Democratic supermajorities in both the Assembly and Senate approved a revised version of the state’s budget on June 15, the final day of the deadline based on constitutional obligation, with the proposal now on the way to the governor’s desk for review.
Votes were split by party line, with all senators present and voting 32 to 8, and five assemblymembers choosing to abstain, passing the bill 61 to 14.
“This Protect Our Progress budget is a result of months of work and partnership in [the] Senate and Assembly,” Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) said in a tweet following the vote. “[The budget] includes essential funding to safeguard the progress we’ve made to create a more equitable economy for all.”
Lawmakers on the other side of the aisle were not happy with the result and voiced their opinions on the floor and with their dissenting votes.
“Today, the majority party voted to send a half-baked budget bill to the Governor,” Assemblywoman Diane Dixon (R-Newport Beach) said in a press release immediately after the vote. “All this budget does is kick the can down the road so the Democrats can irresponsibly continue to overspend taxpayer dollars.”
Legislators are presenting a $312 billion spending plan that mirrors Newsom’s May proposal—which revised his first offering made in January—by increasing funding for education and welfare and avoiding cuts to government programs. The package also expands the governor’s flood protection spending by $290 million.
The newly passed budget also removes several cuts to programs and payment delays that Newsom had advised, and with two weeks left before the new fiscal year begins, many details remain to be determined.
Newsom and lawmakers have until July 1 to settle the details, with multiple rounds of discussions expected in the next two weeks. Once a deal has been solidified, lawmakers will reconsider the amended budget for a final vote.
“As in years past, once an agreement is reached between the Legislature and Governor, amendments to this budget bill will be introduced to reflect such an agreement,” Senate President pro Tem Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) said in a press release on June 12.
No Republican voted to support the bill, and lawmakers representing the party rose in both houses to speak against it.
“We have become complacent with a broken budget framework,” Assemblyman Vince Fong (R-Bakersfield) told colleagues while urging a no vote, he said, because spending exceeds anticipated revenues. “No amount of budget gimmicks can escape this fact. How is this an example of fiscal responsibility?”
Warnings issued by the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office regarding budget deficits were key to Fong’s disapproval, with multiple references to the impact the deficits could have on Californians.
“Poor budget decisions force families ... to pay more to cover the government’s bills,” he told the Assembly. “The state indeed has a spending problem. It’s straining the taxpayer base, and many are leaving California.”
Fong said prudence was imperative and stressed the state cannot afford to keep spending more than it brings in, and instead, needs to focus on addressing challenges.
“The state’s budget has doubled in size, but the problems have stayed the same, and in some cases got worse,” he told lawmakers. “Success is not defined by more spending, it’s defined by real, measurable results.”
Complaints were also voiced by Assemblyman Devon Mathis (R-Porterville), who advised reconvening in November for a special session to review the budget after tax receipts are due in October—an unprecedented occurrence resulting from emergency declarations after winter storms impacted most of California.
“This is California dreamin’, but it’s a dream,” Mathis told the Assembly. “We don’t really know what this budget is.”
Democratic representatives offered cautious optimism, highlighting the increases in spending on education and welfare services.
“This really is an A minus budget,” Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) said in support. “It invests in the people of California, and it is responsible.”
While also supporting the proposed budget, Assemblywoman Jasmeet Bains (D-Delano) urged the need to provide funding for a task force and efforts to mitigate fentanyl overdoses, something the current proposal does not include.
“We should not make the mistake of waiting until next year because we’re already playing catch-up,” she advised her colleagues. “We need to act swiftly to address the fentanyl crisis, and we need the budget to support these efforts.”
Skinner, the senator from Berkeley, brought the bill to the Senate floor following the Assembly’s approval by reflecting on the 102 sub-committees that participated in crafting the Legislature’s proposal and suggesting that the bill is close to its final form.
“I’m very confident that [the] agreement [with the governor] will be very close to what we’re adopting today,” she told the Senate.
Senators from the other side of the aisle were less enthusiastic about the proposal.
“The most significant criticism of this budget that I have is that it’s unsustainable,” Sen. Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks) told fellow lawmakers. “What we’ve set ourselves up for is a deficit continuing for several years.”
Some other senators took exception to the provision in the budget closing prisons and allocating the money to the general fund.
“The party in control has a policy of not putting people in prison, but we have violent crime on the rise in California,” Sen. Brian Dahle (R-Bieber) said while advising a no vote. “Largely due to Prop 47 and Prop 57, crime is going up in California, and people and businesses are leaving because they don’t feel safe.”
The propositions Dahle referred to relate to reducing penalties for shoplifting and other non-violent crimes and increasing parole opportunities for those in prison in response to prison overcrowding concerns, with critics saying they are now, in part, responsible for the surge in retail theft and organized criminal activity plaguing metropolitan areas, leading to an exodus of businesses in San Francisco.
He also referenced concern about what many say is California’s unfriendly climate for businesses.
“There is not one thing in this budget that’s going to help a business in California,” Dahle advised fellow lawmakers, citing high regulations and energy costs as also contributing to the problem. “This is not sustainable. Real solutions would keep California’s businesses here, but there’s no incentive for a business to stay.”
Even though they didn’t have the numbers to change the outcome, some Republicans took the opportunity to say they were speaking for an exasperated electorate.
“Even though we don’t have the vote to control, we do represent a lot of really frustrated people out there,” Sen. Kelly Seyarto (R-Murrieta) told the Senate before the vote was called.
