Budget Q&A: California budget process still secretive
Published: Sunday, Jul. 10, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 3A
Gov. Jerry Brown signed a rare on-time budget June 30 after vetoing an initial spending plan from majority Democrats. Kevin Yamamura of The Bee hosted a chat at sacbee.com on the state budget last week. Here are highlights from the latest discussion:
Is the budget process becoming more or less transparent over the years?Still pretty opaque. We didn't get a list of budget bills until shortly before floor session … and we didn't have much of a chance to see the bill language. The education bill, AB 114, didn't show up on the floor until after 10 p.m. and had cleared both houses by 10:45. We didn't end up dissecting it until the next day.
There were numerous committee hearings earlier in the year focusing on the cuts and impacts to programs. (I) will give credit for giving people a chance to testify on the governor's plan.
It's just that when the final deal is struck, it's usually behind closed doors and with little notice.
When pension reform was part of the budget talks, is it not true that pension reform can only happen at the bargaining table?
Republicans were seeking a constitutional amendment that would go on the ballot. Those provisions would not need to be bargained. However, the pension measure could conflict with other constitutional provisions and protections, particularly in the area of benefits for current workers, and could subsequently be challenged in court. What few versions we did see had language ensuring that if one part of a constitutional amendment got tossed out in court, other parts could remain.
Wondering if "trigger cuts" can be avoided, even if hoped-for revenue does not materialize. If (an) initiative to raise taxes isn't until Nov. 2012, won't that make it impossible to prevent these additional cuts? Will there be a mid-year budget to try to avoid the cuts?
The deal is based on an assumption that the Department of Finance will make a simple math calculation and impose cuts if the revenues aren't high enough. But anyone who's been around the Capitol knows that plenty of lobbying would occur if it starts looking like that money is short. Undoubtedly, some will push lawmakers and the governor to find other revenue solutions or alternative cuts if the money never comes.
Is higher education the big loser in this budget?
I think it's safe to say higher education is a huge loser in this budget, though I'm not going to pick one program as the biggest loser. Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg acknowledged yesterday that the state's university systems are vulnerable because they lack the constitutional and federal protections that other programs have. There may also be a belief that it's tolerable as a back-door middle- and upper-class tax hike since the universities are looking at tuition hikes to make up for it.
Is the budget process becoming more or less transparent over the years?Still pretty opaque. We didn't get a list of budget bills until shortly before floor session … and we didn't have much of a chance to see the bill language. The education bill, AB 114, didn't show up on the floor until after 10 p.m. and had cleared both houses by 10:45. We didn't end up dissecting it until the next day.
There were numerous committee hearings earlier in the year focusing on the cuts and impacts to programs. (I) will give credit for giving people a chance to testify on the governor's plan.
It's just that when the final deal is struck, it's usually behind closed doors and with little notice.
When pension reform was part of the budget talks, is it not true that pension reform can only happen at the bargaining table?
Republicans were seeking a constitutional amendment that would go on the ballot. Those provisions would not need to be bargained. However, the pension measure could conflict with other constitutional provisions and protections, particularly in the area of benefits for current workers, and could subsequently be challenged in court. What few versions we did see had language ensuring that if one part of a constitutional amendment got tossed out in court, other parts could remain.
Wondering if "trigger cuts" can be avoided, even if hoped-for revenue does not materialize. If (an) initiative to raise taxes isn't until Nov. 2012, won't that make it impossible to prevent these additional cuts? Will there be a mid-year budget to try to avoid the cuts?
The deal is based on an assumption that the Department of Finance will make a simple math calculation and impose cuts if the revenues aren't high enough. But anyone who's been around the Capitol knows that plenty of lobbying would occur if it starts looking like that money is short. Undoubtedly, some will push lawmakers and the governor to find other revenue solutions or alternative cuts if the money never comes.
Is higher education the big loser in this budget?
I think it's safe to say higher education is a huge loser in this budget, though I'm not going to pick one program as the biggest loser. Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg acknowledged yesterday that the state's university systems are vulnerable because they lack the constitutional and federal protections that other programs have. There may also be a belief that it's tolerable as a back-door middle- and upper-class tax hike since the universities are looking at tuition hikes to make up for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment