Budget writers face challenge
Committee must reconcile Senate and Assembly plans.
SACRAMENTO — Members of the California Legislature’s budget conference committee convene Wednesday with one task above all others: reconcile the plans put forth by their two houses, both of which would be more costly than the proposal crafted by Gov. Jerry Brown.
The 10-member committee, equally split between the Senate and Assembly but dominated by Democrats, will knit the proposals together to form most of the budget sent to Brown by June 15. The most contentious disagreements are usually settled in closeddoor negotiations with the governor.
While both houses propose higher spending than Brown did in his blueprint, they also have noticeable policy differences with him on healthcare, higher education and social services.
And in some cases, the Senate and Assembly disagree with each other on those topics.
Here’s a look at a few of the key areas:
Legislators (again) predict higher tax revenues
than Brown. Using projections from the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office, both the Senate and Assembly
have budgets built on at least $2.7 billion more in tax receipts than the governor’s. It’s worth remembering that when Brown unveiled his revised plan in mid-May, he already assumed an almost $9-billion tax windfall.
It’s also worth noting that over the last seven years, the governor has consistently demanded — successfully — that the final budget use more conservative tax revenue estimates than those preferred by legislative Democrats. This has now become one of the most consistent budget debates in Sacramento.
Assembly Democrats want $1 billion more in spending than their Senate counterparts. An outline prepared by legislative analysts for Wednesday’s hearing shows the Assembly budget plan would cost $1.1 billion more than the Senate’s and $4 billion more than Brown’s proposal.
Legislative Democrats want more money to help the homeless. One key cost is an Assembly effort to boost the response to California’s homelessness crisis by some $1.2 billion above the governor’s $359-million plan. It would include money for shelters and rental
assistance. The Senate would better Brown’s offer by $641 million. Local officials in cities hardest hit by the issue probably will applaud the efforts.
Brown will hear new ideas for stashing away cash, above the existing “rainy day” fund. Lawmakers in both houses have drafted plans to save money that could be used to ease future shortfalls. Senate budget writers are proposing a $1-billion set-aside that would stave off cuts to social programs that have been on the chopping block in deficit years of the past. The Assembly, on the other hand, proposes setting up a more general use fund — but one that might have strict spending rules — to catch spillover cash not deposited in the account voters established through Proposition 2 in 2014.
Substantial amounts would be added to healthcare and social services. Both the Senate and Assembly propose spending more than Brown on healthcare. The Senate’s $169 million effort would add more seniors and disabled residents to the state’s MediCal program, with seniors enrolled regardless of immigration status. The Assembly, with a total that would exceed the governor’s plan by $412 million, would expand Medi-Cal eligibility for those in the U.S. illegally between the ages of 19 and 25. Assembly Democrats also want to offer new subsidies for some who would otherwise be charged higher premiums on the state-run exchange, Covered California.
Elsewhere, Senate Democrats would add $505 million in higher cash grants to those on welfare assistance and for the aged, blind and disabled. Both houses would add more than $200 million to subsidized child care for the working poor.
Colleges and universities would get more from legislative Democrats than from the governor. Both houses propose additional spending on higher education compared with Brown’s May budget plan.
The Senate proposes a slightly bigger boost — $473 million over Brown’s proposal, compared with the Assembly’s $369-million effort. In both cases, the goal would be to avoid tuition increases and expand enrollments at the University of California and California State University campuses.
john.myers @latimes.com Twitter: @johnmyers