Conservatives Should Be Appalled by the Iraq War and the Administration’s Other Self-Destructive Policies on Terror
Regarding California’s Deadliest Train Collision: What Was Learned and Done Thus Far and What May Lay Ahead
Three Overlapping Seats Winnable in Central California Blue Wave: Congress, State Senate, and Assembly
Taking a Close Look at Prop 4, Californians Will Vote No—As They Have Two Times When Similar Measures Were on the Ballot
Stuck in Traffic? Think a Moment on How Important High Speed Rail is to California

About Us

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Books

Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez on the California State Budget

By Fabian Nunez
Speaker of the California Assembly

Last night through good-faith bipartisan negotiation, the Assembly passed a budget that while far from perfect, is perfectly responsible given the realities of the situation.

Crafting a state budget in California is a difficult endeavor in large part because the 2/3 vote requirement in the constitution makes it difficult for anyone, even the majority party, to achieve everything they would like. Add to that the fact that the legislature is controlled by Democrats and the governor is a Republican quite unlike many of the Republicans in the legislature, and you have a recipe for stalemate.

We threw out that recipe.

The balanced budget passed by the Assembly contains no new taxes, creates no new programs, pays down debt and has the largest reserve in history – all while doing our duty toward schools, the elderly, blind and disabled and other vulnerable Californians like foster kids and the mentally ill. We’re being responsible fiscally and morally.

The budget conference committee chaired by Assemblymember John Laird, one of the most conscientious members of the legislature, drastically improved on the Governor’s May budget proposal by rejecting the most draconian cuts and shoring up the state’s underlying fiscal condition.

The budget passed by the Assembly improves on the conference committee’s work by

Strengthening the reserve to pay for emergencies like forest fires and earthquakes and by narrowing further the structural deficit that overshadows the states financial picture.

People on the extremes probably aren’t going to like this budget. But Democrats can support it because it fully funds K-12 and higher education – including restoring academic preparation programs that help more kids succeed in college and contribute to our economy. Republicans can support it because it has a $1.3 billion higher reserve, an $857 million lower structural deficit and a $1.4 billion lower out year gap than even the Republican governor proposed.

As the author of AB 32 the state’s landmark global warming bill, I’m pleased this budget includes funding to implement AB 32, which will not only protect our environment but will spur clean technologies that will generate significant growth for our economy.

Spurring our economy is what motivated my Republican colleagues to promote– separate and apart from the budget bill – legislation to provide limited, targeted tax credits to industries that are among our best potential job and revenue creators, including motion pictures and high tech.

I’m not a huge fan of tax credits, but I do recognize the argument these credits can prime the pump for economic benefit to the state. And the money spent on them – which the Republicans would never have pumped back into the social programs Democrats would prefer – seems more acceptable than just paying back Wall Street investors even earlier, and would certainly have a more positive impact on the state than accepting across the board cuts as Senate Republicans proposed.

Clearly everyone would have liked an earlier budget, but not if it meant sacrificing the principles that brought us here.

Clearly everyone would have liked the best budget for their side, but no one can achieve that and get the 54 votes the constitution requires.

In the scheme of things, though, 18 days late isn’t a lot when those 18 days made sure we were able to protect schools, restore some of the governor’s most damaging cuts and help improve the state’s fiscal condition.

While there have been policy differences the civil way in which the budget process has gone in the Assembly is a positive sign for health care reform and the other key issues awaiting action at the end of the legislative session.

Posted on July 20, 2007

Comments

Well Mr. Russo, what do you think of all this that Demcrat and Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez says here in apparent contrast to your earlier article on the budget:

-First thing he mentions as a success is paying down the debt and having no new taxes. He also later mentions lowering the "stuctural deficit". Sounds like standard republican sound-bites. Could we assume that he wouldn't be able to mention these UNLESS the republicans insisted on them? (Otherwise the budget would have been "on time" but NOT be able to brag about these things here?).

-The Speaker apparently feels we did right in regards to schools K-12, the blind, elderly, disabled, etc. I guess working with the other party wasn't so bad after all in these areas..."...responsible fiscally and morally".

-Speaker Nunez apparently see the logic in the republican tax credits; they spur the in-state economy which can generate even more tax revenue. What a concept! High tech is the future so lets not chase them out of the state. The movie industry goes out of state and often to Canada to escape both the high taxes/fees imposed by local/county/state entities. Makes sense to cut them some slack, too and NOT just because Arnold can relate to them...

-Unfortunately, the Speaker doesn't like the Wall Street investor concept; must think they are all "fat cats", etc. Well, if you have a 401K or IRA, Roth or otherwise, or play the market/investments (invest in hi-tech for example...)in even the smallest degree, you too are a "Wall Street Investor". Wealth generates wealth, even for the smallest investors AND can and will be taxed! Thus everyone wins.

Heck, over half to 3/4 of what the Speaker is mentioning here wouldn't have happened if the republicans didn't hold out for those 18 days! Perhaps the walk in the park was a good thing! So IF the ideas adopted are good for the Speaker to crow about now, then why were they not instituted before the budget deadline and without needing those minority republicans, the ones who delay and screw things up, that darn 2/3 vote thing, in the first place?

Now don't misunderstand, I am actually happy these folks all worked together albeit at the 13th hour, and made some great compromises.

Unfortunately, many on your side of the political fence only or for the vast majority paint the part of the story of how bad the other party is all the time. Cooperation or viable compromise is considered a weakness, looked down upon and not stressed as a way to move forward. Win for the party at all costs including the mismanagement of the state/country. Many of them are obviously contributors to this site.

Posted by: Words are words... at July 20, 2007 08:35 PM

Words are words:

If you'd been reading the words earlier, the Speaker and the Assembly Democrats including John Laird, the Chair of the Budget Conference Committee, have been issuing statements and telling the press that the budget proposal before these latest terrible cuts demanded by the Republicans to vote for the budget had no new taxes (it never had new taxes in any prior form) and that it had a larger reserve than the Governor had proposed.

The budget here is not what those representing a majority of the state of California want. A small minority has made these changes and will remain a small minority for the foreseeable future. Taking money from the blind and disabled--by delaying a cost of living increase to keep them with the same purchasing power is nothing to celebrate in my book--especially with the attempted tax credit--only designed to increase the deficit--is nothing to celebrate or crow about as you do.

As for your words about winning for the party, you have no proof that the Democrats in negotiating the budget thought anything other than what they believed to be in the best interest of the state of California. When the story is told, it will be about the struggle for power within the Republican party and trying to outdo each other and show how tough they are. Senate Repubilcans aren't heeding the words of the Governor.

By the way, why do you comment under so many different pseudonyms and using so many fake email addresses when you do?

Posted by: Frank D. Russo at July 21, 2007 06:35 AM

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker