In the continuing battle over the budget here in California we have now heard from Governor Ahnold who has indicated his intention to veto the budget passed by the legislature last night/early this morning. He also said he would veto ‘all other bills’ but then backtracked somewhat saying he would veto bills with an impact on spending, which is pretty much everything.
I must admit to having somewhat-mixed views on the whole situation. I understand his position that we can’t keep going through these budget battles every year and that we need to make serious changes to the process. He wants things like a rainy day fund and the ability to make mid year budget vetoes to adjust spending if revenues drop. He also wants to see the legislature overhaul the entire spending process so we don’t have this problem every year and has said that the budget as passed simply delays the problem for 12 more months.
In these points he is basically correct. We do need to make changes to the process and this is a band aid on a gaping wound.
But we are also nearly 80 days past the budget deadline and rapidly running out of time. People out there are suffering badly. People who run businesses that depend on state funding like medical care facilities and nursing homes have been using their own money to keep things going while no money has been coming in from Sacramento.
Even if the budget passes now, they will be stuck with the interest on the debts they have taken out. If the budget is not passed by October 1st, then the state goes into default and will have to take out similarly-expensive loans to keep the doors open.
For these reasons I think it is probably more important to pass the budget now and work on the long-term solutions next.
Of course, to a degree, the debate is academic since in California you need a 2/3 majority to pass a budget so a veto threat is somewhat empty. If the same people who backed the budget back an override then it’s a done deal (and from what I’ve seen that is going to happen).
Perhaps the Governor wants to make a symbolic stand in vetoing the budget since he knows the override will happen, but I’m not sure he needs to be playing political games in that way. The same holds true with his threat to veto every bill out there. Again, I understand that he wants to take a stand and I’m quite sure many of the bills merit a veto. But making blanket statements and then having to backtrack doesn’t really help either.
In short, I am very sympathetic with his goals but very disappointed with his conduct throughout the budget process. From trying to cut salaries of the state workers to playing games with the threat of veto he has not conducted himself in a way that a leader of a state should.