California legislators poised for long weekend of budget debate
The main holdup is a short 'bridge' tax to bide time until special election
Posted: 06/09/2011 04:34:12 PM PDT
SACRAMENTO -- With their pay in jeopardy and nearly $10 billion on the line, legislators are poised for a long weekend ahead as they try to hammer out a budget deal before Wednesday's constitutional deadline.
Legislators could begin to lose their pay if they fail to reach a budget accord by Wednesday, thanks to a ballot measure voters approved last year.Senate Democrats plan to start the budget marathon Friday with a debate over a yearlong tax bridge to keep funding stable until voters get a shot in a September special election to decide if current tax levels should be extended for four to five years.
Republicans say that is a deal-breaker.
Democrats plan to use the next several days to read testimonials from teachers, police officers and others on the impact $9.6 billion in cuts would have on them if the current level of sales, auto and income taxes are not extended.
"The fact is that without an extension, there will be a significant hole in our budget," said Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, the chairman of the budget committee, "and a need for further dismantling of education, of higher education, putting it further and further out of reach for working people and middle-class people."
Republicans negotiating with Gov. Jerry Brown said an agreement on a special election is close, depending on whether they can finalize details on a number of reforms they have sought, including pension and regulatory rollbacks, and a spending cap.
But Brown is also seeking a bridge tax, albeit shorter, to keep current spending untouched for the next three months until voters weigh in on his proposed five-year tax extension on purchases and autos. A return to the 2010 level of income taxes would not occur until next year, and would last four years.
Republicans blocked Brown's initial proposal for a June special election back in March, saying it would have been tantamount to a vote on taxes -- and potentially toxic to their political careers. Now, with an accord on reforms and a special election close at hand, they say Democrats are asking too much of them to vote directly on taxes -- even if just for the next three months.
"We were led to believe that all that was before us was allowing the people to decide," said Sen. Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, the ranking Republican on the budget committee. "But somewhere from January to the May revise to now, the goal posts have moved. It's no longer just letting the people decide, it's 'Oh, we just can't save enough money, and by the way, we've rolled back (budget cuts by) $2.5 billion since March.' "
Suspicions weigh heavily on both sides as they enter what is the culmination of months of wooing, broken deals and collapsed negotiations. Democrats still feel burned by the last-minute gambit by GOP Senate Leader Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, who, just before a deadline to put a special election on the June ballot, dropped a list of 53 demands on Brown's desk after weeks of negotiations, dooming his plans.
"This whole flirting at the bar thing is getting old," said Nathan Barankin, communications director for Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. "Republicans' only end game was to blow things up with things that were completely out of the realm of possibility. We just aren't content to play that game any more."
Whether he gets a bridge tax or not, Steinberg said he wants Brown's tax extension proposal to be tied to reforms on the ballot.
"If you're really willing to move toward the middle and you're really willing to try to make a deal, then you ought to be living with the result that says it all goes up or it all goes down," Steinberg told the Sacramento Bee.
If no bridge tax is approved, legislators will be forced to decide between $9.6 billion in spending cuts -- on top of the $11 billion they've already made -- and reverting to gimmick-laden accounting schemes that Brown has said he wants to end.
Brown could sign it, but it would make his case to the people for more revenues less compelling. More likely, he would veto it and institute the cuts with the hopes of unwinding them if voters approve extending taxes later.
Either way, the Legislature would fulfill the requirements of Proposition 25, which states legislators need only present a budget by June 15 -- it doesn't need to be approved. And they would continue receiving their pay.
Steinberg has stated that is not his intention.
No comments:
Post a Comment