CA: The bad-news budget

OC Register ^ | 7/25/05 | Esmael Adibi

[NormsRevenge]

Legislators and the governor celebrated the passage of the 2005-06 state budget that some call a victory for taxpayers - no new taxes, no new borrowing, and the largest single annual increase for the education budget. It is also argued by some that this budget is moving the state's finances towards structural balance.

Such wishful thinking! This budget not only ignores the structural deficit, but it unfortunately paves the way for future tax increases that will become necessary to finance future spending.

Let's begin with the budget's proposed spending plan. As shown in the accompanying chart the enacted budget contains $90 billion of general fund expenditures by various state agencies. This is an increase of about $8 billion from an estimated expenditure level of $81.7 in the 2004-05 fiscal year - an increase of 10.2 percent. Ironically, the adopted spending plan of $90 billion is $12.4 billion higher than former Gov. Gray Davis' 2003-04 budget - an increase of 16 percent over two years.

Of course, there are some one-time expenditures in this budget that will not be incurred in subsequent years. These include the repayment of $1.2 billion of Vehicle License Fee Offset programs that local governments lost between July and October of 2003. But even after adjusting for all one-time spending items, the enacted expenditure plan shows a substantial increase compared to the previous fiscal year. In fact, since the 1997-98 fiscal year, total general fund expenditure has increased at an annual average compounded rate of 6.9 percent - an increase of about 70 percent over eight years.

This rate of spending increase is sharply higher than the 40 percent combined growth rate in inflation and population in the state over the same period.

--snip--

[calcowgirl]

Excuse me, but we don't have a Republican Legislature! I'm sure you meant to say Republicans in the Legislature.

Yes. I meant Republicans IN the legislature. Had this outrageous plan been submitted by a Dem, they would have blocked it. Instead, out of a sense of (R) loyalty (or whatever), they have thrown common-sense to the wind.

Anyway, if you've seen the Los Angeles Times this morning, a lot of conservatives

I don't consider Norquist's opinion on California budget issues to be worth much. He's consistently ill-informed.

[calcowgirl]

All that has been done in the past 2 years is to inflate spending upon which future budgets will be benchmarked. Arnold's $15 Billion piggy bank that has been used to keep spending up is almost empty, so the REAL issue (CUT or TAX) may finally be put back in front of our "leaders." I'd love to see a debate between Angelides and McClintock. I think it would do wonders to expose the differences that should be the central issues.

Instead, we've been gambling away with the state's money, building up future year obligations (the bonds WILL have to be repaid, with interest), and ensuring ever-increasing budgets. One hiccup in the economy and we are going to be in a world of hurt (as if we aren't already!).

[SierraWasp]

"This state needs a GIANT ENEMA to clean out the leftist infestation that is destroying it."

The CalEPA and the FedEPA would then have to fine CA for the resulting flood of effluent that would be of dam busting proportions and pollute the entire Pacific rim!!!

Actually... All this state needs is for the CAGOP to give up it's foolish infatuation with slippery celebrities as a tool to actually correct anything. So far, he hasn't even make a good suppository!!!

There may never be another Reagan, for Pete's sake!!!

[Carry_Okie]

You've got to remember: In this State, an enema can be a piece offering, and no threat at all.

[editor-surveyor]

Hugh is hugely over rated. ;o)

[editor-surveyor]

"our politicians will never, left to their own devices, put our state government on a permanent diet. So we must do it for them."

Californians, are we going to do this? Hint: You will have to get out of bed to do it.

[kingu]

Californians, are we going to do this? Hint: You will have to get out of bed to do it.

To effect real reform you need to...

1) Thrash and burn most of the courts. Any voter imitative that puts the state on a diet will be ruled unconstitutional (even if it is a constitutional amendment) because (insert someone)'s rights have been infringed.

2) Throw out most of the legislature. Keep a few good guys around to teach folks how to run the government.

3) Cut Sacramento down to 3 months a year - these long legislative sessions give them too much time to figure out how to spend more of our money.

4) Make all budgets last ten years - yeah, you'll only get this through once, but this alone will cut the state deficit into pieces.

[oldbrowser]

Well maybe there is an omen in the picture of that giant wave. This state needs a GIANT ENEMA to clean out the leftist infestation that is destroying it.

