If I'm reading from the DU playbook, I'd be more subtle.
If memory serves, Gov. Gilmore submitted a two-year budget. One of the main things that Gov. Warner had to do in his first two years was make cuts in that budget. It just so happens that I was mentoring at my kids' school today, and at lunch I read a two-week+ old WashPost (dated January 16). They had a summary of Warner's four years. What I just said above is almost verbatim from that article.
If the two-year budget was balanced on projected revenues, and the projected revenues were less than anticipated, and the state can't run a deficit, then the actual budget had to be scaled back. It was all over the news, and Warner looked like a sad-sack puppy because he was doing it (and not at that time establishing a basis for a run at the White House, darn the luck, which must've made him feel worse). That's all I'm saying happened. Does my summary match the facts of the case, Y'honor?
You say that like it's a bad thing.
The budget Gilmore proposed was bloated. But even with the "Warner cuts" it was more than the previous budget cycle.
Government just didn't grow as much as it could have.