It has become obvious that Gov. Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders of both parties simply won't be able to reach a compromise that comes anywhere close to closing California's rapidly growing budget deficit, now estimated at some $40 billion over two years. The state government is running low on cash. Within weeks, it may have to start paying people in IOUs.

Democrats simply won't agree to enough cuts. Republicans won't agree to tax increases, and they can block that because of the state's requirement for a two-thirds vote. The Democrats' convoluted (if politically smart) attempt to do an end run around two thirds and raise taxes by majority vote isn't going anywhere; even if it's revived and signed into law, it's all but certain to get struck down in the courts or overturned by referendum. The governor you ask? Schwarzenegger has little credibility with lawmakers of either party. When it comes to big deals, he simply can't close.

California's governor initially indicated he would veto an $18 billion package of cuts and tax increases that had been passed last week by the Democratic legislature on majority vote. But yesterday, he said he had made progress in negotiations with Democrats on the package. Schwarzenegger simply wants a rollback of some laws that he thinks restrain economic growth.

This package, put together by legislative Democrats, is significant not merely as a response to the ongoing state buget crisis. It's a precedent setter because it involves passing a tax increase without the two-thirds vote required under the California constitution. Republicans are crying foul and threatening to challenge the package in court. If Schwarzenegger agrees to sign the legislation after these current talks, you can expect a lawsuit.

That litigation may prove crucial not only to preventing the state from running out of cash in two months. Depending on how the courts rule, it may open up a new era in California's budget politics, providing a crucial loophole around the two-thirds rule on taxes (which was part of Prop 13). The state constitution also requires a two-thirds vote for a budget; that law has been in place since the 1930s.