FLASHREPORT

It's the final hours of the 2009-2010 legislative session here in California and legislators are furiously passing bills left and right to beat the constitutional deadline. Legislators did take the time today to vote down two budget proposals, but as Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said, "I feel an urgency, but not an urgency at any price, and that's really what this has come down to."

And that's the problem. Legislators seem to have no incentive to pass a budget this year. This is the second longest period the state has gone without passing a budget (In 2008, it was 85 days past due.). Some have even speculated Governor Schwarzenegger would like to hand the unpleasant responsibility of trying to hammer out a budget to the next occupant of the horseshoe. 

But just because it's hard work doesn't mean politicians can be let off the hook that easily. It's time for legislators and the governor to declare a moratorium on any legislation that isn't related to the budget process. Americans for Prosperity California is calling on the legislature to do just that:

Americans for Prosperity California Urges Legislators to Pass Responsible Budget

On last day of legislative session, AFP California urges legislators to focus on budget issues

Camarillo—Americans for Prosperity California called on legislators to reprioritize their legislative activities on the last day of the 2009-2010 session. With the state budget 62 days overdue, the Assembly and Senate are engaged in a marathon bill-passing spree. But the vast majority of the thousands of bills debated during the current session have nothing to do with California’s budget problems—other than spending more money that the state doesn’t have.

“We’re just hours away from the deadline for passing legislation, and almost two months past the constitutional deadline for passing a budget,” commented David Spady, State Director for AFP California. “If legislators want to show that they are truly serious about addressing the state’s fiscal problems, they will set aside any bills that don’t cut spending or contribute to a balanced budget.”

“One example of legislation that is actually addressing the budget crisis and its impact on taxpayers is AB 1506 by Assemblyman Joel Anderson,” stated Spady. “AB 1506 will require the state of California to accept as payments the very IOUs it issues to taxpayers. In other words, if a private company contracts with the state, and the government can’t pay that company for services rendered, then turns around and issues an IOU because there is no state budget, the company can then use that IOU to pay taxes or other debts it owes the state. This bill makes the state accountable for its irresponsible behavior in not passing a budget and expecting taxpayers to bail it out by essentially floating the government a loan. AFP California encourages Governor Schwarzenegger to sign AB 1506.”

To learn more about Americans for Prosperity California, visit www.AmericansforProsperity.org/California

The front page of the Wall Street Journal today featured a great article exposing the hypocrisy of unions. The title says it all: "To Protest Hiring of Nonunion Help, Union Hires Nonunion Pickets." 

According to the story, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters is hiring people (who are neither carpenters or in unions) to protest against nonunion companies. The union's excuse? They claim "it's really difficult to have [union members] come out, either because of parking or something else." Really? If finding parking is the biggest deterrent to protesting against companies using nonunion workers, then maybe it isn't a big priority for union members—just their power-greedy leadership. 

Even better, the union asserts it's helping the unemployed by paying nonunion picketers. I'm sure President Obama would approve of this job growth calculation.  

California unions and interest groups are also participating in the rent-a-mob hypocrisy. "In California, one group is offering to pay $10 and up per hour to activists to hold signs in demonstrations against foam cups and plastic bags."

Next time you're at a Tea Party event, ask anyone of those in attendance how much they were paid to be there. Apparently union darling Nancy Pelosi was speaking from experience when she accused tea parties of being "Astroturf," not true grassroots, protests.

Although they still hold a huge advantage in elections, 2010 is certainly the year of anti-incumbency fever among the electorate. With the surprising defeat of Utah Senator Bob Bennett last weekend, those challenging incumbents in primaries are feeling especially energized with just a few weeks to go before the June 8th primary. 

Earlier today, congressional candidate Phil Liberatore held a press conference outside Congressman Gary Miller's office, whom Liberatore is challenging in the primary, to discuss Miller's campaign tactics. Apparently Miller's campaign paid for some signs dubbing Liberatore a tax fraud. In his comments to reporters, Liberatore honed in on recent underdog victories fueled by the anti-incumbent attitude of voters.

"After Scott Brown there was Chris Christie, who ran for Governor of New Jersey and won in a state with a liberal majority. Then there was Bob McDonnel in Virginia who trounced his Democratic opponent by 18 points even though they had been evenly matched a few years back. And most recently there was Robert Bennett the Senator from Utah who was defeated despite his years of distinguished service in the U.S. Senate. Why: Because he began to vote with the Democrats-including for the TARP bailout bill-sound familiar?  Yes, the same voting pattern as Gary Miller. And now it's time for Gary to join Bennett on the sidelines."

Obviously, beating an incumbent is never easy. But in a year full of surprising political twists, even Barbara Boxer has admitted no seat is safe--not even in California.

