E.J. Schultz, The Bee's Sacramento reporter, says that Assembly Minority Leader Mike Villines' head was on the chopping block this weekend over the tax increase provisions of the budget bill. Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, an Irvine Republican, confirmed that he tried unsuccessfully to oust Villines, a Clovis Republican.
You can read the blog posting by Schultz by clicking here.
As a member of the Big Five, Villines helped negotiate the budget package that contains tax increases and spending caps. Anti-tax Republicans are angry and some, including DeVore, tried to remove Villines from his leadership post. But the Clovis Republican survived easily, according to Schultz.
In the Senate, Republican Leader Dave Cogdill is also facing a backlash over the tax increases proposed in the budget package. So far, the Modesto Republican has survived.
I'm not sure why anyone would want the jobs of Villines and Cogdill. They were left with a choice of letting the state fall off the financial cliff or getting as much as they could in exchange for the tax increases. The Republicans who oppose a budget solution don't seem to care if the state defaults on its financial obligations.
The GOP caucuses in both house aren't in charge of the Legislature. They don't get the concept that they are in the minority, and they lack the clout to get much more than what Villines and Cogdill got. If the Republicans want to run the Legislature, they need to win enough seats to be the majority party.
That simple political concept does seem to be understood by most legislative Republicans.
Being in the minority doesn't necessitate checking your principles at the door. If the GOP leaders don't stand firm on the no tax-increases pledge now, there might never be another chance.
Yes, Villins and Cogdill are in high-pressure, no-win situations. All the more reason to simply do the right thing for their constituents. After all, we hired them.
So Mr. Boren does not understand why Villines would want his job. Well if Villines is going to abandonded the principles of the party, and not advance the cause of his base, perhaps he should step down. We are a long way from winning, but I send a big pat on the back to the true conservatives who has refused to go along with the proposed budget that fails to adequately address the overspending problems that have got the state in the mess it is in. Sooner or later, if we continue to hold firm, perhaps the liberals will get the message, simply the new proposed budget needs to consist primarily of spending cuts not further increases in taxes and administrative fees!
Isn't there a law that requires California to have a balanced budget? Is it true that California's budget is now twice what it was 10 years ago? Is it true that the amount now budgeted for education in CA is now equal to the State's entire budget 10 years ago? Has California's educational system improved even one iota in 10 years?
All of this spending has accomplished nothing except to bankrupt the State. New taxes will only allow them to spend more. The citizens are receiving no return on their investment. Intelligent people simply will not operate like this. What's the point?
All politicians, dimocrats particularly, think that We the People are a never-ending source of money. They spend like drunken sailors, refusing to put anything aside for the lean years, and then come crying to us when their complete and utter irresponsibility gets them into trouble.
Without Republicans holding the line, dimocrats would simply raise taxes every chance they get. That's why it is so idiotic for people to say that we need to do away with the 2/3 requirement.
It seems that if the Republicans insist on not increasing taxes that then then are perceived as unwilling to work for a solution. The democrats don't understand that their unwillingness to stop spending is also unwilling to work for a solution. Calfifornians have been saying for a long time that spending increases must be controlled and some eliminated. Just do it.
There are $15 billion dollars in spending cuts to go along with the taxes. Sounds like there are have been some compromises on both sides. Sacramento has made some headway but shouldn't stop now. By not coming to a solution they are wasting significant sums of money. Infrastructure projects have been shut down. Some, that are time sensitive, will have flat out lost several millions of dollars already spent. Others have the added cost of shutting them down safely and then will have additional costs to prepare to restart them once the budget gets up and running. These unwarranted costs, directly the result of no budget decisions are in the millions of dollars. I can prove these assertions. Seems to me Villines and Cogdill see these types of issues and are working hard to make things work. They realize there comes a time to compromise. They are also aware that just because they compromise this time does not mean the fight for ideals is over. There are future budgets to be balanced. They have shown partisanship does not trump the needs of the state. These men are not stupid both are extremely capable. I have more trust in them than anyone else at this point. I know it will not end here. They will continue to fight for California when we enter the next phase of California problems.
$15 Billion in spending cuts? Don't you find it amazing that the Democrats can find $15 Billion to cut? Do you know that a stack of $100 dollar bills totaling one million dollars is 40 inches high. A stack of $15 Billion in $100 bills would be nine and a half miles high. That's a lot of cash. And, apparently they don't have to spend it, because they cut it! I'll bet they can find another $15 Billion to cut and then the budget will be damn near balanced. I say keep the pressure on Republicans!
Hey Greg, I was balancing the perceptions being presented here by bloggers. We hear about Democrats wanting tax hikes but no one mentions the cuts (other than Boren). Since we haven't blogged together before you likely aren't aware that I have been very clear that major cuts need to be made and very clear more taxes are a mistake and I am a Democrat. I think we are all aware of the crazy spending the Democrats AND Republicans have pursued and the taxpayers allowed. There is a tendency for conservatives to mention a portion of the story because it strengthens their cause. I merely pointed out that cuts have been made. Significant additional cuts can easily be made, it just depends on what taxpayers are willing to give up. I'd like a balanced view of the Republican side as well. We know they are digging in their heels. What are the additional spending cuts they suggest? We know what they won't do. What are they willing to do? The bloggers here talk about ideals and winning. What are they hoping to win? Lets talk about what we are willing to give up.. or bloggers can sit here and continue Democrat bashing.
Kim,
Your numbers are incorrect. There are $15 billion dollars in reductions of planned increases. Actual cuts are $3 billion or about 3% of the general fund budget. There is nothing sacrificial being done here - not nearly what we in business have to do day in and day out.
This information is readily available to anyone willing to find it.
