Posted on 02/07/2003 11:21:36 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:30:17 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Every time I hear a liberal talk about the state budget I keep wondering whether their psychotherapists have been maintaining their valium dosages too high. Cutting spending hurts the economy? Folderol. Taxes hurt the economy. Forcing people off the dole and requiring them to provide for themselves helps the economy.
Maybe this esteemed economist is worried about losing her own job due to UC budget cuts. Well, then, yes, she is right -- budget cuts will hurt her personal economy. Tough sh-t.
And, lest anyone forget why California is in such trouble, I repost here the budget facts about the state starting with four years ago, when Gray Davis and the Democrat-dominated legislature assumed control.
The facts about California’s budget problem:
- Budget when Gray Davis took office in 1999: $53 billion
- Budget needs today (FY 2003): $100 billion
- Tax receipts, FY 2003 (forecast): $70 billion
- Growth during Davis’ term: 100% or 20% per year. Note that upon Davis’ election, the Democrats finally had control of all three branches of California’s government for the first time in 40 years.
- Had the budget grown consistent with inflation and the increase in population, the budget would be $65 billion (21% increase over four years, or 5% per year) and California would have a surplus of $5 billion.
California Democrats have spent like drunken whores who just chanced upon a pirate treasure. And, now that they are destitute, let them wallow in their own profligacy.
Thank you!
Did the letter to legislative leaders include 14 personal checks amounting to the yearly salary of these 14 economists??? Made payable to the Franchise Tax Board?
Translation: "a small group of Berkley socialists and associates whose opionion we present as news"
I see. If California can't spend it, it's a "major drag on the economy".
But if California takes the money from the taxpayer, isn't it a "major drag on the economy" if the taxpayer has no money to spend?
Talk about how all money belongs to the government except what the government "gives" you!
(steely)
Never. Recall Davis. Now.
The problem is that tax collections already are overly dependent on the wealthiest Americans. It is those people who are rolling over.
It is already a disaster. I think keeping a Rat in office will just make it more of one. I have to think that just about any non-rhino pubbie would help California turn it around. If you don't, then why the loyalty to the Pubbies?
I guess these brilliant UC Berkely and other Marxist economists were having difficulty with the following math:
1) Spending increase required to maintain the status quo over four years given inflation and population increase (another story in and of itself): 21%
2) Actual increase in tax revenues over the same period: 28%
3) Actual increase in State expenditures over the same period: 36%
4) Reduce increases in projected State expenditures to 28% overall, and the projected spending deficit vanishes.
Source: State Controller candidate Tom McKlintock
I guess old Tom is not in the same league as these economists. </ dripping sarcasm>
I think he is in a higher league!
"temporary".... HAR HAR HAR !!!
Where do the scumbag Democrats come up with these unprincipled and corrupt "economists" who, most likely for a price, give them cover for their agenda of more and more confiscation from traditional, working American families so that they may continue to buy the votes of the parasites?
Oh yeah.... they find them at universities.
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.