Governor-Elect May Seek A Cap On Spending (Conservative Governator Alert!)

Los Angeles Times ^ | 10/16/03 | Jeffrey L. Rabin

[goldstategop]

Under one version, which Assemblyman John Campbell (R-Irvine) has proposed, surplus revenue collected during good economic times would go into a rainy-day fund that could be used to support state programs during downturns.

That approach might require changes in the current state requirement that roughly 40% of all new state revenues go to public schools, although Campbell said the cap could be put in place without violating that rule.

Campbell, who compared the rainy-day account to programs that withhold money from an employee's paycheck for retirement, said that Schwarzenegger is "in support of the concept" but that details are still being worked out. A task force that includes Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. is working on the proposal, he said.

[goldstategop]

Arnold wants a constitutional spending cap. This is a RINO? Gray Davis would NEVER have even proposed one. So far the conservative Governator is off to a fast start.

[kattracks]

BTTT

[randita]

As I recall, nearly half of CA's $100 billion budget is spending mandated by law (education, state worker's pensions, social services, etc.). To balance the budget, it will require some changes to the laws mandating those expenditures or an absolute hatchet job on the remaining discretionary budget items.

[RightFighter]

I'm trying to register at the LA Times website so that I can view the whole article. Funny - the following usernames were rejected because they already exist in the system:

latimessucks
fthelatimes
timessucks

But it did finally allow me to register using "suckylatimes"

[AVNative]

Read the full article. You'll see that Arnold's advisers are proposing a sweeping constitutional amendment to limit state spending! Huzzah!!!

Getting Dem Steve Westly, GOP Assemblyman John Campbell AND Jon Coupal from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Assn. together on supporting a spending cap is no mean feat. . . mind you, this is a trial balloon.

Keep in mind Tom McClintock said during the campaign the problem was that the State spends too much. This addresses it in a big way. . . Thanks, Tom!

AND. . .Go, Arnold, go!

[daviddennis]

Supporters of spending caps say they would fix the boom-bust cycle that has plagued the state's budget. Critics say the cost of many government services, including schools and health care, has increased faster than the overall inflation rate and that a cap would thus eventually cripple state programs.

Maybe the real problem is that programs aren't forced to become efficient, and they expand forever as long as there is money available.

It's sort of like you and me; if you doubled my salary, I'd buy that Apple Cinema HD Display I've had my eye on. Since government budgeting is based on continual increases from the previous year's expenditures, next year I would have enough money to do it again. That's how budgets ratchet up, and we have to change that in order to take control over our deficit.

Worse yet, once I got my Cinema Display, I apparently became much more interested in in admiring it than actually getting work done. Thus, more money is spent, but we become a lot less efficient, which is shameful.

D

[PianoMan]

username anonymous, password anonymous

[Rabid Dog]

I believe there might be an issue with keeping a "surplus" on hand for a rainy day - many would feel that any excess should be returned to taxpayers.

[Tax-chick]

user: annoying@freerepublic.com
password: annoying

It's the FR universal access system.

[DoctorZIn]

This post has been added to the… California In Transition- Must read Threads!

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

[hchutch]

I'd go for a half-and-half approach.

Half of any surplus is used for a rainy-day fund, the other half is rebated to the taxpayers as a percentage of that they paid.

[daviddennis]

I think what I would probably do is decide on an amount we want for the reserve, and then refund any amounts coming in over that number.

However, there should be a provision where the reserve is increased instead of refund if the cost of processing the refunds is is too similar to their amount. If it costs $10 to process a refund, sending $10 checks isn't going to do any of us any good; instead, add $20 per person to the reserve.

It would probably be best to make the refund a credit on the current year's taxes - maybe it could be reverse-withheld from paychecks.

D