A California Republican

There has been a lot of writing on this post about the budget situation in California, and a lot of compliaining that the lawmakers cannot seem to do what they are elected to do - pass a budget. They create innane laws just fine - what about the bill that would’ve required children to be in booster seats in cars until they are 13? Some of those 13 year olds are bigger than me, and I don’t have to sit in a booster seat. Or the bill to require only CFL lightbulbs to be sold? These are all things that lawmakers think are important - but yet they cannot seem to pass a budget - which is even more important.

Republicans signaled last week what it would take to get them to vote for a budget solution with a tax increase: They want to relax overtime rules, break and lunch rules, easing environmental regulations for new land development and giving business that create jobs some tax breaks for it. The Republicans say this is economic stimulus - that if you are going to raise taxes, then you have to give some relief to people who are going to have higher taxes or else they will cut back, rather than spend more - which is what you want people to do in a recession. Republicans are also insisting on a spending cap that would allow the state budget to grow by no more than approximately 5% each year.

 Assemblyman Chuck Devore noted that we never cut programs in California, that they always grow.

Democrats say the spending cap is essentially a way to take funding away from state programs.

I don’t see how a spending cap is taking away funding. The spending cap simply says no more growth than 5%. The actual cap is something of a formula to include inflation and population growth, not a strict percentage. What is wrong with that? You are adjusting programs for inflation, and for population. If you want to provide a new service - because you think it is a good one to provide - prove it, and cut something that isn’t good to provide. The state has become this over-arching provider of all services, and master of none. The state cannot provide welfare, medical care, mental healt hcare, disabled care, veteran’s care, military, social programs, education, wealth redistribution, taxes, environmental protections, jobs and all of those without being bad at them all. There is no specialization. There is nothing this state does well, we simply try to do it all. So instead of taking that approach, the departments would have to make choices about what they do, and what they need to do. Non-profits provide better job training, charter school provide better education, and churches provide better welfare. Why not move some of the burden to people who do these things well, and then have the state do the things it does do well? That is the goal behind the spending cap  -and to keep spending in line.

As for the Labor Federation President’s remarks that the economic stimulus package Republican’s want is a pay cut for employees and a bonus for employers - well in a recession we want employers to employ people. We want people to earn money. If the over-time hours were changed from the current rules (you get OT if you work more than 8 hours a day) to new ones (you get OT if you work more than 40 hours a week) - what is wrong with that? People in most jobs in the world don’t get OT pay. OT pay is a benefit, and a plus, for any job - not a requirement. No one is saying that an employee should work 50 hours in a week and not get OT. They are simply saying, let’s make sure the people getting OT pay are actually working a full-time scheudle before we pay them more. That makes sense to me.

I think this is the begining of a compromise. Notice that Republican’s didn’t say there had to be an education cut. They simply made a list of demands. Now, I know the next budget isn’t due unti lnext July 1 - so I don’t expect any negotiations on these points until June 30, 2009. But we shall see how they play out.