Balanced budget better for California than timely one

Sacramento Bee (via SHNS) ^ | June 12, 2006 | Dan Walters

[calcowgirl]

Related:

CA: Budget Vote Thursday
Capitol Notes / KQED ^ | 6/12/06 | John Myers
Posted on 06/12/2006 5:48:34 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

[Nachum]

And if we would have kept Gray Davis, then the spending would have been tens of billions higher.

[rottndog]

One thing I don't understand is how the state can operate at deficit, year after year, when it can't print money or raid social security (like the federal government)--what supports deficit spending?

[DoughtyOne]

We need to take the surpluses and pay down our debt. Raising spending without doing that is foolhardy IMO.

[calcowgirl]

In 2004, they authorized borrowing of $15 Billion dollars, more than double what they needed to pay off the then existing deficit. A nice little slush fund.

[calcowgirl]

How? Republicans were unified in fighting Davis' borrowing scheme.
They couldn't have spent more because they didn't have more!

[rottndog]

Yeah, but the leftover isn't enough to paper over one year's deficits. How is this supposed to cover several years?

[staytrue]

a period of unprecedented economic prosperity and record revenues

Arnolds fault ? Bush's fault ? Illegals fault ?

[NormsRevenge]

They rolled the dice and hoped that revenue would increase by a large enough amount each year to get them off the hook.

The problem is if ya don't control or cut spending, which they have not done adequately by any stretch of anyone's imagination, it'll never work.

[calcowgirl]

The leftover was about $8 Billion. That combined with accelerating the revenues through new federal legislation has given them quite a piggy bank.

"What cliff?" they say. The future looks muy peligroso!

[NormsRevenge]

add 10 billion a year for the cost of illegals, that's a fair chunk of change in a budget. That is a state budget for a few states, btw..


Neither Arnold nor President Bush can say spending didn't increase under their watch, albeit either their support for tax cuts or freezes and an attempt to return or at least allow some money to remain in the taxpayers hands and not be tossed up as an offering to the social winds of change machine some of their policies also advocate.

imo, we're not dealing with fault as much as a reluctance to deal with facts financially and act accordingly.

[calcowgirl]

Smoke and mirrors for anyone who is watching closely.

Keep drinking that koolaid. You out-of-staters aren't on the hook for the final bill.

[rottndog]

I am going to hate this election cycle--it's either socialist maximus or socialist minimus for governor. The thing that really bugs me is that spending is still growing by leaps and bounds, and the dolt signing the budget has an "R" next to his name.

At least we will get Tom McClintock for Lt Governor.

[calcowgirl]

imo, we're not dealing with fault as much as a reluctance refusal to deal with facts financially and act accordingly responsibly.

BUMP!

[staytrue]

Arnold may step down in a few years so Mc Clintock may even be governor.

[paul51]

Balanced budget better for California than timely one

As if the two are mutually exclusive.

[calcowgirl]

We need to take the surpluses and pay down our debt. Raising spending without doing that is foolhardy IMO.

Sounds way too logical, DO. The liberals know no common sense.

[calcowgirl]

Good point.

[rottndog]

This would be a good thing, as long as it won't interfere with McClintock serving at least 2 full terms.