Kim - I believe your premise is flawed. You state, "...and the taxpayers allowed." Also, "...what taxpayers are willing to give up." The only input taxpayers have is which Democrat will be elected in the "Democrat safe" districts, and which Republican will be elected in the "Republican safe" districts. After that they are left out of the picture. Power inures at that point to the unions, special interests and the lobbyists. Legislators do not care about taxpayers because they know they won't be voted out of office. But they do care about having their pockets lined with massive amounts of cash, so they defer to those providing that cash.
I believe, being a right wing ideologue, that the Republicans have the best interests of the taxpayers at heart, and the Democrats have the interests of the lobbyists at heart. Of course there is a lot of "slippage" on both sides.
The bottom line is we are spending billions on programs we do not need and can not afford. The Republicans would rather not spend this money. The Democrats would rather raise taxes and spend the money.
Often, all it might take to turn a progressive (liberal) into a conservative is to reject opinionated, ill-informed browbeating. Demagoguery is anathema to the thoughtful and well informed participant in national politics. To mind comes the world renowned American author Upton Sinclair. His earlier works as a social critic were liberal ( use of term for simplicity sake.) But not so his outlook later in life. Being an intellectual, he had his belly full of the ignorant but loud hawkers of liberal politics that proselytizes the idea that fiscal prudence is a reactionary no no. Of course the reactionary, ultra right wing fanatic is a no no to the true blue conservative (Republican) as well. But the biggest obstacle seems to be; not the ignorant, but those who know just enough, not to be informed, but to be opinionated about any philosophy or applied cause. But at the same time, they are the most useful to the politicians in power. I have been accused of talking over people's heads. Sorry, but I am not folksy. Principle and Cause and Effect are my bailiwick.
That's irrelevant. All spending whether they've done it before or not are planned expenditures. They are whittling at planned expenditures old and new. I have agreed all along that cuts need to be made. I've agreed all along that taxes will likely be a final blow to a large number of us. I've agreed all along they need to make significantly bigger cuts. I agree that few sacrifices have been made. All I have been asking is that the Republicans, who are adamant that cuts are THE only method; who have been shouting it from rooftops and wearing it as a badge of honor, have not been shouting about what the cuts should be. If they want the brownie points for their "budget piety" they need to identify the solution too. That's all I have been asking, what is the solution they are proposing? Which cuts?
How is that flawed Greg? The tax payers voted and put these people in office. Tax payers voted for bonds. Government corruption and spending have been blatant. We could have slowed it down a long time ago but taxpayers have been complacent, uninvolved. So yes, we have allowed it. In addition the taxpayers have to be willing to give something up to balance this budget. You speak of unions, lobbyist and special interests but make the same mistake as most. Those that line their pockets with cash at the detriment to others have done so throughout history before Dems and Reps were ever conceived. It is a human behavior and naive to apply it only to Dems and not Reps. You mean to tell me that when Reps get into office they are financed by the grace of God? When they are in power do the unions, lobbyists and special interests disappear in fear under a rock hibernating until Dems are in control. No, it is business as usual even during Reps "reign". You are also flawed in your narrow view of special interests and only use them as Dem bashing hot buttons. Let me see; there are unions, there are also farmers, veterans programs, senior programs, special needs programs, bilingual education, minority education, libraries, food stamps,clean water programs, etc. All are special programs and all want a piece of the pie. You mean to tell me Republicans had no hand in putting these programs in place? Many should not be cut but to balance the budget to the degree we want it to then some will have to be. Or we can give up cleaning highway litter, use reclaimed waste water, stop constructing ADA ramps. Taxpayers are fine with cuts as long as it doesn't affect us individually. So yes, we are at fault too. We are getting down to the nitty gritty on the budget cuts. Let do it. I'll ask again. What should go first?
What should we cut first? Hmm. Let me think. I heard recently that an "Information Officer" for a State agency was earning in excess of $90,000 per year. That's a job that in private industry would pay about half of that. I'm sure there are thousands of qualified "taxpayers" that would love that job for $45,000 per year. So, let's start by cutting all State salaries by 50%. Should save us a fortune.
That's a good idea. However, if you actually look at the issue instead of repeating media driven propaganda, you might see that if we cut some of the other programs as well, we could cut state jobs that exist to service them. That is more realistic and will save much more. Think beyond the Republican script.
I find it funny that you think all state employees are overpaid. Another simplification. How do we handle the ones that that make minimum wage? They won't mind because they will make more in the welfare lines. That'll save you money, huh?I have an idea, go through each job and determine what the prevailing wage is. Lower the ones that are too high and bring up the ones that are below market. (You will find that you actually spend more because of the large number of jobs that are below prevailing wage). Your comment is a knee jerk reaction prompted by media misinformation. Have you ever taken a close look at all the different jobs and their pay? It's easy to find online. At Caltrans, the planning department makes 25% less than prevailing wage, we just took a 10% cut in pay and now you want to take another 50%? That would leave them at 75% below the market; however, I say go for it. You might lose the highly skilled people building your bridges and highways because all that would be left are the rats and cockroaches in empty buildings. They would have to leave because they also pay the same taxes you do. I recently resigned because I can make $17,000 more a year for the same job (thirty days and counting!!!!) Go for it but may I suggest you not linger under any bridges; rats and bugs don't build reliable ones.
All I'm getting from you guys is the canned sensationalized drivel. I wish I could evade my taxes the way you folks evade the hard questions. Good luck with that.
LA times: "70% of wages earned in L.A. county are in cash" (no taxes). This leaves a large portion of people that can receive welfare in one way or another. Those working for wages and paying taxes (the remaining 30%) are providing for the others. If you think most of the 70% are paying income taxes then you are extremely misguided. The simple solution would be that the 70% pay their share (and not receive welfare), and we wouldn't be worrying about cutting anything.