Several of Brown’s Democratic legislative allies criticized him for being too tight-fisted.

Ultimately, scattered GOP applause isn’t going to translate into budget “aye” votes and Democratic disgruntlement isn’t going to mean less than the 41 votes needed to send a budget back to Brown that looks quite similar to the one that spawned their initial complaints.

What the rhetorical volley does mean is the official start of budget season.

There have been several months of subcommittee hearings and explications of the spending blueprint Brown unveiled in January but it’s after the May Revision when things get real, including the budget itself – at least in large measure.

Numbers can be crunched in any number of ways as Brown proves this year  but, unlike its January predecessor, the governor’s May 14 budget is a product of actual revenues collected from December through April – instead of estimates – and five months of state and national economic activity that was only predicted in January.

A more reliable reckoning of revenue and spending obligations is the first step in budget negotiations. Without knowing how much money is available, it’s impossible to know how much to ask for in return for a vote.

Brown, who has been involved in budget back-and-forths longer than a number of current legislators have been alive, knows the drill.

Prudence and restraint is required because the economy isn’t doing as well as in January, Brown says. Federal sequestration and a bump-up in the payroll tax are throttling California economic growth.

The $4.5 billion in unexpected cash collected since January isn’t really that much and what revenue there is, the constitution mandates it must be sent to schools.

A nice two-fer for Brown who wins media atta-boys for holding the line on spending and headlines like “Budget Includes Major Infusion for Education” in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Sorry gang, says Brown, crocodile tears streaming, my hands are tied. There simply isn’t money to be spent on other priorities, even those of Senate President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento, the state’s second most powerful Democrat.

Brown’s cupboard-is-bare rap is simply playing hard-to-get with lawmakers, as Steinberg and his more savvy colleagues readily recognize.

The Legislative Analyst calls Brown on it.

While the analyst doesn’t use the word “lowball” in their assessment of the Democratic governor’s latest spending proposal but that’s sure what they suggest Brown is doing:

“We do not agree with the administration’s view that there has been a significant dimming of the state’s near–term economic prospects,” the analyst writes in its May 17 Overview of the May Revision.

“The administration’s new revenue forecast does not seem to reflect some recent economic improvements—most notably, a sharp increase in stock prices. As a result, our forecast now is $3.2 billion higher than the administration’s May Revision total” for this fiscal year and those preceding and following it.

Brown replies through Department of Finance Spokesman H.D. Palmer that “roughly 80 percent of the difference” between the two revenue forecasts is the “respective projections for capital gains – which is the most volatile revenue source and is subject to dramatic swings.”

A point the analyst also makes in their report.

Elsewhere it is 40-page examination of Brown’s latest budget, the analyst urges lawmakers to be “cautious” but then says that if the analyst’s revenue estimates are right “the Legislature would have much more flexibility to prioritize state spending within the next year or two.”

Translated: There’s more money to spend on programs of importance to Democratic lawmakers.

Fiscal priorities of Republicans are not important. Proposition 25, approved in November 2010, says the budget and related legislation can be passed on a majority vote. No Republican votes are needed.

That might explain some of the standing-in-solidarity with Brown on keeping a tightish rein on spending and support for education:  There’s nothing to gain from the budget except a forum to promote Republican ideology.

“We have common ground with the governor in a belief that we cannot return to a culture of overspending that drives new budget crises,” said Senate GOP Leader Bob Huff of Diamond Bar in a statement.  “Gov. Brown referred to this as a ‘Call for Prudence,’ we would call it ‘Common Sense.’

“It seems that the governor’s biggest budget challenge will be in restraining legislative Democrats and their growing wish list of new spending.”

Hard to disagree with Huff given this release by Sen. Noreen Evans:

“Now is the time to exercise some fiscal responsibility by reinvesting in California’s economy following years of austerity measures. The cuts-only approach … is now contributing to our high unemployment rate and is

Steinberg: “Disappointing Aspect” to Brown’s Budget

hampering a full economic recovery,” the Santa Rosa Democrat said. 

“Funding cuts to state programs caused historical job losses in every sector.  These same funding cuts reduced the money being spent in our local economies.  California needs to spend some of our new revenues to put people back to work and contribute to the overall economic activity in the state to induce a resurgence in our local economies.”

