Dan Walters' Capitol Q&A

February 19, 2008

Question: I'm hoping you can help me better understand the state budget process. As I see it, the Governor issues a budget in January, and following a few media takes about who it's helping and/or hurting, it drifts into the background. Rather than beginning to delve into the details of the proposed budget items and/or determining spending priorities, the Legislature waits for the May revise to be issued, which wastes four months of potentially valuable time. Why even issue a budget in January? It allows non-doers to point out problems, yet not offer solutions. I don't get it.
-- Steve Shields, Sacramento

Answer: The first rule of politics is that there is nothing rational about them. It's done pretty much as you describe because the state constitution requires it. Actually, however, the 90 percent or so of the budget that's routine business is examined by the various budget subcommittees between February, when the Legislature's budget analyst releases her report, and May, when the governor makes revisions in his proposal that generally deal with the other 10 percent. In theory, then Gov and the Leg and the budget stakeholders then hash out a final product over the next few weeks. Were the process not begin until May, it would not leave enough time to do the routine work on agencies' budgets before the rarely met June 15 constitutional deadline for enacting a budget.
-- Dan Walters

Posted by grobertson at 06:50 AM | Comments

January 17, 2008

Question: I recall a column of yours where you pointed out that California's progressive income tax is actually exacerbating our state budget problems because only a relative few taxpayers (5 percent) pay something like 90 percent of the income tax revenue. Do you have the exact figures?
-- John Gamper, Sacramento

Answer: I put it this way in a column last April: "Californians in low- and lower-middle income strata pay virtually no state income taxes, while those in upper-middle and high income levels pay virtually all of them, according to data published by the Franchise Tax Board, and the 'progressive' nature of the income tax system is most pronounced at the top. Those with incomes of $300,000 or more - just 221,324 tax returns, or 1.6 percent of the 13.8 million filed - paid 48.1 percent of the $36.1 billion in income taxes collected in 2004, and the top 37,558 tax returns, those with $1 million or more in income, paid 29.9 percent, some $10.1 billion."
--Dan Walters

Question: Concerning the fiscal emergency declaration, what happens next? The governor has declared a fiscal emergency and the legislature must act within 90 days? So what happens if the Republicans and Democrats cannot agree to a plan within that time frame? Does the governor obtain dictorial powers and slash at will? If so, it seems to me that the end game would be for the Republicans to stall until the time runs out, then the governor will get his drothers.
-- Bob Kelly, Keyport, N.J.

Answer: The law does not require them to solve the problem, merely address it. If they don't, the governor doesn't have any power to unilaterally make spending cuts, although he's suggested that he have such powers through a constitutional amendment.
--Dan Walters

Question: You have commented frequently on the politics of Prop. 93. What about the merits? Do you suggest voting for or against it on public interest grounds?
-- Carl Danner, Alamo

Answer: I never suggest voting for or against anything.
--Dan Walters

Posted by grobertson at 09:14 AM | Comments

January 09, 2008

Question: While watching Gov. Schwarzenegger's State of the State address, I got to thinking back to covering Gov. Jerry Brown in 1977-78-79 and wondering what he said 30 years ago. Couldn't find his 1978 State of the State online, but did note that he ended up cutting the budget six months later due to Prop. 13. The search turned up Ron Roach's 1998 look back at Gov. Wilson's approach to deficits, which included raising taxes on the rich. How have our governor's approached deficits, and how did it all work out?
-- Ted Langdell, Marysville

Answer: Wilson did twist Republican legislators' arms to enact a big tax increase, emulating, albeit on a smaller scale, what Republican Govs. Ronald Reagan and George Deukmejian had done when they inherited budget gaps. But Wilson later recanted, saying that he regretted raising taxes. Democrat Jerry Brown actually cut state taxes during his eight-year term, responding to the anti-tax fervor of Proposition 13, but that created the deficit that Deukmejian later inherited. Eventually, Deukmejian presided over a one-time tax rebate when state revenues spiked upwards in the mid-1980s.
--Dan Walters

Posted by grobertson at 01:34 PM | Comments

December 26, 2007

Question: Why was the CDFA allowed to get AB-1735 passed as a concent item and not required to discuss or debate the raw milk issue? Its bill is applied to an industry it regulates. Isn't that also a conflict of interest and defies written administration policy. AB-1735 affects all raw milk from cows, goats and even raw human breast milk.
-- Scott Robinson, Vista

Answer: The measure you cite, signed into law earlier this year by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, imposes new standards on raw milk and is seen by some suppliers and consumers as virtually barring raw, unpasteurized milk from sale. State agencies often sponsor bills in their areas, so this is really standard practice. The bill, moreover, was not a sneaky one. It went through the normal process, taking seven months from introduction to enactment, and was only amended once. It never had a single "no" vote in any committee or on either floor and no one ever expressed any opposition to it. I would say that the raw milk community fell down on the job. If it opposed the bill, it had ample opportunity to say so, but never did.
--Dan Walters

Posted by grobertson at 05:01 PM | Comments