Then Again, Maybe There Won't Be A Budget Deal Yet

I just saw this on the Sacramento Bee website:

An emerging deal on the overdue state budget stalled in the back rooms of the Capitol Monday night, apparently over a handful of unresolved issues, including a proposal to give more money to suburban school districts.

Lawmakers returned to work Monday after weeks of little progress on the spending plan and announced a tentative deal in the Senate that raised hopes the $103 billion budget could be resolved within hours.

Both houses scheduled 10 p.m. floor sessions, but adjourned before taking action. Another session was scheduled for today.

California remains the last state in the union without an enacted budget and is 17 days away from breaking the state's late budget-signing record of Sept. 5, 2002.

Without identifying specific concerns, Senate Republican leader Dick Ackerman said his caucus still had a number of "outstanding issues" with the current that needed to be resolved.

"It's not done yet," Ackerman said.

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata said Republicans wanted more than $100 million in supplemental funding for suburban school districts before the state covered its required payments under Proposition 98 for public school systems.

The whole article is here.

Comments

[Stand tall, Republicans]

Good for the Republicans!! I was worried they might cave in because of the slanted media coverage. Hopefully they remember nobody recalls last week's headlines and they stay the course until the budget is adjusted to their liking - which of course, protects the taxpayers.

Keep a stiff upper lip, Dick and tell the caucus to hold the line. There's enough truth out through radio talk shows and the internet to counteract the MSM slant. Hold the line!!!

[Bladerunner]

Substantive arguments aside, perhaps the GOP Senate caucus should consider replacing Ackerman with Battin or someone who has a bit more clout with the caucus. Its bad form to cut a deal and then not be able to deliver.

[Maybe, Maybe Not]

I agree with Bladerunner, for once, that it would be bad form to cut a deal one cannot deliver.

However, none of us know the terms of the "deal". If Ackerman said something like:
"works for me, lets see if the caucus will buy it" then it isn't really a deal, is it.

It would make sense thought that Democratic leadership would release a "deal" and then try to spin in the manner done here.

On the other had, Ackerman could be a complete donkey. I guess my point is that it is not good form to speculate one someone you have no knowledge of when there are numerous other possible speculations.

[brian]

Understand the caucus agreed to rely on the gov to blue pencil the budget into balance
This was the deal they could have had earlier
The restictions on lawsuits against Prop 1B funded projects was one new offer
Not sure if others
But now I hear the Reps are asking for more money for charter schools
I thought the issue was a balanced budget not more spending

[Bladerunner]

Maybe--

The deal is NOW done, but Ackerman was quoted as saying they had reached a deal and then after the Caucus, backed off of it. Looks like the additional concession after that was adding the levees to highways in the protection from Jerry Brown provisio.

The LAT also noted that Ackerman "repeatedly brokered deals with the Governor and Democratic leaders only to have his own caucus refuse to go along."

I wasn't really speculating although its possible the LAT didn't analyze it perfectly. But the LAT isn't the only source to point this out about Ackerman, whom I don't dislike by the way.