As noted in an update to one of yesterday’s blog entries, state controller John Chiang has ruled that the budget passed by the legislature (but vetoed by the governor), was not “balanced.” However, he took a relatively narrow view of what the imbalance was, which would open the door to some other budget deal that might have funny elements in it. Chiang's ruling means legislators don't get paid. So far, no one has filed a legal challenge to his ruling.There is a report that the governor has a plan for passing a budget by majority vote, i.e., without Republican support, which presumably then would not have tax extensions. (However, there was some talk months ago about a possible legal work-around the 2/3 vote requirement that would involve tying the taxes to an ostensible modification of a past ballot initiative.) Getting a vote on the extensions on the ballot would require a 2/3 vote or doing it by petition.
To do it by petition, someone would need to come up with $1-$2 million for signature-gathering firms. Unions could in principle pay for it but they have expressed a lack of enthusiasm for doing so, particularly since the voters might well reject the extensions.
The truth may be that there really is no Plan B at this point. And if someone comes up with a Plan B, it may not have good news for UC. The legislature’s vetoed budget would have added another $150 million in UC cuts.
Meanwhile, Democrats (and some Republicans more quietly) have been unhappy with Chiang’s decision:
Yes, Brown is promising to present "alternatives" to the legislature today. There is no reason to think that they will be good ones.
ReplyDeleteBob Samuels of the AFT has proposed ballot initiatives on more progressive taxation plans (e.g., oil severance) and majority vote for taxes--rather than ballot initiatives for extending the current tax/fees. Not sure how much traction that has with the rest of Labor, but it's an interesting idea.
ReplyDelete