CAPITOL OFFENSES Brendan Huffman For the twentieth time in the last 24 years, the state legislature missed its constitutional deadline to adopt a spending plan. In baseball terms, that’s a .143 batting average and usually grounds for minor league assignments. To the tune of costing taxpayers $52 million each day that California operates without a spending plan, there does not appear to be an end in sight, let alone any sense of urgency in Sacramento. Some sources in the Capitol do not expect a budget agreement until after Election Day on Nov. 2. Is it because state lawmakers don’t care, or is it because we don’t care enough? Could it be that we don’t think the budget stalemate doesn’t directly impact us, or have we arrived at the point where we’re used to late budgets and we’re no longer bothered? Regardless, I have reached the conclusion that if legislators cannot reach consensus on a spending plan, as is the case year after year, they should let someone else do it. One such method would be to appoint some retired judges and economists to draft the budget once the constitutional deadline has passed. For starters, let’s say that 11 objective experts are appointed by the “Big 5” leaders, who traditionally negotiate budget agreements. No appointee could ever have been elected to a partisan office or have worked professionally in a partisan fashion, which would rule out some seasoned experts but ensure that the process is as objective and non-partisan as possible. If the June 15 budget deadline passes with no spending plan adopted (which is always the case), the Big 5 would start vetting appointments. If the legislature has not passed a spending plan by the time the new fiscal year has begun on July 1, the “budget masters” would have 30 days to come up with a plan that would take effect on Aug. 1, regardless of lawmakers’ thoughts. Now before the constitutional scholars who read this column start jumping on me for suggesting that laws be implemented without the lawmakers, please keep in mind that many state agencies already do that including the Coastal Commission, CA Air Resources Board and numerous others. Such agencies have been approved by the voters or legislative action as would such a body of budget masters. Since the overdue budget occurs every year, perhaps, like seeing violent images of war, we are desensitized to the impacts associated with the state no longer paying its bills. Who are the victims? Primarily, they are nameless companies who perform work for the state such as road construction but don’t get paid. Others are state employees who somehow have to figure out how to explain to their banks that home mortgage payments cannot be made because of too many politicians pandering to their bases. How about college students depending on financial aid or aging seniors or mentally ill? How about school districts that are required by law to adopt their own spending plans by July 1 even though their funding sources have not been approved in Sacramento? They are the most helpless victims, and don’t forget us taxpayers whose investments through the sale of voter approved bonds will get even less of a return as California’s bond ratings get worse? Critics of the two-thirds vote threshold, like me, say that the two-thirds vote allows a handful of legislators to hold up passage of the budget to score brownie points with favorite special interests. I don’t understand why Republicans continue to fall on their swords over this because it’s hard to blame one party for continued fiscal mismanagement of our state when the GOP always delivers a couple sacrificial lambs to cast the deciding votes, thereby making them “bipartisan” budgets. If the budget required a simple majority, one party could be held fully accountable. Even a reduction to 60% from two-thirds could be an improvement. California Forward, a reform minded group headed by former Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg, has proposed a series of reforms intended to address the state’s fiscal problems. Such proposals include a two-year budget, performance reviews, and pay-as-you-go spending for programs – you know, things the rest of us do in our lives every day to keep our accounts balanced and not spend too much on items we don’t need. Regardless, it is increasingly difficult to watch this endless charade commonly known as the annual budget stalemate unfold. For most of us, there is no shame in hiring experts to do jobs for us that we are simply not cut out for, which explains why so many of us hire pool cleaners, gardeners, accountants and attorneys. Because of term limits, it is hard to put all the blame on all lawmakers. By passing Prop. 140 in 1992, we have committed our state to be led by professional politicians but amateur policymakers. There is plenty of time for partisan tomfoolery in Sacramento, but not when it comes to adopting $100 billion spending plans. For such an important task, we should bring in objective experts who are up for the task to make decisions that are clearly too hard for most legislators to make. Brendan Huffman is the owner of Huffman Public Affairs, a Valley-based consulting firm, and is the co-host of “Off The Presses,” a weekly radio show streamed live every Wednesday at 10 a.m. via LATalkRadio.com.