What happens when the leaders cut a budget deal?

July 15th, 2009, 6:30 pm · 20 Comments · posted by BRIAN JOSEPH, Sacramento Correspondent

Before the four legislative leaders headed into Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Sacramento office to continue negotiations on the budget today, all reiterated the governor’s optimism that a deal was in the works - maybe even today.

But what happens after a deal is cut? In anticipation of a budget agreement, we thought we’d outline the steps.

As loyal Total Buzz readers know, deals on the budget are first formed in private meetings of the so-called Big 5, which is composed of the governor and four leaders (in this case Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles; Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento; Assembly Republican Leader Sam Blakeslee of San Luis Obispo; and Senate Republican Leader Dennis Hollingsworth of Murrieta).

Someday, maybe even today, members of the Big 5 will emege from the governor’s office and say there is a deal. Well, OK, they might not exactly say “deal.” They may say the Big 5 has an agreement, but it still needs to be vetted by the other legislators.

See, the Big 5 can’t pass a budget - that requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and the Big 5 is composed of only four lawmakers, which isn’t nearly enough. So, immediately after a deal or an agreement between the leaders or a framework is announced, the Legislature will set to work on two equally important jobs: drafting the actual language of the budget bills and convincing the other lawmakers to vote for the plan. These two jobs will likely take up all of the time between the announcement of a deal and the actual voting of the Legislature.

When the Big 5 emerges and announces a deal, all the details likely will not be available. That’s for both practical and strategic reasons. Practical, because the Big 5 often debates at the 30,000-foot level, and therefore doesn’t know all the details. Strategic, because the legislative leaders have to get their colleagues to support their deal, so they don’t want too many details to leak out to the special interests who may pressure lawmakers to oppose the plan.

About a half a day or a day after the initial announcement, the leaders will start holding a series of press conferences and controlled background briefings to explain the deal to the media and public, all the while lobbying their colleagues to support the plan and directing their staff to draft the language.

At some point in this process, one group of lawmakers or another (Senate Republicans or maybe the Assembly Democrats) may say they will reserve their support for the budget until they can read the drafted language and check for the devils in the details. This will grind everything to a halt until the language is complete and the concerned group of lawmakers can review the language.

Here’s one major point where a deal could fall apart, if the drafted language is loaded with tiny details one party feels like it didn’t agree to.

The other major point where a deal can fall apart is if the leaders can’t get support from their colleagues.

In both cases, such hiccups could send the Big 5 back into the governor’s office to continue negotiating.

But assuming that doesn’t happen and the necessary number of lawmakers agree to support the plan, both houses of the Legislature will meet and vote on the plan (and assuming nobody changes their mind at the last minute, pass the plan).

You might think that’s the end of the process but it’s not. A budget does not go into effect until the governor signs it. In the past, the Legislature has passed a budget plan the governor didn’t like, so he vetoed the whole thing and sent the process back to square one.

But, if the governor is on board (and if the budget plan came out of the Big 5, he should be) the governor will wait a few days to sign the budget. He’ll do that to give his staff time to scour the budget bills for expenditures the governor doesn’t like. You see, under state law, the governor of California has a the power of line-item veto - he can sign a budget but veto specific expenditures within it.

Once the governor’s line-item vetoes are decided, he’s ready to sign the bills, usually in some kind of ceremony with some dignitaries or guests (like a group of students or public safety officers who benefited from the budget).

It’s at this point that reporters are typically provided the best descriptions of what’s in the budget (although, to be fair, prior to the lawmakers’ vote, legislative staff provides detailed descriptions - just not as detailed as the governor).

In other words, what we’re saying is that because of the process some details about the budget aren’t clear until the moment it becomes law. Crazy, we know.

In short, the budget-making process illustrates a favorite saying on the Capitol: Making law is like making sausage. It ain’t pretty.

Share this post:

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Categories

Fed Up says:

July 15, 2009 at 7:09 pm

“In short, the budget-making process illustrates a favorite saying on the Capitol: Making law is like making sausage. It ain’t pretty.”

You got that right! And when exposed to the sunlight of truth, it turns rotten quickly and can hurt a lot of people.

Let’s face it: this state has gotten to the point where it cannot be governed. The two political parties will never see eye-to-eye. We have elected a bunch of politicians who are totally at the mercy of their party and whose main goal is not to upset the party so they don’t get the party $$$. Add labor union money and our “representatives” spend most of their time with their grubby hands out.

The state constitution says the legislature has to present the budget to the governor by June 15, yet there are no provisions for sanctions if this does not happen. If their pay and goodies allowances were forfeited for every day after June 15 until the budget was presented to the governor, they might just get off the dime. Forfeit means gone for good, not just held until they do their job.

