California Has More Money Coming In Than It Knows What To Do With It

Business Insider ^ | 05/27/2013 | Rob Wile

[SeekAndFind]

California now has so much projected revenue that Sacramento legislators don't what to do with it, The New York Times' Adam Nagourney reports.

The final budget surplus figure for 2014 will fall somewhere between $1.2 and $4.4 billion, depending on who's counting.

"An unexpected surplus is fueling an argument over how the state should respond to its turn of good fortune," writes Nagourney.

Just three years ago, of course, the state was running a $60 billion deficit.

The surplus is almost certainly the result of wealthy Californians trying to bank capital gains before the Bush tax cuts expired, Nagourney says.

[SeekAndFind]

Original Article references here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/us/californias-new-problem-too-much-money.html?pagewanted=all

TITLE: California Faces a New Quandary, Too Much Money

[txrefugee]

They’ll manage to spend this one-shot windfall and more in short order with projects such as the bullet train to nowhere.

[neodad]

I guess a “rainy day fund” is beyond their comprehension?

[Linda Frances]

No wonder Pelosi, Boehner has smiles on there faces. Liberals and rinos can’t wait to get their hands on it.

[Texas Eagle]

WHAT????

"Projected Revenue" is NOT "money".

[Chode]

i take it all their pensions are fully funded now, all is well and they don't owe a dime to anybody for anything... no?

[rodguy911]

I guess they could pay down debt or get rid of needless pension obligations but then that’s hardly a liberal cause....wouldn’t buy many votes either.

[artichokegrower]

I guess they could pay back the $10 billion California borrowed from the federal government to keep unemployment insurance flowing to jobless workers after the Unemployment Insurance Fund ran out of money a couple of years ago.

Or they could start paying down the $550 billion to $800 billion in unfunded public employee pension obligations.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: “Projected Revenue” is NOT “money”.

How accurate are these “Projections” anyway?

[EQAndyBuzz]

Just think what would happen if they didn’t give a squat about a delta smelt and drilled oil? And if they got rid of the libs......

Imagine there’s no liberals.

[GBA]

If California would tap into their energy reserves like Texas and North Dakota have, they wouldn't have any budget problems. Supposedly, there's more oil under California and off the coast than Texas.

Not that it matters.

[sigzero]

“Projected” revenue is not revenue at all.

[Texas Eagle]

Just three years ago, of course, the state was running a $60 billion deficit. The surplus is almost certainly the result of wealthy Californians trying to bank capital gains before the Bush tax cuts expired, Nagourney says.

Ah. In other words, this is a one-time windfall.

If it materializes.

[Texas Eagle]

Probably about as good as ANY government projection.

Which, for some reason, always need to be "revised".

[Zuben Elgenubi]

This is such crap. California, especially through its unfunded pension requirements, is nearly a billion dollars in debt.

Jerry Brown hired a new CPA and pulled a rabbit out of the hat.

They'll go bankrupt before establishing a rainy day fund, to be sure.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: “Projected” revenue is not revenue at all.

How accurate are these “Projections” anyway?

[arthurus]

Somehow projected revenue in California does not seem to turn into realized revenue and in any event is spent several times over before it is not realized.

[American in Israel]

Drilling for oil actualy reduces the amount of oil leaked into the water from natural oil pressure. Drilling bans are not about smelt. They are about control. Wealthy conservatives are a danger to lazy liberals grasp on power.

[bigdaddy45]

This is state money. Not federal money.