Deal? No Deal!

It seems that Republican MINORITY Leader Dick Ackerman cannot negotiate for his caucus on the state budget, now over due by by 52 days.

Earlier today, Senator Dick Ackerman indicated that there was a tentative agreement on the budget. Brian Joseph reported in the Orange County Register Irvine Senator announces tentative budget deal.  Joseph lead his story with…

Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman’s office is reporting that he and Senate Democrat Leader Don Perata have reached a tentative deal on the state budget.

According to the Irvine senator’s office, the two leaders have reached a tentative agreement that they will now share with members of their respective caucuses. Republicans are meeting now to discuss the plan, details of which are unknown.

By Monday evening it seems that the “deal” was not a deal.  Maybe it’s just me, but this tactic of agreeing to a deal and then changing their minds is becomming somewhat of a habit among Republicans.

The Associated Press reported Monday night under the Register headline State budget deals falls apart that Monday’s early optimism was replaced by delays, and disagreement.

Early in the day, lawmakers from both sides said they were optimistic the return of the Assembly from its four-week recess would spark budget talks that had stalled in the Senate.

Late Monday, however, legislative leaders issued conflicting statements after leaving a meeting with Schwarzenegger, lending uncertainty to how quickly a deal could be reached.

Adding to the confusion were a number of conditions demanded by Republicans before they would agree to a state spending plan. Some Republican votes are needed in both houses because passing the budget requires a two-thirds majority vote.

“There are a number of issues that are very important to our caucus, and we still have a couple that are outstanding,” said Senate Minority Leader Dick Ackerman, R-Tustin.

Ackerman’s comments conflicted with those by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, who said he believed a deal had been reached.

Nunez scheduled an evening Assembly session and expected to take up a budget-related bill sought by Republicans.

But the Assembly adjourned about 10 p.m. without voting on any matters related to the spending plan and scheduled another floor session for Tuesday morning. The Senate did the same.

After the Assembly session, Nunez told reporters that the four legislative leaders and Schwarzenegger had struck a budget deal in the afternoon. But he said Ackerman backed away after leaving the meeting and speaking with members of the Senate Republican caucus.

“At this point, the only thing I can tell you is that we need to hope for a better tomorrow, and it requires a bit of guts on the part of all members of leadership. Well see where it goes,” Nunez said.

Núñez told the Sacramento Bee;

“(We) agreed to a budget deal,” Núñez said. “And from the time that I left the Big Five meeting to the time I walked outside five minutes later, (and) Dick Ackerman walked outside, something happened. And maybe he had a metaphysical reaction that the rest of us somehow … we are unable to communicate at that level.”

Sen. Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, has been voicing concern over state Attorney General Jerry Brown’s aggressive moves to force local planners to include climate change in their development projects. Using the California Environmental Quality Act, Brown has sued San Bernardino County for failing to consider greenhouse gas emissions in its general plan.

To soothe GOP concerns, Democrats agreed to a compromise proposal that would place a moratorium on greenhouse gas-related actions against transportation bonds, approved by voters under Proposition 1B last fall. It would sunset at the end of 2009 after the state Air Resources Board adopts new regulations to comply with a state initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020.

But by late in the evening, Republicans were balking at that approach, and demanding that bonds for levees be protected from suits, too.

While the people of California wait for a budget deal, 9 of the 14 Republican obstructionists celebrated their success.  The Associated Press reported that they

…gathered at a steakhouse across from the Capitol, smoking cigars, drinking wine and eating dinner while their colleagues waited to learn whether they would agree to the budget terms.

Their leader, Ackerman, joined the restaurant gathering and declined to comment when a reporter asked him to explain what was happening with his caucus.

Yes, I’m going to say it again…

White men of “principle,” or should I say privilege?! 

  9 comments for “Deal? No Deal!

  1. RHackett
    August 21, 2007 at 6:44 am

    The senate GOP is starting to resemble Lucy pulling the football. Cartoon characters.

  2. Dan Chmielewski
    August 21, 2007 at 7:57 am

    well, if we’re only one vote away, wouldn’t Ackerman’s vote be enough

  3. August 21, 2007 at 8:20 am

    White men of “principle,” or should I say privilege?!

    Liberal racism. Isn’t it lovely?

  4. RHackett
    August 21, 2007 at 9:03 am

    well, if we’re only one vote away, wouldn’t Ackerman’s vote be enough

    Dan, that would require leadership. Something we won’t be seeing anytime soon from Ackerman.

  5. Dan Chmielewski
    August 21, 2007 at 9:36 am

    Racism? Interesting charge since the lack of budget hurts a significant number of Latino taxpayers and other minorities, so can we call that conservative racism.

    This is another example of Republicans moving the goalposts yet again. Its a case of the minority subverting the will of the majority. The only leadership I see here is Abel Maldonado recognizing he was elected to represent people in his district and not the Republican party.

  6. August 21, 2007 at 9:40 am

    Matt,
    You’re kidding, right? You are calling a white man a racist towards white people. This because I point out the the people of privilege holding the budget hostage are all white men.

    Reminds me of the Chapelle Show skit about a blind black white supremacist.

  7. August 22, 2007 at 10:50 am

    This because I point out the the people of privilege holding the budget hostage are all white men.

    To what point, Chris? That’s what you ought to address to your readers. Don’t fall back on a disingenuous “Hey, I’m just saying….! You’re implying that their skin color is factor in how they are voting. If you’re going to say race is why they were holding out on the budget, don’t be coy about it.

    What if someone commented:

    “Mexicans, blacks and homosexuals of ‘principle’ don’t care about spending other people’s money in an unbalanced budget?

    Would your reaction be, “Well, he/she’s just saying Mexican, black and homosexual legislators are Mexican, black and homosexual. Doesn’t mean anything by it. Just pointing out that the legislators who take money from people who earned it and give to people who didn’t earn it are mostly blacks, Mexicans and homosexual.” He/she’s just sayin’

  8. August 22, 2007 at 10:58 am

    Racism? Interesting charge since the lack of budget hurts a significant number of Latino taxpayers and other minorities, so can we call that conservative racism.

    That’s crazy reasoning.

    Reducing transfer payments — or the rate of growth of income transfer payments — is racist if the recipients are anything but Caucasian.

    That reminds of of those liberals who believe, by definition, that racism is something only white people are capable of.

  9. RHackett
    August 22, 2007 at 11:23 am

    I’ve always thought cries of racism were pretty worthless unless taken in the context of power.

    Given the power structure of every organization I’ve worked was predominantly controlled by graying haired white men it is pretty accurate. The GOP state senate caucus has a pretty narrow perspective when making policy decisions about people they’ve not only never met, but have no idea about what they have experienced.

    Not that I do either, since I am a slightly graying middle age white guy.

Comments are closed.