Democracy, the California Budget, and the LAO

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

Dan Walters suggests the Legislature cut a stick – for him to beat them with

By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento

Liz Hill, the budget analyst is retiring to columns of approbation from the Capitol Press Corps. Dan Walters is the latest to heap praise on Hill.

Walters sets up a false dichotomy between “the right thing to do” and the “politically expedient” thing to do. The “politically expedient” thing is that which voters would prefer to see and which they would reward with further service The “right thing” would be to take action voters oppose – like raising taxes or cutting essential spending.

Funny, I always thought the people should have a voice in this business

Walters is part of the “I know better” caucus. Not answerable to the people, they feel free to castigate politicians forced to pay attention by the election process.

Liz Hill is one of them too. As Walters correctly writes, “Hill’s alternative budget
Had something for every party, every ideology, virtually every budget interest group to dislike”. Walters believes that to be a good thing. (After all, it has no public support).
I don’t agree.

As a long time staffer for the Legislature I never understood why the Analyst provided advice that had no support among her employers. My value was directly related to my utility to my boss (Speakers). Liz was fond of saying that she had “120 bosses”, but the truth is that her advice rarely found support among any of them.

Her real bosses were journalists. Her reports provided grist, and usually a platform from which both houses and both parties in the Legislature could be criticized – as Walters does today.