While saying it was “refreshing” not to be again cutting deeply into state programs, Steinberg allowed as to there being  a “disappointing aspect” to Brown’s plan.

“It’s important that we also begin making up for some of the damage done to tens of thousands of Californians,” Steinberg said in his statement. “The governor proposes few if any resources to restore cuts made over the past few years to the courts and to health and human services.”

Then Steinberg notes the “serious concern” Senate Democrats have with the centerpiece of Brown’s budget plan – a new funding formula for schools that sends more state dollars to districts with higher numbers of special needs and English-learner students.

Perhaps some of that “serious concern” might be assuaged by Brown “making up for some of the damage done” through past budget cuts? 

Rather gratuitously, Steinberg also says in his statement “the budget debate begins in earnest.”

-30-

Several of Brown’s Democratic legislative allies criticized him for being too tight-fisted.

Ultimately, scattered GOP applause isn’t going to translate into budget “aye” votes and Democratic disgruntlement isn’t going to mean less than the 41 votes needed to send a budget back to Brown that looks quite similar to the one that spawned their initial complaints.

What the rhetorical volley does mean is the official start of budget season.

There have been several months of subcommittee hearings and explications of the spending blueprint Brown unveiled in January but it’s after the May Revision when things get real, including the budget itself – at least in large measure.

Numbers can be crunched in any number of ways as Brown proves this year  but, unlike its January predecessor, the governor’s May 14 budget is a product of actual revenues collected from December through April – instead of estimates – and five months of state and national economic activity that was only predicted in January.

A more reliable reckoning of revenue and spending obligations is the first step in budget negotiations. Without knowing how much money is available, it’s impossible to know how much to ask for in return for a vote.

Brown, who has been involved in budget back-and-forths longer than a number of current legislators have been alive, knows the drill.

Prudence and restraint is required because the economy isn’t doing as well as in January, Brown says. Federal sequestration and a bump-up in the payroll tax are throttling California economic growth.

The $4.5 billion in unexpected cash collected since January isn’t really that much and what revenue there is, the constitution mandates it must be sent to schools.

A nice two-fer for Brown who wins media atta-boys for holding the line on spending and headlines like “Budget Includes Major Infusion for Education” in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Sorry gang, says Brown, crocodile tears streaming, my hands are tied. There simply isn’t money to be spent on other priorities, even those of Senate President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento, the state’s second most powerful Democrat.

Brown’s cupboard-is-bare rap is simply playing hard-to-get with lawmakers, as Steinberg and his more savvy colleagues readily recognize.

The Legislative Analyst calls Brown on it.

While the analyst doesn’t use the word “lowball” in their assessment of the Democratic governor’s latest spending proposal but that’s sure what they suggest Brown is doing:

“We do not agree with the administration’s view that there has been a significant dimming of the state’s near–term economic prospects,” the analyst writes in its May 17 Overview of the May Revision.

“The administration’s new revenue forecast does not seem to reflect some recent economic improvements—most notably, a sharp increase in stock prices. As a result, our forecast now is $3.2 billion higher than the administration’s May Revision total” for this fiscal year and those preceding and following it.

Brown replies through Department of Finance Spokesman H.D. Palmer that “roughly 80 percent of the difference” between the two revenue forecasts is the “respective projections for capital gains – which is the most volatile revenue source and is subject to dramatic swings.”

A point the analyst also makes in their report.

Elsewhere it is 40-page examination of Brown’s latest budget, the analyst urges lawmakers to be “cautious” but then says that if the analyst’s revenue estimates are right “the Legislature would have much more flexibility to prioritize state spending within the next year or two.”

Translated: There’s more money to spend on programs of importance to Democratic lawmakers.

Fiscal priorities of Republicans are not important. Proposition 25, approved in November 2010, says the budget and related legislation can be passed on a majority vote. No Republican votes are needed.

That might explain some of the standing-in-solidarity with Brown on keeping a tightish rein on spending and support for education:  There’s nothing to gain from the budget except a forum to promote Republican ideology.

