Analyst says California budget falls $6 billion short, new taxes may be needed

AP - via San Francisco Chronicle ^ | January 13, 2004 | TOM CHORNEAU

[calcowgirl]

One-time solutions included in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget plan for 2004-2005 would leave California taxpayers facing another $6 billion shortfall the following fiscal year, double the administration's estimates, an analyst for the Legislature said Tuesday.

The analyst, Elizabeth Hill, called Schwarzenegger's $99.1 billion budget plan "a good start," but said his mix of cuts, borrowing and fund shifts would not solve the state's financial problems and that lawmakers should consider raising taxes.

[NormsRevenge]

BUMP

[WOSG]

Why isnt this titled:

"Pro-Tax Analyst Finds Feeble excuse to raise Taxes"

[WOSG]

I should add that the $6 billion is in the *following* year budget, so it makes sense to ask:

Why not simply lower spending by $6 billion in that 2nd year???

[mgstarr]

"said Hill, whose office is charged with providing independent and nonpartisan budget advice to lawmakers"

LOL

[LaraCroft]

Why is the line always, Taxes must be raised?

Why can't schools, welfare, health care be cut, cut cut?

Why can't they get it through their fat heads that it doesn't matter how many kids need chairs in classrooms and how many homeless alcoholics need clean needles, you can't spend more than you take in!

[ETERNAL WARMING]

Just wait until millions more illegals come running due to the Bush position. That 6 billion will look like pocket change.

[SteveH]

From:

http://ca.lwv.org/lwvc/publications/pr/conv_pr05_06_03b.html

Elizabeth G. Hill is the well-respected Legislative Analyst for the Legislature of the State of California. She began her career in state government in 1976, joining California's Legislative Analyst's Office as a program analyst focusing on criminal justice. Following specializations in other policy areas, she was appointed California Legislative Analyst by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee in 1986. In her position, she serves as a nonpartisan fiscal advisor to both houses of the State Legislature, and oversees the preparation of annual fiscal and policy analyses of the State of California's budget and its various programs. In 1997, she was recognized as a "Public Official of the Year" by Governing magazine.

[farmfriend]

Short list.

[SteveH]

Woops, there is another paragraph:

From:

http://ca.lwv.org/lwvc/publications/pr/conv_pr05_06_03b.html

Elizabeth G. Hill is the well-respected Legislative Analyst for the Legislature of the State of California. She began her career in state government in 1976, joining California's Legislative Analyst's Office as a program analyst focusing on criminal justice. Following specializations in other policy areas, she was appointed California Legislative Analyst by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee in 1986. In her position, she serves as a nonpartisan fiscal advisor to both houses of the State Legislature, and oversees the preparation of annual fiscal and policy analyses of the State of California's budget and its various programs. In 1997, she was recognized as a "Public Official of the Year" by Governing magazine.

Elizabeth Hill earned a Bachelor's Degree, with honors, in human biology from Stanford University and a Master's Degree in public policy from UC Berkeley. Following her academic training, she was a Fulbright Scholar in Stockholm, Sweden, conducting research into innovative Swedish transportation policies. She served as a Senior Fellow in 2000-2001 at the UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research. She currently serves on the advisory boards of the Public Policy Institute of California, the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley, and the Sacramento Center of the University of Southern California.

[tubebender]

Hide your wallets and come on over here...

[Carry_Okie]

Analyst says California budget falls $6 billion short, new taxes may be needed

This budget also assumes the State employees will take a hit on health coverage AND that the economy (that a tax increast this budget requires will kill) will recover!

And that is INCLUDING the $15 billion in bonds that aren't going to pass and IGNORING the $10.7 billion in illegal short term debt instruments?

What a wussy.

[concentric circles]

This story is a retread of what we already knew. The state budget has had a built in deficit since the dot.com bust.

During the few, short years of the dot.com boom there was a windfall in capital gains taxes as the silicone tycoons cashed in on their equity fortunes. The geniuses in Sacramento spent the bounty on never ending entitlement programs instead of on one time expenses such as infrastructure upgrades, reserve fund payments, or tax payer refunds.

When the revenue stream disappeared, as quickly as it had arrived, the state budget was left with a huge hole. With the myopic, tax and spenders controling both houses of the legislature, as well as the executive branch, there was no hope of a sane approach to the problem, cutting back on the newly expanded spending.

So they passed budgets that included patches, one time fixes, sleight of hand, borrowing, and fee increases and hoped no one would notice.

With the press assisting the criminals, the citizens were deceive and the multi billion dollar scam was almost run for another year except for one thing. The Republicans rediscovered their conservative beliefs and refused to pass a budget that included new taxes.

The press was compelled to cover the depth of the problem as Governor Davis and his allies stood naked to the wind, releasing ever increasing estimates of the damage. Awakened, the electorate removed the governor.

The new Governor stared the budget in the eye and promptly blinked. He has proposed a budget that includes, guess what? Patches, one time fixes, sleight of hand, borrowing, fee increases, and thankfully, enough spending cuts to make a free spending, social engineer squeal. But, the story begs an ending, there's still a multi-billion dollar hole.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I'm sure that I will read this description in my local paper next week. /sarcasm

[goldstategop]

There's still a hole that has to be filled with permanent structural changes in the way the state government raises and spends money.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!

[SierraWasp]

What an outstanding summation and closing argument!!! Smashing!!! True!!!

[snopercod]

State employees take a hit on their health coverage?

Ha! Just look at the supermarket employees in SoCal. They are on the the brink of permanent unemployment rather than give up $5 per week.

There must be something in the water in California that destroys the brain cells on the left side of the brain.

My niece and her husband have lost roughly $40,000 in wages since the strike began. They may lose their home before they wise up.

[Grampa Dave]

"There must be something in the water in California that destroys the brain cells on the left side of the brain."

Even among so called conservatives, in California, there is a massive % that wants the best in health coverage with someone else paying the cost. Like Freeploaders on Free Republic, who use Free Republic but never donate to the Freepathons.

In users of medicine, these are the Free Loaders who never want to pay their co pay to see the doctor. They get out of their luxury car and want to see the doctor for meds for their cruise and don't want to pay the co pay. Most offices now refuse to see these well off conservatives/moderates/liberals unless they pay their co pay up front by cash or credit card before they see the doctor.

Recently Kaiser picked a lot of people in new contracts. These patients will complain about having to wait hours to see a doctor at Kaiser and how they wish that they could seen their long time family doc.

Most are fairly healthy people with only 3-6 visits per year to the doctor or less. When my wife suggests that they pay out of pocket the $50 to $70 visit cost to see the Doctor and staff that they love so much, they will look at her like she asked them to commit financial suicide. I'm much more brutal. I tell them to quit bitching or just pay out pocket to see their long time doctor. I get the same non verbal responses that my wife gets.


Then when you get Union members, this disease is even worse and even more rabid.