Post Reply

Gene says:

July 16, 2009 at 9:06 am

I,m fed up too! YOU JERKS ARE TOO CONCERNED ABOUT PLEASING THE UNIONS, YOUR BUDDIES AND EVERY OTHER MISFIT TO REALIZE THE PEOPLE WANT TAX CUTS!!. IF YOU CLOWNS CAN,T REPRESENT THE PEOPLE THEN NEXT ELECTION YOU ALL ARE GOING TO BE IN THE STREET! HOW ABOUT $5% CUT ACROSS THE BOARD EVERYTHING INCLUDING YOU PAY AND 5% NEXT YEAR UNTIL THE BUDGET IS BALANCED!

Post Reply

Adolph H says:

July 15, 2009 at 8:54 pm

And the Dumb O’crats continue to screw us all. Let’s just raise taxes even more. The wealthy don’t mind. Between the Dumb O’crats in this state and Hussein wanting me to fund health care for under achieving slackers it’s just another sad day in what once was a proud nation.

ocobserver says:

July 15, 2009 at 9:17 pm

It’s obvious that creating a budget and making it law in California is not a transparent process. The Big 5 is a recent development. It’s hasn’t always been done that way with secret closed door discussions. And we know from the last budget negotiations in early 2009 that the SPECIAL INTERESTS were invited to join the Big 5 to discuss the proposals. BUT THE PEOPLE WEREN’T ALLOWED TO JOIN, WERE WE? So Brian, you are not explaining the process as it actually happens. The SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS (unions, etc…) have a seat at the negotiating table. You should know this if you work in Sacramento. They aren’t kept in suspense (in the dark and fed manure) WE ARE THOUGH! What kind of democracy is that?

Warren says:

July 15, 2009 at 10:04 pm

The state Board of Equalization has put a revenue figure on the cannabis trade – and the potential benefit to government coffers.

A tax on pot sales in California could fetch as much as $1.4 billion, according to the board’s analysis in response to a proposal by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) that would regulate cannabis much like alcohol.

Pro-pot groups ballyhooed the report as another sign that the long debate over marijuana legalization has entered a new, more serious phase. The Drug Policy Alliance said the report “amplifies the escalating national discussion of marijuana policy.”

Ammiano’s measure is staunchly opposed by law enforcement groups, but the lawmaker argues that it would generate much-needed revenue for the state, restrict access to only those over 21, end environmental damage caused to public lands by illicit crops and redirect police efforts to “more serious” crimes.

ocobserver says:

July 15, 2009 at 10:11 pm

Well, the problem with it is that you’d be cutting out all the drug fianceers who wear white shirts and go to church with bible in hand every Sunday. Those are the ones who finance the loads of marijuana that come across our borders. They stand to lose a nice chunk of change if pot is legalized. And they have more political power in Sacramento than you might think. ha.

Post Reply
- Warren says:
  
  July 15, 2009 at 10:48 pm
  
  Who needs the stuff from south of the boarder when we have Northern California’s “Emerald Triangle?” By legalizing marijuana here we’ll reducing the profits of the drug cartels. We will also reduce spending on the War on drugs and the cost to house, feed and provide medical care for those who are sent to jail for selling this natural herb.
  
  America’s Love-Hate History with Pot
  With a New CBS News Poll Finding 41% Now Support Legalization, CBSNews.com Examines Changing Views of Marijuana in the U.S.
  
  A new CBS News poll released today finds that more Americans now support legalization. Forty-one percent said they think marijuana should be made legal and 52 percent are opposed. That’s even more than in a CBS News poll in March when 31 percent said they were in favor of legalization in all cases with another seven percent saying they would favor legalization if marijuana were taxed and the money went to projects.
  
  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/13/national/main5154550.shtml
  
  http://www.cnbc.com/id/28281668/
  
  Post Reply
  - ocobserver says:
    
    July 15, 2009 at 11:01 pm
    
    Oh, don’t get me wrong. I agree with you wholeheartedly, Warren. I am just saying that you have to fight the finaceer lobbyists. Who knows? Some of the financeers might even be enacting our laws. And you have to fight all those who indirectly profit from marijuana like cops, lawyers, prison guards, judges, probation officers, etc….. all influential groups of people. But what you say makes perfect sense. I’ve been saying the same thing for over 2 decades.
Fed Up says:

July 16, 2009 at 7:31 am

Really!

“… restrict access to only those over 21, end environmental damage caused to public lands by illicit crops…”

Let’ see: restrict access to those over 21: The law now restricts access and does nothing to actually prevent access. This mind set is typical of those who believe that if the law says something, people will obey. As an ex-cop, I KNOW that’s not the case.

