[FairOpinion]

"There's little use in trying to 'eddycate' Arnold's critics regarding the amount of expenditures which are off-limit to cuts: read sweetheart pensions."

===

AND:

"Economist John Matsusaka of USC estimated that about 32 percent of the state budget is tied down by mandated spending, primarily for education, and while not terribly significant on the surface, nevertheless influences spending decisions in the budget."

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031115-014614-7517r

[onyx]

Exactly. Good catch. Thanks for posting #109

[LexBaird]

"Economist John Matsusaka of USC estimated that about 32 percent of the state budget is tied down by mandated spending, primarily for education, and while not terribly significant on the surface, nevertheless influences spending decisions in the budget.

And how did these thing become mandated? By bond issues.

The shell game works like this: The people won't pay for Project Porkbarrel, which costs $100 millon. So, the Porkbarrel folk get a bond funded for $100 million for the Firefighter's Orphans and Widows Fund, which they are currently paying for out of the general fund. Then, they eliminate the general funding for the Orphans and spend the formerly allocated money on Project Porkbarrel.

Net gain to the Orphan Fund:$0. Net gain to Pork:$100 M. Funds now mandated instead of general fund: $100M.

[heleny]

about 32 percent of the state budget is tied down by mandated spending, primarily for education

(I thought CA spent more on education than 32% minus other mandated spending.)
Since education spending is such a large fraction of our budget, it's important to cut spending there as well as across the board. We don't need to cut classroom/school spending, but we can reduce the burdensome state education administration.

Besides, if we make cuts to the rest of the general fund, then we can cut education spending by about the same percentage and still keep in line with Prop 98.