Surplus, What Surplus?

I appreciate the SacBee's Dan Walters.  He really tries to present the facts and an balanced viewpoint.  But sometimes he just lets the Capital vortex off too lightly.  This week's example is his piece titled "Even in times of surplus, Brown facing challenges".  Forget the headline, Walters probably had no input on that, but when he writes

Brown inherited a whopping budget deficit from predecessor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who had inherited one from Gray Davis after the latter was recalled....

Brown recounted fiscal history, indirectly criticizing Davis and Schwarzenegger, as he unveiled a revised 2014-15 budget that raises spending a bit, mostly to cover bigger health and welfare caseloads....

But where is the real fault in the last decade's deficits and spending?  Well, who has been in charge?  As Walters notes, Brown is "throwing cold water on Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg's push for universal prekindergarten".  That is like throwing a ladle of water on a bonfire.  The Senate and Assembly have been a one-party system for a couple of decades or more and have spent us into the poor house.  And Jerry hasn't thrown in the towel on his "crazy train" yet.  If we are going to talk about who inherited what, let's at least be accurate about who held the purse strings the whole time.

 

 

Comments

[Rongdong]

Dan Walters does watch things and call a fair game. Today he lets readers know

The point is that changing any game’s rules also affects the game’s outcomes. And that’s very true of politics, which brings us to two big political process changes being proposed by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg.

Both proposals respond to recent events, but their effect – intended or otherwise – would be to solidify Democrats’ already overwhelming control of the Legislature.

Last year, Michael Rubio, a Democratic senator from Bakersfield, resigned unexpectedly to become a corporate executive, and Republican Andy Vidak captured the seat in a special election. Losing the seat embarrassed Steinberg and also reduced the “supermajority” that Democrats had won in the Senate just a few months earlier.

Steinberg’s Senate Constitutional Amendment 16, if approved by the Legislature and voters, would allow the governor to fill a legislative vacancy, with agreement of the involved house, and require that the replacement come from the same party as the predecessor.

Steinberg says it would reduce expensive special elections and provide more continuity of representation. But it would also protect Democrats from losing seats in low-turnout special elections, while giving them the indirect power to fill GOP vacancies.

Steinberg’s final year in office has been marred by three Democratic colleagues being suspended while facing criminal charges.

The Senate suspended the three even though the state constitution doesn’t contain any provision for suspension, just expulsion by a two-thirds vote.

Senate Constitutional Amendment 17 would allow a legislator to be suspended without pay for any reason by a majority house vote – thus giving the majority party, virtually always Democrats, immense new power.

Perhaps it wouldn’t be misused to punish, or threaten to punish, a recalcitrant legislator for purely political reasons, but who really knows? History indicates that once acquired, political power is almost always used.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/05/18/6413444/dan-walters-when-political-rules.html#storylink=cpy