Legalization of marijuana would be an interesting experiment, although a potentially dangerous one. How many potential pot smokers don’t smoke because it’s not a crime? Don’t know. I do know that if the state tax is large enough to really raise some serious cash, the underground market will thrive.

One problem with legalizing marijuana: usually one joint and your are impaired, in terms of your ability to drive, but most smokers will deny that and will drive.
The potential for a serious increase in DUI [drugs] crashes is real, and who is going to pay for that?

Post Reply

TheAllKnowing says:

July 15, 2009 at 10:26 pm

I’ll tell you what happens: We get F’d in the A. That’s what happens.

gdb says:

July 16, 2009 at 2:01 am

why do we have to let the dumbocrats and the unions run this state? we’d be MUCH better off letting the insurance companies, oil companies, utilities, agricultural companies, land developers tech and pharmaceutical companies run us under republicans. those companies give us jobs and would never screw us over. c’mon, u know itz tru. that’s why sarah palin will be pres someday. she knows that people want corporate rule. yay!

ssaworker says:

July 16, 2009 at 5:45 am

They already caved on the two tier pension for state workers. Believe me, the people who will be screwed over by this budget will be the poor, children, senior citizens, the disabled and the taxpayers.

Get ready for it.

popcorn says:

July 16, 2009 at 6:30 am

Over 70% of state spending is redistribution of wealth to the poor, children, senior citizens, disabled and the State employee’s and activist groups that support them.

This is the prime area the knife should be directed to cut State spending.

Post Reply

bw says:

July 16, 2009 at 7:10 am

What happens when the leaders cut a budget deal?
————————————————————————-

They break out the stogies and the schnapps and laugh about sticking it to the taxpayers again.

Dood says:

July 16, 2009 at 8:48 am

We the people get hosed. Again.

Jimbo says:

July 16, 2009 at 8:59 am

ocobserver…… Keep trying…you may get it right in two more decades but you haven’t gotten close so far.

July 16, 2009 at 9:26 am

The above article states:

“When the Big 5 emerges and announces a deal, all the details likely will not be available. That’s for both practical and strategic reasons. Practical, because the Big 5 often debates at the 30,000-foot level, and therefore doesn’t know all the details. Strategic, because the legislative leaders have to get their colleagues to support their deal, so they don’t want too many details to leak out to the special interests who may pressure lawmakers to oppose the plan”

This is where this article is full of it. It was revealed AFTER the last negotiations in early 2009 that resulted in the largest tax-hike in California history that BIG BUSINESS and SPECIAL INTERESTS (ie, public employee unions, etc…) had a seat at the table with the Big 5. This is not speculation. This is fact. Yet the TAXPAYERS who fund government operations were completely shut out and had no voice whatsoever until all the big decisions were made and the budget went to vote. And we saw how disingenuous and outright LIARS the legislators were when they tried to pull the fast one on us with Props 1a-1e. 1a was a tax increase. But the legislators wouldn’t even admit to that and made sure that the official voter’s guide concealed that fact. These are outright liars and deceivers we are dealing with here. There is no transparency for the people. The Big 5 is a new invention. All of these negotiations used to happen in the light of day so we could all participate. Now WE THE TAXPAYERS are shut out, yet big business and the special interests are invited to push their agendas behind closed doors. How is that a democracy? It’s not. It’s a sham.

Jerry says:

Come election day there’s going to be a new game in town. It’s called “The Incumbent Toss Game”. If you’re an incumbent and voted for higher spending and tax increases you get tossed.

Alan Win says:

July 16, 2009 at 2:41 pm

I just read this post on Sacbee.com… is it truth? if that is the case. State worker does not get pay that much and Arnold is over their back.

For those of you who want to blame State workers;
The truth about state worker pay is: Here are the facts for those very few interested in the truth. State workers received the following wage increases since 1991: 91-92 0, 92-93 0, 93-94 5%, 94-95 3%, 95-96 0, 96-97 0, 98-99 5.5%, 99-00 4%, 00-01 4%, 01-02 0, 02-03 0, 03-04 0, 04-05 5%, 05-06 0, 06-07 0 08-09 - 5%. The net of all the pay raises over this 20 year span is 36.05%. Given that the CPI index (inflation) has increased 56.87% during the same time frame, the average state worker is now making 20.82% less in real income than the same worker made in 1991. State workers were paid at an equivalent rate as their federal counterparts 25 years ago. We now receive approximately 45% less than our federal counterparts. That is because their wages are adjusted for COLAs based on the CPI.

reason says:

July 19, 2009 at 3:20 pm

It’s not just the wages- it’s the benefits and pensions.

Post Reply

Orange County Register