Republicans in the Assembly were criticized last week for voting against an unemployment insurance bill that would bring some Federal stimulus money to the State.

Let me clarify.

The bill, which deals with small pieces of the federal stimulus spending, had two components. First was over $1 billion to finance a temporary extension of unemployment benefits. Even though this will force additional state spending, it is so small in proportion to the federal funds it is worth it and I support that piece. I asked for it to be separated out but that request was refused.

The other piece was about the federal government requiring the state to permanently change state policy and adopt the “alternative benefit period”, which will necessarily increase state spending when the federal funds run out. Given the budget problems we have and the and the complete lack of any idea as to where the eventual state funding would come from I just couldn’t support that.

It is also important to know that the “alternative benefit period” that the state is being asked to change is only relevant if you have had a significant spike in pay during the very last month of the employment from which you were laid off. Further, you may have that included in your benefit calculation after only a 30 day delay in application, not necessarily 3 months.

The real point is our budget mess. Any acceptance of the federal stimulus funds that necessitates additional state funding when the fed funds run out must be resisted. Quite simply, we don’t and won’t have the money. It is important to note that the difficult economy that is causing unemployment is also creating havoc with the state’s budget. We just struggled mightily to close a $42 billion gap. And, since the economy appears to be continuing to deteriorate, we will likely be facing a few billion dollar additional gap before the next budget year begins. Additionally, we still have a continuing structural budget deficit for several years into the future. Simply stated, the state has no money for increased spending.

Joel Fox, the President of the Small Business Action Committee and a former president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association recently posted this op-ed regarding the Proposition 1A spending cap on the May 19 ballot.

It is a worthy read and Joel points out why he believes that the spending cap will have a long-term impact that is worth the two-year extension on the taxes that were passed in this budget.

This article speaks to the strength of the Proposition 1A spending Cap and Joel Fox’s belief, even as a lifelong taxfighter, that this proposal will have a profound effect on the way California’s budgeting is done in the future.

I sat down last week with Steve Swatt for another Comcast Newsmakers segment. As you might have guessed, the subject was the budget, and specifically, my vote on the 2009-10 State Budget. The video will be playing soon on Comcast, but you can get a sneak preview here.

Assemblyman Roger Niello on Comcast Local Edition from CA Assembly GOP on Vimeo.