Posted on 05/26/2013 9:18:53 PM PDT by blam
California Now Has So Much Money Coming In That It Doesn't Know What To Do With It
Rob Wile
May 26, 2013, 10:05 PM
California now has so much projected revenue that Sacramento legislators don't what to do with it, The New York Times' Adam Nagourney reports.
The final budget surplus figure for 2014 will fall somewhere between $1.2 and $4.4 billion, depending on who's counting.
"An unexpected surplus is fueling an argument over how the state should respond to its turn of good fortune," writes Nagourney.
Just three years ago, of course, the state was running a $60 billion deficit.
The surplus is almost certainly the result of wealthy Californians trying to bank capital gains before the Bush tax cuts expired, Nagourney says.
But however it got there, state officials are already bickering over whether the money should be set aside or used to revive mothballed programs.
Read the full report on NYTimes.com
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Now that I have looked up the word conflate I agree with you.
NY has started ad campaigns, from Buffalo, no less.
If California had money they could start with paying back the hospitals for the medical bills their beloved Illegals racked up instead of expecting its citizens to pay along with their insurers.
But Cali has no more money than NY.
If there really is a surplus, they should give taxpayers a REBATE, like they used to do in the before time.
You are so trusting.
These are projected surpluses. Nothing is proved to have been solved yet.
I suppose returning it to the taxpayers is out of the question?
Projected based on rosy estimates of no more businesses leaving, no more sane citizens getting displaced by illegales, etc.?
This is so not true.
1. IIRC, many folks sold issues at a profit, before cap gains tax increased. So there are some time-limited proceeds from this.
2. Higher tax rates on millionaires brought in more money, only because it takes a while for the 1 percenters to sell and move.
3. and I think I read that the chinese are buying property here in the once-golden state (please correct if I'm in error), so there is a stimulatory effect from that.
.
I have an idea, pay some of your bills.
I don’t believe any of this BS anyways.
How’s that pension problem going CA?
Now they will spend 6 Billion dollars that they don’t have yet and will NEVER have.
That is how these people operate.
If California has a surplus, then I’ve been lied to. Not only in conservative media, but right here on this board.I don’t see how it’s possible, and I’m sure something is being left out, such as pension programs, city bankruptcies etc. But, it had better materialize, or we’re full of shit.
Do they know you have to subtract the expenditures line from the receipts line?
Yeah, lets go out for dinner!
But dad, our lights are being shut off, and the water, too!
I SAID we're going out for dinner! Alert the press.
“It doesn’t know what to do with it”
Oh I think we know what they plan to do: gin-up their budget requests.
The surplus is almost certainly the result of wealthy Californians trying to bank capital gains before the Bush tax cuts expired, Nagourney says.
The surplus is almost certainly the result of wealthy Californians trying to bank capital gains before the Bush tax cuts expired, Nagourney says.
I am not so trusting that I don't think there is a very serious fiscal problem facing California and the country. But objectively, the deficit in California is down. The last I heard it was down to a $1 billion deficit so this article came as a bit of a surprise that there is a surplus.
It is not a matter of trust. It is a matter of looking at the numbers. There is still a very serious problem as I think everyone on FR will agree. This forum, however, is not about politics. It is a place where conservatives discuss issues among themselves and come up with the right answer.
The question is this: Has the California defict dropped from $24 billion to $1 billion or even a surplus?
California?
Saw it off and let it float ‘round the Horn to Argentina!
That is certainly a relevant sentence and I did miss it. But, the effect is the same. The deficit was reduced.
The relevant question now is the surplus going to balloon again with the deficit being the result of a one time influx of cash that does not represent the true picture?
Thanks for pointing out that sentence. It adds considerably to the conversation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.