“We have common ground with the governor in a belief that we cannot return to a culture of overspending that drives new budget crises,” said Senate GOP Leader Bob Huff of Diamond Bar in a statement.  “Gov. Brown referred to this as a ‘Call for Prudence,’ we would call it ‘Common Sense.’

“It seems that the governor’s biggest budget challenge will be in restraining legislative Democrats and their growing wish list of new spending.”

Hard to disagree with Huff given this release by Sen. Noreen Evans:

“Now is the time to exercise some fiscal responsibility by reinvesting in California’s economy following years of austerity measures. The cuts-only approach … is now contributing to our high unemployment rate and is

Steinberg: “Disappointing Aspect” to Brown’s Budget

hampering a full economic recovery,” the Santa Rosa Democrat said. 

“Funding cuts to state programs caused historical job losses in every sector.  These same funding cuts reduced the money being spent in our local economies.  California needs to spend some of our new revenues to put people back to work and contribute to the overall economic activity in the state to induce a resurgence in our local economies.”

While saying it was “refreshing” not to be again cutting deeply into state programs, Steinberg allowed as to there being  a “disappointing aspect” to Brown’s plan.

“It’s important that we also begin making up for some of the damage done to tens of thousands of Californians,” Steinberg said in his statement. “The governor proposes few if any resources to restore cuts made over the past few years to the courts and to health and human services.”

Then Steinberg notes the “serious concern” Senate Democrats have with the centerpiece of Brown’s budget plan – a new funding formula for schools that sends more state dollars to districts with higher numbers of special needs and English-learner students.

Perhaps some of that “serious concern” might be assuaged by Brown “making up for some of the damage done” through past budget cuts? 

Rather gratuitously, Steinberg also says in his statement “the budget debate begins in earnest.”

-30-

House Republican Leader Gerald McCormick, R-Chattanooga, and House Republican Caucus Chairman Glen Casada, R-Franklin, confirmed Friday that they have endorsed Carr for the 4th Congressional District.

“He works hard, and he’s a good, honest man,” McCormick said. “That’s why I’m for him.”

Carr, R-Lascassas, faces incumbent U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais and state Sen. Jim Tracy, R-Shelbyville.

Share on Facebook

By Anthony Wright

Governor Jerry Brown announced his May Revision of the California State Budget on Tuesday, declaring for the first time in decades a multi-year balanced budget. In his brief remarks unveiling the proposal, the Governor highlighted planned investments in education, as promised in the campaign for Proposition 30 last fall, as well as the work to implement the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA).

In the May revision of the budget, Governor Brown moves towards a resolution for a timely Medi-Cal expansion as required under the Affordable Care Act. But the budget seeks a greater than 75 percent cut to county safety net funds, and would continue cuts to Medi-Cal provider rates and Denti-Cal.

read more

By Anthony Wright

Governor Jerry Brown announced his May Revision of the California State Budget on Tuesday, declaring for the first time in decades a multi-year balanced budget. In his brief remarks unveiling the proposal, the Governor highlighted planned investments in education, as promised in the campaign for Proposition 30 last fall, as well as the work to implement the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA).

In the May revision of the budget, Governor Brown moves towards a resolution for a timely Medi-Cal expansion as required under the Affordable Care Act. But the budget seeks a greater than 75 percent cut to county safety net funds, and would continue cuts to Medi-Cal provider rates and Denti-Cal.

read more

Hitting the inboxes of political journalists overnight was a link to a blog post in Reason magazine that suggested the professional wrestler Kane is weighing a challenge to U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander.

The libertarian magazine quotes “sources close to the one-time World Heavyweight Champion” (we’d guess Paul Bearer except that he’s dead and another reporter already made that joke) as saying Kane, a.k.a. Glenn Jacobs, is “open to the possibility of considering a primary campaign” against Alexander.

Corroboration for this rumor, were any necessary, has come already in the form of the many other email blasts that have gone out recently touting Kane’s political activities. The World Wrestling Entertainment star now lives in Jefferson City.

On Wednesday, a group called TN Campaign for Liberty said Kane was challenging Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey to a debate over Internet sales taxes (an issue on which Ramsey and Alexander are united). Kane’s name also popped up on a release back in April promoting a tea party petition against Internet sales taxes.

Sounds like the wrestler has his platform ready. Let’s just hope he doesn’t try to hit Alexander over the head with it.

