Many pundits applauded the wily Democrat's tactic of proposing a tax vote, but only so that he could keep his campaign pledge.
But it may turn out to be a dud. Brown still has not managed to nudge four Republicans -- two from the Assembly, two from the Senate -- to vote for his tax plan.
In March, a two-thirds budget vote would have resulted in a special election in June, before the sales and car tax extensions sunset. I thought a handful of Republican realists should have voted to put the Brown plan on the ballot. But five GOP moderates wanted to "let the voters decide" on their pet measures -- a spending cap and pension reform -- and that killed any deal.
Wednesday is the official deadline for the Legislature to pass a budget. If the Legislature fails, no more paychecks until the job is done.
Now the Brownies are pushing for a September special election - with only the car and sales tax extensions continuing temporarily until they are approved or rejected. Brown warned Monday that without the added cash, the state may begin "a decline that at some point becomes irreversible."
Will there be a deal? It's possible. The GOP 5 released a statement that noted "significant agreement" on their reforms. Now, especially after the state has collected $6.6 billion in unanticipated revenue, they won't vote for Brown's "bridge tax" -- as a temporary "legislatively mandated tax increase ... violates the governor's own pledge."
It defies logic that the same Republicans who did not vote for a June ballot measure now would vote to raise taxes before a ballot measure -- in order to let voters decide later.
But there are reasons to do so. For one thing, like Democrats who have snatched back big chunks of Brown's proposed spending cuts, GOP lawmakers aren't very good at voting for cuts.
Voters rejected a similar tax extension by a 2-to-1 ratio in 2009. GOP strategist Mitch Zak said Republicans should be thinking, "My reforms have a chance of passing. Tax extensions don't."
Democrats clearly know they could lose. In March, when Brown said he wanted a special election as soon as possible, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said it "ought to be as far off as is reasonably possible."
Exposed: Dem Candidate's Misleading Statements on Spending, Borrowing for AZ Universities | Ky Sisson
White House: Ask DOJ About What's in The Fast and Furious Documents Covered By Obama's Executive Privilege | Katie Pavlich
Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against IRS From Targeted Group True the Vote; Tea Party Outraged | Katie Pavlich