This past weekend as most of my fellow contributors know, the California Republican Party held its winter/spring convention at the Hyatt in Sacramento just across the street from the state capitol.  It is always a good place to network and exchange ideas and information.  This past weekend I had four very interesting conversations, one on Friday with Assemblyman Anthony Adams, two on Saturday in the evening hours, and one on Sunday morning, all of which had something to do with the budget deal and which taken together with the news reports surrounding the final deal cut with Abel Maldonado present some interesting speculations on my part that should be pursued by the professional reporters.

Before doing the red-eye drive up to Sacramento from Los Angeles, in the newspapers and online their were reports of Republican State Senator Abel Maldonado wanting to cut funding to the State Controller's office.  In these same articles, State Controller John Chiang responded by saying that what Maldonado wanted to cut was not wasteful spending but would help cut wasteful spending in other parts of the government by consolidating his office, (http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/the_swarm/2009/02/019824.html).  Why would Maldonado who ran for State Controller and lost to Tony Strickland in the Republican primary attack in the run up to the budget deal State Controller John Chiang's expenditures of money, when Chiang is saying these expenditures will make the office much more efficient?

On the Friday of the convention a friend of mine and myself showed up early to scope out the convention.  As we walked from the parking garage we noticed that the CTA, SEIU, Planned Parenthood, and other union and left wing groups had offices right across the street from the Capitol, the only somewhat conservative conservative organization that was similarly camped out that we saw was the California Chamber of Commerce and even they were for this deal.  We did see one guy whose truck was decked out with signs decrying abotion and homosexual marriage who although both of us agreed with the positions he was taken, he himself looked like a nut.  From the looks of things our state legislators are surrounded by well financed liberal interest groups who are more than willing to wine and dine or place enormous pressure on "wayward" legislators, while the conservatives groups pop in for short periods of time and then leave applying pressre in an inconsistent manner.  THIS seems to allow the left to wear down some of the Republican legislators over time and may be one reason the Guv has gone the route of the girly man since his year of reform failed.

As we walked around the lobby we noticed Assemblyman Anthony Adams hanging around the lobbby of the Sacramento Hyatt, seemingly trying to plead his case with whoever would listen to him.  So we approached him as a few other guys finished their conversations with him and we asked him why he voted for this deal.  The first words out of his mouth were "The State of California is broke, the bank account is empty, we were not getting paid" (and I am paraphrasing this due to the fact that I did not write this down when he said it).  When I made the statement that this deal would bring in less revenue to the state, not more, he replied that the tax sections were never about bringing in more revenue they were put there to satisfy the credit rating bureaus like Moody's.  That these companies refused to rate the state's bonds, that the state could not sell the voter approved bonds until a budget deal was struck and that the deal was basically for the benefit of the credit rating companies.  He went on to say that in the Republican State Assembly caucus that there were more members who wanted this to pass but he three of them who voted for this deal decided to take the hit.

On Saturday night I and several other members of the Los Angeles County delegation walked up the street to Frank Fat's to have dinner together.  During our time there one of the members of our group who has worked as a staffer for more than one legislator made an interesting comment that implied that our dinner campanion was willing to give a pass to 5 of the 6 members who ended up voting for the deal, with the exception of Abel Maldonado.  Question is why would a conservative former staffer with connections to lobbyists and the staffers of legislators be willing to give a pass to Mike Villines, Dave Cogdill, Anthony Adams, Dave Cox, and Roger Niello, but not to Abel Maldonado?  What did Maldonado do to deserve all of the blame for letting this budget deal happen?

Later that night in one of the hospitality suites after getting separated from my friends for a while, I met and talked with a Republican lobbyist who although a bit buzzed disclosed how there was a reason why 5 of the 6 Republicans who ended up voting for the bill did so and that it had to do with a threat of withheld funds John Chiang made to specific legislators in both parties.  Before I could ask a follow up question the lobbyist approached a friend of his and ended our conversation.

On Sunday morning prior to the general session starting, I had my last conversation with a member of the initiatives committee.  I had previously seen him talk with Steve Poizner in a hospitality suite concerning the open primary ballot initiative.  He let 2 things slip.  First about 2/3rds of the Republican State Assembly Caucus and about half of the Republican State Senate Caucus wanted this deal to pass, but didn't want to be seen as voting for it, with six of them decided to take the political hit.  The second thing he let slip is that in the initiatives some of the implimentation language that should be in these bills were not in the bills. He went on to say that he believes that some of the bills may be pulled and killed off or gutted and ammended at some point down the line.

Before I begin my supposition and analysis, let me state what follows is not hard facts but my own gut suspicion based on my four conversations and the many articles that I have read concerning this budget deal.  Each of these questions must be followed up on to see if there is any merit to them or if I was off in my gut suspicion.

First, based on my conversations it seems that financial pressure was applied to at least some of the Republican members of the Assembly and State Senate Caucuses; was that pressure in the form of blackmail, bribes, or something else?  

Second, why did Maldonado try to cut funding from the State Controller John Chiang's office before he ended up voting for the deal?  Did John Chiang violate the law in helping Legislative Democrats pass this bill and does Maldonado have the goods on Chiang?

Last, did the Dems pull a fast one on those Republicans who voted for this deal? Was the leaving out of some of the implementation language that should be in these bills an oversight or on purpose?  Will the Dems kill some of these measures before they actually end up on the ballot?

There could be other things that could further enlighten myself and you, that may altered my analysis and questions, if that is the case then my apologies.