STATE CAPITOL-The Senate Rules Committee yesterday defeated four budget reform measures that were authored by State Senator Jeff Denham (R-Merced), the major budget holdout last summer. These four measures were part of Denham´s Budget Reform package totaling six measures: three Senate Constitutional Amendments, two Senate Concurrent Resolutions and one Senate Bill. The final two measures from the package are scheduled to be heard today in the Senate Budget & Fiscal Review Committee.
"There´s been a lot of talk over the past year, about convening a panel on budget reform, yet here we are again already late on this year´s budget. If not now, then when?" asked Denham. "Today, I presented four bills of my budget reform package that I originally introduced in January. The Governor and pro Tempore need to put all the budget reform ideas into a Budget Revision Panel and have a serious discussion."
The four measures defeated were:
SCA 15 was designed to put pressure on the Legislature to pass a budget by the Constitutional deadline. This measure states that if the Legislature fails to meet the June 15 deadline, then they must meet in session 24 hours a day, and not recess or adjourn, until the budget bill is passed and presented to the Governor. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association supported this measure
SCA 16 was a financial incentive for the Legislature to work together and pass a budget by June 15. This measure states that if the budget bill is not passed by the June 15 deadline, members of the Legislature shall not be paid any salary from June 16 to the date the budget bill is passed and sent to the Governor. It also states that Legislators will not be able to recover this pay at a later date. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association supported this measure.
SCR 68 would have changed the budget conference committee membership that meets on a budget bill to 10 members. Currently, this committee has 6 members. This measure would also establish a different procedure to appoint members to this committee. SCR 68 states that the Senate Committee on Rules and the Speaker of the Assembly will each appoint three members, and the minority party caucuses in each house will each appoint two members. Currently, the majority party has the final say in which members are selected. The California Taxpayers Association supported this measure.
SCR 69 would have required that a budget bill vote by the budget conference committee or a committee or subcommittee in either house of the Legislature must have a 2/3 vote, instead of a majority vote. The California Taxpayers Association supported this measure.
"If you don´t get your job done on time, you shouldn´t get paid and you shouldn´t get to walk away from a job undone," said Denham. "There is a 2/3´s vote requirement on both the Senate and Assembly Floors to pass the budget. Why wait until June or July to work out an agreement? A 2/3 vote requirement in an expanded Budget Conference Committee would have forced Legislators to work out disagreements earlier rather than later."
Denham´s remaining two budget reform bills are:
SCA 14 would require the Governor to submit a balanced budget as determined by the non-partisan Legislative Analyst, utilizing a well-respected and trusted source for both parties. Last year, and in some previous years, there were strong indications that the proposed budget was not really balanced. (See LAO report on proposed 2007-2008 Budget.) The measure states if a balanced budget has not been submitted by January 10, then the Governor shall forfeit any salary from January 11 until the date a balanced budget is submitted. (This sanction would be ineffective against Governor Schwarzenegger who doesn´t take a state salary.)
SB 1456 will formalize the process to allow the state to continue to provide critical services during a budget impasse, should that occur in the future. Denham introduced a similar amendment last summer, Assembly Bill 207, which would have appropriated $10 billion to the State Controller to pay vital state expenses during the budget impasse.
"There´s been a lot of talk over the past year, about convening a panel on budget reform, yet here we are again already late on this year´s budget. If not now, then when?" asked Denham. "Today, I presented four bills of my budget reform package that I originally introduced in January. The Governor and pro Tempore need to put all the budget reform ideas into a Budget Revision Panel and have a serious discussion."
The four measures defeated were:
SCA 15 was designed to put pressure on the Legislature to pass a budget by the Constitutional deadline. This measure states that if the Legislature fails to meet the June 15 deadline, then they must meet in session 24 hours a day, and not recess or adjourn, until the budget bill is passed and presented to the Governor. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association supported this measure
SCA 16 was a financial incentive for the Legislature to work together and pass a budget by June 15. This measure states that if the budget bill is not passed by the June 15 deadline, members of the Legislature shall not be paid any salary from June 16 to the date the budget bill is passed and sent to the Governor. It also states that Legislators will not be able to recover this pay at a later date. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association supported this measure.
SCR 68 would have changed the budget conference committee membership that meets on a budget bill to 10 members. Currently, this committee has 6 members. This measure would also establish a different procedure to appoint members to this committee. SCR 68 states that the Senate Committee on Rules and the Speaker of the Assembly will each appoint three members, and the minority party caucuses in each house will each appoint two members. Currently, the majority party has the final say in which members are selected. The California Taxpayers Association supported this measure.
SCR 69 would have required that a budget bill vote by the budget conference committee or a committee or subcommittee in either house of the Legislature must have a 2/3 vote, instead of a majority vote. The California Taxpayers Association supported this measure.
"If you don´t get your job done on time, you shouldn´t get paid and you shouldn´t get to walk away from a job undone," said Denham. "There is a 2/3´s vote requirement on both the Senate and Assembly Floors to pass the budget. Why wait until June or July to work out an agreement? A 2/3 vote requirement in an expanded Budget Conference Committee would have forced Legislators to work out disagreements earlier rather than later."
Denham´s remaining two budget reform bills are:
SCA 14 would require the Governor to submit a balanced budget as determined by the non-partisan Legislative Analyst, utilizing a well-respected and trusted source for both parties. Last year, and in some previous years, there were strong indications that the proposed budget was not really balanced. (See LAO report on proposed 2007-2008 Budget.) The measure states if a balanced budget has not been submitted by January 10, then the Governor shall forfeit any salary from January 11 until the date a balanced budget is submitted. (This sanction would be ineffective against Governor Schwarzenegger who doesn´t take a state salary.)
SB 1456 will formalize the process to allow the state to continue to provide critical services during a budget impasse, should that occur in the future. Denham introduced a similar amendment last summer, Assembly Bill 207, which would have appropriated $10 billion to the State Controller to pay vital state expenses during the budget impasse.
