GOP insider looks for palatable budget cuts -- Economist prepares plans for Schwarzenegger

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 9/14/03 | Sam Zuckerman

[b9]

I think it was Tamsey

[Amerigomag]

Two problems exist with any approach that does not drastically reduce spending (> $10M) in the short term.

Most of the $38B dissappeared through deferrals and everyone is betting their economic future on the national economy and in particular a rebound of the California economy. Some of the deferrals are payable in as little as two years.

Many of the recent bills that constitute the continued spending spree also have a delayed implimentation date. Prop 49 is an example. No appreciable negative effect until 2005/2006.

If the national economy grows then California can limp along in a solvent but wounded state. But if the California legislature continues it's fusallade against business, and it's roaring right now, then the perfect storm is brewing in about two years and no one in the excutive can prevent the train wreck.

Not Mcclintock, not Schwarzenegger and certainly not Davis or Bustamante.

[DoctorZIn]

Join Us…Your One Thread To All The California Recall News Threads!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin

[The Old Hoosier]

FINALLY he gets someone to give him an agenda. Without a serious spending-cut plan, there is no reason to think he won't raise taxes, because he will almost have to if he doesn't touch education and health care.

[PRND21]

Bump

[edchambers]

no one in the excutive can prevent the train wreck.

Not Mcclintock, not Schwarzenegger and certainly not Davis or Bustamante.

Actually the executive branch here has more power than the one in washington when it comes to buget matters.With the line item veto the Gov can literally rewrite the buget by vetoing part or all of any spending bill on his desk.Why do you think Reagan wanted the line item veto power so badly?

[Amerigomag]

Ed you are correct (and please correct me if I'm wrong), but the line item veto does not apply to the budget because the annual budget is not presented on a line by line basis. It's either all or nothing.