California Insider

The state Senate, as expected, passed a budget tonight, with the minimum 27 votes required for a two-thirds majority. The measure includes no new taxes beyond the tripling of the car tax already accomplished by administrative order of the governor. It does include several hundred million dollars in new fees on college students and business. And it relies on an $11 billion deficit bond to be financed over five years. Both sides of the aisle agree that it is balanced for one year only, and current revenue and expenditure projections show a new, $8 billion gap opening up next year. Some will point to the size of the remaining gap as an accomplishment, the year having begun with estimates of a $30-some billion shortfall. But remember this: the Legislature has been at war since May over what was essentially a $1.7 billion difference between the two parties. A real gap four times that large will be no easy task to close. And the chasm will grow much larger if the car tax, the deficit bond or a legally questionable pension bond are thrown out by the courts. Or if the economy fails to live up to expectations. As Sen. Tom McClintock said tonight, the next budget crisis starts the day this one is signed.

On the bright side, this budget deal does, for the first time in memory, actually get rid of some government, starting with the Trade, Technology and Commerce agency. It also establishes a commission to study other possible reductions. And it gives the governor limited authority to cut spending if the budget starts to get out of balance. The action now moves to the Assembly, which, after some grumbling, is expected to pass the budget later this week.

PS. In my April 27 column, I laid out a roadmap for a budget plan remarkably similar to the one adopted tonight. To see it, go here.

Maureen Dowd has weighed in on the recall, dismissing it, of course, as the work of California kooks. That’s almost comforting, as I would have been worried had she endorsed it. The one useful item in the piece is a quote from a Davis aide describing the recall as unlocking "all the cages in the zoo." This is the perfect metaphor with which to capture the governor's attitude toward voters. Former congressman and onetime Clinton chief of staff Leon Panetta chimes in with his own more sophisticated but essentially parallel take: the recall is democracy run amok.

Calm down, people. You would think folks were killing each other in the streets here, or burning down the Capitol. We are talking about holding an election, OK? The petitions represent a massive vote of no confidence in the governor's ability to lead. Now, in a few weeks, all of the people will have their say on that question. Britain has been doing something similar for hundreds of years now and seems to have managed to survive.

A year ago the state’s editorial boards were all but unanimous in their condemnation of the choice offered Californians. Some recommended Davis, some Simon, but almost all conceded that their choice was the lesser of evils. Now we get another bite at the apple. Is that so bad?

You can also expect a flood of criticism and mockery from the pundit booth about the growing list of candidates. As if this, too, were some sort of terrible development. Are all the candidates serious? No. But many of them will be, and the numbers are in part a reflection of the intense interest in this election. We don’t know what the turnout will be. But we do know that right now, people on the street are paying attention to California politics. They’re expressing opinions and getting involved. They are taking ownership, because they, and not the governing class, called this election. This is not bad news. Unless, of course, you are among those who have a stake in the people tuning out instead of turning out, in not caring, in not following the pea under the shell.

Here is the Dowd column, and here is Panetta. Both require registration, but use mine: californiainsider/insider

I just heard that the budget deal will include the creation of a commission to examine the state bureuacracy and eliminate unnecessary agencies and offices. This is an idea that Sen. (and candidate for gov) Tom McClintock has been pushing for some time. Things are now so bad fiscally that the libs are picking up on his idea because they see it as a way to preserve services they value -- by killing off stuff that's obsolete or unnecessary. McClintock touts this as similar to the military base reduction process that the feds went through a few years back. He wants a list of agencies that should be eliminated and an up or down vote in the Legislature, to avoid nickel and diming the thing to death with amendments. Probably a good idea. How much will this process save the taxpayers? Not much, unfortunately, in the great scheme of things. Maybe a few hundred million dollars. But that is a start, and more importantly, it's a step toward adopting the psychology that we don't have to keep doing everything we are doing now forever. We can re-examine priorities and stop doing some things.