Share on Facebook

However, Iowa Senate Democrats did not take up the measure on the floor. It was expected they would do so when the session reconvenes Friday morning. However, the word among state senators late Thursday night was that the bill might not be voted on this week. Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs) stands in the way of this significant piece of legislation.

“As you know, we’ve been working on this very diligently for three years,” Branstad told reporters on Thursday. “This is a good example of everybody really working together to try to get something that’s going to make a real difference to make the state more competitive and reduce the property tax burden for the citizens of Iowa.”

The comprehensive package includes elements that the Republican-led Iowa House, Democrat-led Iowa Senate and Republican Governor Terry Branstad advocated for.

“The conference committee has passed both chambers and is agreed upon. I am hopeful that Senator Gronstal will bring it to the floor tomorrow for a full vote,” said Sen. Jack Whitver (R-Ankeny). “This bill will be the largest tax reduction in Iowa history and includes relief for commercial property, residential property, apartments and an income tax reduction. This is the type of pro-growth legislation that will continue to move the Iowa economy towards number one in the country.”

There are several different aspects of the bill, which will impact various groups of Iowans. The legislation will reduce commercial property tax rates by 10 percent, over two years. It will also create a new tax credit for commercial property owners.

The Earned Income Tax Credit, a benefit to low income Iowans, will increase significantly. There will also be a new tax credit of around $60 per year for income tax payers. The legislation also lowers the cap on annual increases in residential and agricultural property tax assessments.

“I am hopeful that the bill will go through. Part of the process is negotiations, sitting down and in good faith try to reach a compromise the all parties can agree to,” said Sen. Jake Chapman (R-Adel). “While I don’t think it is a perfect property tax relief bill, it will be the largest tax cut in Iowa history and will put Iowa on a more level playing field to attract and retain business.”

If the bill is taken up by the Iowa Senate and receives majority support, it will be sent over to the Iowa House. Following passage from both chambers, Governor Branstad says he will enact the tax reform legislation.

“I’m looking forward to the opportunity to sign it. Obviously, it’s been a high priority of mine since I came back as governor and I think it will make a big difference for our state,” Branstad said.

Although this legislation is expected to provide significant tax relief, it does not meet all the reforms Republicans hoped for. They originally pushed for a $375 per taxpayer income tax credit, as a way to repay the over collection of taxes resulting in a $700 million budget surplus.

Local governments are likely to oppose the measure. They will lose revenue if the legislation passes, due to the property tax reductions.

“I’m hopeful we can do more in future years but I think this is the art of what was possible with this General Assembly and I’m very appreciate of the cooperation and that everybody’s worked together,” Governor Branstad added.

A few years ago Senate Democrats began pressuring the IRS to target many of the conservative groups that the embattled agency now stands accused of doing. In fact, the Senate Democrat majority even threatened to take legislative action against the agency if it failed to target the groups. Perhaps that’s why so many Democrats are today feigning outrage.

This story has been well known for YEARS. Why did Bruce Braley keep quiet?

Surely Democrat Bruce Braley reads the New York Times, which reported back in 2010: “With growing scrutiny of the role of tax-exempt groups in political campaigns, Congressional Republicans are pushing back against Democrats by warning about the possible misuse of the Internal Revenue Service to audit conservative groups….And the Republicans are also upset about an I.R.S. review requested by Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who leads the Finance Committee, into the political activities of tax-exempt groups. Such a review threatens to “chill the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights,” wrote two Republican senators, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Jon Kyl of Arizona, in a letter sent to the I.R.S. … Democrats dismissed the Republicans’ complaints as groundless.”

The pressure grew so immense that the New York Times reported on it. “The Internal Revenue Service is caught in an election-year struggle between Democratic lawmakers pressing for a crackdown on nonprofit political groups and conservative organizations accusing the tax agency of conducting a politically charged witch hunt.”

Why did the IRS target conservative groups?  According to the New York Times, because Senate Democrats directed and pressured them to.

Silence is acceptance.  Bruce Braley’s deafening silence when the scandal first began makes him just as guilty of wrongdoing as the Senate Democrats who directly pressured the IRS to target these conservative groups.

NRSC Press Release