Replies

"No, no. We never want to cut anything..." That would either be Mr. Bobbit, or the Governor who maybe instead prefers to reduce the rate of growth over direct cults. If you maintain spending at current levels and don't make increases, you get things back under control without major slashing in the budget. Even that takes some backbone to see through.

To put it differently, no one wants cuts. Voters believe in low taxes, spending on entitlements and good law enforcement and fire protection. They like that formula. If they don't know how to square it, that doesn't matter. This is America - who says you can't have it all?

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

That would either be Mr. Bobbit, or the Governor who maybe instead prefers to reduce the rate of growth over direct cults. If you maintain spending at current levels and don't make increases, you get things back under control without major slashing in the budget.

Reduce the rate of growth from what? The rate of growth is increasing.
We're not even close to "maintaining (then) current (spending) levels"

California: A bunch of drunken sailors [budget is a "disaster in the making"]

In the 1999-2000 budget, state government saw a 14 percent increase in general fund spending, from $57 billion to $66 billion. That budget was the first of the Davis budget debacles that ultimately resulted in the deficits of the last three years. In my article, “Projects of Regional Concern (PORC)” written in May of 2000, I wrote that this was the beginning of the next budget mess. By May of 2001, it was evident to anyone who would look that the budget was on the brink of collapse. I wrote “The Perfect Budget Storm” in May of 2001, and said just that. Within 6 months, the budget collapsed.
We are in the same place today as in 1999-2000. This year’s budget increased spending from $78.7 billion to $90.14 billion, a 14 percent increase. Now some will say that last year’s budget really didn’t spend $78.7 billion, it really spent $80.7 billion or $81.7 billion. It doesn’t matter — it is still a 10 percent increase. The fact is this budget took nearly every dime of new money that came in, and spent it on bigger government. We are sowing the seeds of the next budget disaster.

CA: The bad-news budget

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.

CA: Governor can't trim bulge out of budget - General fund spending up 10%; plan goes to vote today

The Legislature is scheduled to vote today on a new budget Schwarzenegger negotiated with legislative leaders that increases general fund spending by 10.3 percent, to $90.1 billion. The first budget that the governor signed last July increased general fund spending by 7 percent. The general fund pays for schools, higher education, health care, prisons and other programs Spending keeps ratcheting up, outpacing increases in tax revenue from an improving economy, as the governor struggles to close a 5-year-old budget gap and schools complain that they are seriously underfunded.