Balanced budget better for California than timely one

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

[calcowgirl]

Superficially, at least, the Capitol's annual budget dance resembles what was happening two years ago when Arnold Schwarzenegger was a brand-new governor.

Although the budget was awash in red ink in 2004 and Schwarzenegger had been elected on his pledge to clean up the state's fiscal mess, he unilaterally raised spending by $3 billion over his original proposal in an effort to placate Democrats and, he hoped, persuade them to finish the process on time.

Schwarzenegger was willing in 2004 to deepen the deficit by spending the extra $3 billion if it bought him an on-time budget, apparently in the belief that the voting public would conclude that electing him had produced positive results.

Schwarzenegger is facing another election this year, this time for re-election, and there's still a substantial budget deficit but once again, the governor has loosened the purse strings because once again the state has a windfall of taxes on stock market transactions--and once again he wants a timely budget to impress voters. And this year, he's likely to get it.

A legislative conference committee completed work late Saturday on its version of the budget that, in the main, closely parallels Schwarzenegger's budget in size and general approach.

Both Schwarzenegger and lawmakers, painfully aware of what happened after then-Gov. Gray Davis and the Legislature squandered that year's one-time windfall in 2000, are being much more careful to avoid long-term spending commitments this year. However, we should remember that either version of the budget would still spend about $7 billion more than projected revenues next year and hefty operating deficits are projected for the rest of this decade.

Thus, the budget may be on time, but it's still troublesome that during a period of unprecedented economic prosperity and record revenues, it's still fundamentally unbalanced.

[NormsRevenge]

Make sure to vote, regardless,, there are many important measures and races that can be won by the Good Guys.

The top race .. Vote your conscience. Or leave it blank, write-it-in or vote for another party other than the top ones.

But Vote!
:-)

[dalereed]

"--it's either socialist maximus or socialist minimus for governor"

So little difference it won't matter.

[NormsRevenge]

That'll do! Thanks for the mark-up!

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks, and I agree to agree. ;)

[rottndog]

I haven't missed a vote, not even a local school board election, since I got out of the Navy (funny how military service breeds appreciation for democracy). I won't let bad options stop me this time, either.

[calcowgirl]

I fell like singing!

"We've come a long way, baby..."

[DoughtyOne]

It was our individual approach that conflicted at times, not our end game view.

[NormsRevenge]

Same here,, I voted for Nixon as a pup just out of boot camp. It was the least I could do, he was signing my checks, after all. ;-)

[calcowgirl]

Agreed. :-)

[Carry_Okie]

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

Spending under Arnold has risen at a rate 25% higher than under Davis. Further, Davis was faced with a one-time spending increase to fund voter-mandated class size reduction. Arnold has no such excuse.

The difference is that under Davis the Republicans in the legislature held the budget to minimal growth. Under Arnold they don't.

[old republic]

Well at least in California they take out loans (bonds) to pay off their debt. Its kind of like using your credit card to pay off a credit card bill. The Federal Government does the same thing whenever it issues money. Instead of the Feds issuing money themselves, the Federal Reserve bank loans money to to the government on interest. Thus the government can never ever get out of debt because whenever it pays its debt back it uses loans to pay it.

[goldstategop]

Dan Walters is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! This budget has a record $137 billion in spending and is nowhere near balanced. The structural deficit has still not been fixed. And no one is advocating any serious reform of programs or reduction in spending. There you have it. Its a PR game by the establishment to make themselves look good in an election year.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

[rottndog]

Yeah, but at least bonds have to be voted on by referendum, so there is at least the appearance of public oversight and accountability. However, I don't think that this is even legal, as it is an end run around the law that is supposed to prevent using bond funds to cover current spending.