California Insider

Every time you pick up a fiscal rock in the California budget, little deficit bugs scurry out. Here's one that illustrates the point: the state announced Wednesday that CHP officers agreed to take “pay cuts” that are supposed to save about $19 million this year. But it turns out the pay cut is actually a raise -- of 2.7 percent. How can a raise save the taxpayers money? Because without the agreement, the officers would have received a 7.7 percent raise this year. So they took 5 percent less than they were entitled to. In exchange, they get an extra paid day off a month and a cap on the cost of their health benefits. What does a day off per month cost? Well if you work 20 days a month, and you get one extra day off, that’s 5 percent -- exactly the amount they supposedly gave up. That exchange doesn’t cost the state any more money in the short-term, because we pay them the same whether they work or not, but if too many officers take their days off, overtime costs will likely climb. And if too few take them, the credits will accrue until they retire, costing taxpayers more then. And the cost of health care? It’s only going up, so if we are capping it for the officers, the taxpayers are going to pay more. I’d love to be able to follow the costs/savings of this deal in micro-detail over the course of the year. Because I suspect it really won’t save much at all. And over the long term, it is certain to be a loser. Imagine this scenario repeated with 20 different public employee unions, and similar accounting for “cuts” in programs. Now you know why the deficit never goes away.

UPDATE: A reader notes that the CHP example doesn't necessarily apply to all the state employee contracts because while almost all are getting a 5 percent pay raise this year, for most employees that raise will be offset by an increase in their share of their retirement premiums. For those employees in that category, denying them their raise actually would result in a loss of take-home pay, even if their gross salary goes up.

Republican analyst Tony Quinn agrees that the "if appropriate" claim is dubious but suggests we not overlook California Chief Justice Ron George's close ties with the political establishment. George was a Wilson appointee but has been very cozy with the leaders of both parties over the years. Quinn suggests he might be looking for a way to end the recall madness. He says he is convinced that "the political class is circling the wagons and I would not be surprised to see the California Supreme Court do them another favor."

More: "The fact they took the case on successor elections suggests they plan to do something. Don't forget this is the same court that took Ted Costa's last initiative (Prop 24) off the ballot for spurious reasons -- it would have reformed reapportionment, something the political class didn't want. Ron George cares a lot about keeping the legislature and governor happy for budget purposes -- sooo, don't be surprised if we have no successor election."

Everyone, including me, has pointed out the parallels between the California recall and Florida 2000. It's really starting to look now as if the two are mirror images of each other, with California's run-up to the election a repeat of Florida's post-election madness. One reason for that is that all the players learned in Florida that it's damn hard to change the outcome after the votes have been cast, no matter how righteous you think your position might be. Along those lines, three Democratic heavyweights will announce tomorrow an action they say is aimed at preventing "voter disenfranchisement" in the Oct. 7 election. Donna Brazile, who was the Gore 2000 campaign manager, Alice Huffman, president of the California NAACP, and Art Pulaski of the California Labor Federation have a morning press conference planned. I'm not sure, but I have a hunch it will be about punchcard voting, which lingers in some California precincts, and perhaps plans by some registrars to limit the number of polling places in order to save money and reduce the need for staffing. Don't be surprised if they file some action in the courts or with a civil rights agency seeking to delay the election.

I know most of the people who read this blog know this, but I want to repeat for newcomers that Gray Davis cannot run to succeed himself. Davis and Pete Wilson, who served the maximum two terms from 1991-98, are the only two registered voters ineligible to run in the "race to replace." By the way, this is the number one question I am getting, which suggests that we still have a ways to go before folks understand how all this will go down....

Former state legislator Barry Keene, the author of the infamous words “if appropriate” in Article II of the constitution, has researched his records and refreshed his memory of the 1974 amendment he sponsored that added those words while striking hundreds of others from the recall provision. When I first spoke to him a week ago, Keene said he did not remember why he put the words in there. Now he does. He says they were intended to ensure that the lieutenant governor would become governor in the case of a recall. He said he meant to ensure that Article V, which provides for the succession, applied to all vacancies in the governor's office, and that a recall would create a vacancy, to be filled not by the voters but by the constitutional elevation of the lieutenant governor.

Keene says he is joining a petition to be filed today in the Supreme Court on this matter, “in order to make it clear that the intent of the succession provisions in Article V was to prevail against any and all other law or legislation that might be passed to the contrary, such as a recall-plus election.” He adds: “The words ‘if appropriate’ are quite significant, very significant. They apply not only to judges but charter municipalities and other kinds of situations, to protect those situations from being steamrolled by the recall language in Article II.”

If accepted by the Supreme Court, Keene’s take would cancel the second half of the recall ballot, which is an election to replace the governor if he is recalled in the first half of the election. I am skeptical. Keene was a careful legislator who was not known to sneak things past people. I find it very hard to believe that he would put a constitutional amendment before the people of California taking away their right to elect a governor to replace one being recalled and not bother mentioning it to anyone. The issue doesn’t appear anywhere in Keene’s argument for the constitutional revision he sponsored in 1974, or in the analysis in the ballot pamphlet prepared by the legislative analyst’s office. It is my understanding that those documents, and not the memory of the author, is where the courts normally look to guide them on interpreting the meaning of a ballot measure.

Republican Party spokesman Rob Stutzman, speaking on Eric Hogue's radio show on KTKZ in Sacramento, says it's official: Arnold is out. "I had that confirmed late last night," Stutzman said.

UPDATE: There's been some confusion about the word "official" I used above. Stutzman is the official spokesman for the Republican Party, but he is not an official spokesman for Arnold. We await word from the man himself.

Having trouble keeping up? Don't blame you. These are crazy times in California. Here is some of what happened Tuesday:

The Assembly, after the speaker locked the members in overnight, passed a budget to end a 29-day partisan stalemate.

In San Francisco, top Democrats met to either a) shore up their unity in the fight to save Gray Davis or b) figure out a strategy to offer a replacement candidate while not dooming their man to defeat.

In a related development, two Democratic members of Congress –Cal Dooley and Loretta Sanchez – called on U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein to enter the fray as a back-up option should Davis lose. They were the first elected Democrats to call publicly for a party candidate to replace Gray.

In Los Angeles, top Republicans from opposing campaigns met to plot recall strategy, hoping to increase their chances of dumping Davis while reserving the right to savage each other in the campaign to replace him.

In Brentwood, former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan met with strategists to help shape a possible campaign for governor and prepared to accept the baton from his friend, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Down the street, columnist Arianna Huffington met with advisers to consider her own potential as an independent candidate in the replacement election.

In San Diego, a federal court changed the rules of the recall vote, deciding that voters can participate in the replacement election even if they express no opinion on the question of whether Davis should be recalled.

In San Francisco, the state Supreme Court took up the question of whether a replacement election is even necessary. This is the same idea floated briefly and then dropped by Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante. Bustamante would become governor if Davis were recalled and there was no election to replace him.

Presumably, the pace of developments will slow once the filing deadline passes Aug. 9 and the courts work their way through the challenges. It better. We cannot keep this up.