The "public servants" have formed unions and they are looting the state.

[WSGilcrest]

Let's hope that is accurate. Looking south, that wave is actually coming from the right!

[Zacs Mom]

"Let's hope that is accurate. Looking south, that wave is actually coming from the right!"

If that's the case, let's hope it is prophetic!

[GipperGal]

One hiccup in the economy and we are going to be in a world of hurt (as if we aren't already!).

Hiccups? Who every heard of hiccups in a state routinely plagued by forest fires, flash flooding, and earthquakes? Naaaaaah. No hiccups here.

[janetgreen]

This state needs a GIANT ENEMA to clean out the leftist infestation that is destroying it.

BTTT

[SmithL]

Pete Wilson is vilified by many (not me), but he had a Democratic Legislature, and still kept a lid on State Spending.

[paul51]

Californians, are we going to do this? Hint: You will have to get out of bed to do it

What's your game plan? March on the state capitol, send all the state politicians home, close the state courts and occupy the capitol until all new elections can be organized and judges put on the bench? I'm with you. Anything short of that is a waste of time and energy.

[SierraWasp]

Yes! Everything that should be up... IS DOWN!!! And everthing that should be down... IS UP!!!

(seems like I heard a lousy Demonicrat say that once)

[A CA Guy]

Hint, we need to get more petitions signed for 2006.

This time without any F'd up wrong words please.

[backtothestreets]

All the more reason we need to one day have Governor Tom McClintock.

I've been visiting alot of state and local Republican Party sites the last couple weeks and reading various commentaries during those visits. One theme appeared constant, but far from the truth.

As though to shore up support for Governor Schwarzenegger, they are portraying the special election that brought Arnold Schwarzenegger to the governorship as Californians upset over the budget at the time. Nothing could be further from the truth. The voters threw out Governor Grey Davis in the special election because they were extremely angry over the energy crisis we were experiencing. If it were budgetary matters that energized voters, this year's special election would be an easy election to win passage of the budgetary measures up for vote. It's not easy. It's a real battle able to go either way.

[backtothestreets]

Try this on for real change. When California was admitted to the Union Congress also approved the state being split in two, if the citizens of California approved it. That takes care of one of the requirements under the US Constitution for forming a new state from an existing state. Congress has already approved the split.

The US Constitution also requires approval of the state legislature. Our California State Constitution grants citizens legislative powers by way of the Constitutional Amendment process, better known as the initiative.

I've been involved with some preliminary discussions about splitting the state in a manner never proposed before. Eight counties, Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz would form one state. The remaining 50 counties would form the other state. Both states would retain the current state constitution with two years to have voters vote to retain it, or hold a constitutional convention to present the voters a new state constitution.

The larger of the two states would be the most conservative on the west coast, fill two new vacancies in the US Senate, and elect a conservative state government.

Ironically, faced with the social spending in the smaller of the two states, the small state would also make a dramatic shift to more conservative policies once it can no longer bleed money and resources from the rural, more conservative counties.

The vast bulk of natural resources like water, oil, forests plus power generating plants would be controlled by the larger, conservative state.

Any interest here? Help is needed. I'd like to get more people to stop trying to work within the state we have now, and start working toward a new free state. With the conservative voters of Orange, San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties coupled with the voters in the rural and inland counties, passage of an initiative splitting the state is assured.

[backtothestreets]

Please take a couple minutes to read reply 38. Comments are welcomed.

[kingu]

The first step would to examine the revenue streams to see if such a thing is truely viable. A tremendous amount of money comes from the more populated counties, a lot of that money goes to pay for the water systems, the electric systems, the telephone systems of the more rural areas.

Especial care needs to be taken to examine infrastructure costs as well, especially for the roads. I don't think it is quite what most people imagine - either they are being bled dry by the more populated counties (likely considering the massive costs of schools in this state) or they are actually sucking huge resources off the more populated areas, likely through utility and gas taxes.

Only a real examination of the books in California would give a good idea on this and once that is examined, I think the idea is quite plausible. It sort of stinks - I don't want to move any further east than I'm already at, but if I want to be in the Right California, I'd have to go another four miles.

Huh. Drat, means we wouldn't get JPL, AMES or Caltech.