The Poizner campaign is trumpeting a new Survey USA poll that shows Steve Poizner just 2 points behind Meg Whitman, 37% to 39%. Here's a TV report with the story:

Thursday evening I had the opportunity to attend the taping of the U.S. Senate Republican primary debate. The hour-long debate will air on ABC affiliates throughout the state on Sunday, May 9th. As far as I know, this is the only scheduled television debate with all three candidates before the primary election on June 8th.

Held at the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles, the debate was moderated by Los Angeles ABC anchor Mark Brown. Since readers can watch the debate themselves this weekend, I won't go into detail about what took place. Although, I live tweeted the entire debate that evening. I will offer a few insights on the general response from the audience (mostly filled with campaign supporters for the respective campaigns), and share some of the feedback I encountered immediately following the debate.

Each of the candidates stuck to their strengths as they squared off. Tom Campbell, ever the professor, provided detailed policy answers to each question. I heard those around murmuring about how knowledgeable he is, and how he always comes across as an expert on technical policy issues.

Chuck DeVore provided lots of red meat conservative responses to questions, and was able to really shine on matters relating to foreign policy and the military, mostly due to his experience in that field.

Carly Fiornia was the most eloquent of the three, speaking in clear, concise sound bites that sliced through complex policy jargon and displayed a breadth of knowledge on key policy matters.

Unsurprisingly, all three camps have claimed victory for their candidates' performance. I think each candidate was able to deliver on their respective strengths. However, each performance should be analyzed based on each candidate's ability to win not only the primary, but the general election.

I would never support Tom Campbell in a Republican primary if I had a choice of someone more conservative, which both DeVore and Fiorina obviously are. This was most clearly elucidated when the candidates were asked whether they support someone listed on the no-fly list being allowed to purchase a firearm. Campbell immediately responded, "No." While DeVore and Fiornia affirmed their belief in the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the due process of law (those on the no-fly list haven't been convicted of a crime). Taken aback by his peers' response, Campbell retorted, "It seems somewhat unusual to take that position, except perhaps in a Republican primary." Republican primary voters won't miss this slap at their conservative, Second-Amendment-supporting reputation.

On a side note, it may be a personal prejudice, but I'm still bothered when candidates jump from one political race into another simply because their chances are better. Campbell jumping from the gubernatorial race to the senate race halfway through the campaign season looks like political opportunism, instead of a real desire to seek the senate seat for the public's good.

While more and more conservative leaders—such as Sarah Palin and numerous pro-life groups—are throwing their support behind Carly Fiorina, dispelling Chuck DeVore's contention that he is the only conservative in the race, there is no disputing DeVore's conservative credentials. He is among the most conservative votes in the State Assembly. And he's been a Republican activist for years.

DeVore immediately went on the attack during the debate, repeatedly insisting that any conservative stances by Campbell or Fiorina were merely instances of them "joining" him in his long-held positions. One of the most bizarre moments of the debate came when DeVore responded to a question about America's presence in Afghanistan. In the last breath before his time ran out, DeVore stated, "We have to prepare for the next enemy. It's not Afghanistan. It's the People's Republic of China." Immediately, a buzz went up amongst the audience as they tried to make the connection between the question and DeVore's seeming non sequitur of an answer. At his next opportunity, he did clarify that he views China as a greater threat because Afghanistan lacks the infrastructure that exists in China.

When it comes to their positions on key conservative issues, it seems that there isn't a real distinction between Fiorina and DeVore. Of the three candidates, Fiorina is by far the most polished and camera ready. Her years in the board room at a Fortune 20 company have obviously prepared her for the rough and tumble of politics. Because she speaks in sound bites, media love to quote her and viewers will be able to quickly understand and relate to her.

Fiorina immediately differentiated herself from her fellow candidates by reminding viewers that she has never run for public office before and is not a career politician. A key difference between Fiorina during the debate was her laser focus on Barbara Boxer, referring to her as a "failed senator." While she did take a few barbs at Campbell and DeVore, Fiorina is obviously focusing on the candidate anyone would love to run against: a very unpopular, liberal, career politician who hasn't accomplished anything for her state.

With the election less than a month away, voters are just now beginning to pay attention to candidates. The senate race has been overshadowed by the far more expensive governor race. Polling numbers show Campbell neck-and-neck with Fiorina, and DeVore trailing both. But there is still a large group of undecided voters. As conservatives begin to examine the positions of each candidate, they will immediately rule out Campbell and begin focusing on the other two candidates. When it comes to conservative positions on major issues, DeVore and Fiorina are both appealing. It then becomes a matter of who can beat Barbara Boxer in November. Based on Democrats' attacks on Fiorina during the primary season, it looks like Boxer would rather not face Fiorina this November.