[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Robert Cruickshank

Wouldn't that make an excellent headline? Instead the SacBee offers Schwarzenegger criticizes lawmakers for not reaching budget deal - Arnold kicks it in his smoking tent, or idly speculating about a post in the Obama administration on national TV while the Legislature remains divided on the budget. Here are the damning paragraphs from the article:

“Schwarzenegger ramped up criticism of lawmakers this week, but he so far has refrained from using harsh tactics such as visiting lawmakers' districts and cajoling them, as he did during a late budget in 2004.

“The Republican governor has been meeting with leaders individually, though he said he "didn't really want to interfere with their process." The parties remain divided over whether the state should use tax increases to bridge the gap, as majority Democrats have proposed.”

In other words, Arnold is reluctant to himself exercise the leadership that he claims is lacking in the Legislature.

His statements on specific proposals have been vague to the point of uselessness:

by Robert in Monterey [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Frank D. Russo

Senate President pro Tem Don Perata held a news conference after the Senate completed its proceedings yesterday and passed the California state budget and related bills. He had some pretty strong things to say about Senate Republicans, those who suffered needlessly over the impasse over the budget, and the institution of the State Senate, as we head down the last four weeks of this year's session. Here is what he had to say before answering reporters' questions.

Perata in His Own Words

"I'll just say the obvious--that's what I'm really good at--Thank God this is over with.

I am still perplexed why it took so long. It occurs to me and I would be remiss if I didn't say that last evening when I heard what was going on over across the street where a lot of the Senate Republicans were yucking it up that they had blocked, still again, the budget deal, that it underscores the damage that happens to this institution when people do not comport themselves in a manner consistent with the traditions of this Senate.

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

With the dust settled and a budget deal in place, the attention turns now to Governor Schwarzenegger, whose promise of $700 million in line-item vetoes was key to passage, the Sacramento Bee reports. Arnold is going to have to becreative—education, law enforcement and tax breaks for property ownersto preserve open space are off the table.

The 14 members of the GOP caucus who held up the budget emerge as the biggest losers at the conclusion of the 52-day impasse, the San Francisco Chroniclereports. The reviews are mixed for Governor Schwarzenegger, who seemedto lose control of the process but now at least can focus on hislegislative priorities.

Hank Shaw points out in today's Stockton Record that Republicans only put up the minimal two votes required for Senate passage, and no Central Valley GOP Senators were part of the mix. Many thoughtthat Jeff Denham, who represents a swing district running from Salinasto Merced, would blink, but he's termed out and looking to curry favorin a primary for Lieutenant Governor. GOP Leader Dick Ackerman ofTustin was left to be the 27th vote.

There's more...

Photo courtesy of the Nostrandus Mabus Project.

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

Senate Republicans are pounding their chests about the so-called concession they won in the California Environmental Quality Act after 52 days of obstruction. But if you ask environmental insiders and Democratic leaders what they got, they agree on one thing: the GOP was snookered. In fact, greenhouse gas protections may have even been strengthened by the Republican's move!

Here are the details:

1. Question:

The Republicans demanded changes in law to stop Jerry Brown and others from filing lawsuits against San Bernardino County development plans, oil refinery upgrades, and other projects that produce greenhouse gases (GHG’s). Does this language do that?

Answer:

The short answer is no. If anything, the language strengthens environmental protections for climate change impacts.

The language does two things:

a. First, it mandates new CEQA guidelines by 2010 that spell out what parties must do to "mitigate" (or address) the global warming impacts of their projects, something not required under current law;

b. And second, it states that inadequate analyses of greenhouse gas emissions otherwise regulated by the ARB under AB 32 for transportation projects funded under Proposition 1-B and flood control projects under proposition 1-E are not a basis for bringing lawsuits under CEQA.

read more »

by David Dayen [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

Via Steve Soto, check out these white men from the Senate GOP Caucus hitting happy hour to celebrate their denying money to nursing homes, hospitals, and childcare centers.

Making life harder on the less fortunate can be fun! I think I see Jeff Denham in there. Somebody get this on a button!

UPDATE: And a budget deal has been reached, making this picture's quest for immortality moot (although I think my posting this made the pressure just too much to bear). How about an open thread on the budget passage, then?

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Frank D. Russo

Seems to me that some of the basic rules of negotiating have not been adhered to in negotiations over the California budget in Sacramento. I hope, and surmise, that the budget will finally get agreed upon today and sent to the Governor, but victory has been snatched from the jaws of victory here a number of times on this saga and I am prepared to be disappointed again.

So, Speaker of the Assembly Nunez had this to say, yesterday, while in the middle of negotiations:

Reporter: "What did you come here expecting to do?"