Posted on 07/31/2004 10:04:12 AM PDT by calif_reaganite
That is exactly what I want. Go look at that thread on the national budget. That is exactly what they did. Even though the raw numbers for the national budget are larger, their percentage of GDP is smaller than in the past.
This is what I want to know about the state budget. What is the states budget in relation to GSP and is that getting bigger or smaller? All we ever hear about are the raw numbers and if I'm reading the national stuff right, that is not neccessarily what is important.
State: California Industry: Total Gross State Product Gross State Product (millions of current dollars)* 1977 229,468 1978 263,556 1979 295,112 1980 328,188 1981 368,508 1982 393,176 1983 426,033 1984 484,473 1985 529,380 1986 567,411 1987 624,643 1988 685,095 1989 743,472 1990 798,879 1991 814,743 1992 831,576 1993 847,879 1994 879,041 1995 925,931 1996 973,395 1997 1,045,254 1998 1,125,331 1999 1,213,355 2000 1,330,025 2001 1,359,265Definition: "Current-dollar GSP"
"Gross State Product (GSP) is the market value fo the goods and services produced by the labor and property located in a state. GSP for a state is derived as teh sum of the GSP originating in each industry in the state. Current-dollar GSP is not adjusted for inflation."
Too bad someone doesn't bring this up to Tom Sullivan. I'd like to see him do a show on it.
Amerigomag... can you shed any light? Would it be more appropriate to chose only certain funds?
The GSP numbers for 2002 won't be published until December 15, 2004, so the analysis is limited. Also, BEA also publishes something called "Chained-dollar GSP" which I did not use as I did not fully understand its derivation vs. the "Current dollar GSP" defined in my post above.
State
Fiscal Year Expenditures* % Exp to GSP**
1984-85 44,333,001 9.15%
1985-86 49,257,034 9.30%
1986-87 52,824,420 9.31%
1987-88 55,401,831 8.87%
1988-89 61,260,548 8.94%
1989-90 67,252,683 9.05%
1990-91 72,929,373 9.13%
1991-92 83,002,328 10.19%
1992-93 86,062,899 10.35%
1993-94 85,637,066 10.10%
1994-95 86,109,797 9.80%
1995-96 90,210,003 9.74%
1996-97 95,908,494 9.85%
1997-98 100,176,786 9.58%
1998-99 109,635,318 9.74%
1999-00 122,167,373 10.07%
2000-01 137,654,332 10.35%
2001-02 145,842,698 10.73%
2002-03 161,511,321
2003-04 165,850,388
2004-05 154,143,966
*Expenditures from Pivot Tables - "All Funds"
lao.ca.gov/LAOMenus/lao_menu_economics.aspx
**FY 1984-85 Expenditures / 1984 GSP (etc.)
Chained dollar GSP is based on the average weights of goods and services in successive pairs of years. It is "chained" because the second year in each pair, with its weights, becomes the first year of the next pair. The advantage of using the chained-dollar measure is that it is more closely related to any given period covered and is therefore subject to less distortion over time. Constant dollar GSP is tied to a specific year (or possibly current dollars). But, if you are looking at a trend, both chained dollars and constant dollars should provide a similar general trend.
As far as funds go, the general fund expenditures show how much the state spent on services and programs and does not take into account bond expenditures.
Sen. McClintock's statement on California POBs:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1184958/posts
Still think Tom should do a show on this.
You can email him live during his show at www.tomsullivan.com... he edits closely, so go easy.
That's probably what I will do. I'm looking up that budget cut. I have a bee link if you need it. I'm doing more research.
>>Wow, good work
I'm not sure. Calif_reaganite provided some good input... I'm not sure the numbers I included are appropriate for the analysis. When I have a chance, I'll go back and look at just the general fund and bond fund line items, as well as the chained dollar values. But that also gets murky when there has been so much borrowing between funds and between years. There are probably many distortions in the data that I am not familiar with that cause swings in the percentage relationships.
Also, while the GSP #'s I used said they were not inflation adjusted, there was no description (that I found) re: the state numbers. For analysis purposes, they need to be the same (i.e. either both need to be raw numbers, or both similarly adjusted).
Lastly, the outrageous spending seems to have happened in the last couple years, as the legislature and past governor reportedly decided to spend revenue generated by income taxes from the dotcom frenzy. If true, a large growth in percentage should be reflected for the years following the frenzy... but without the GSP values, it can't be demonstrated. [sigh]
FF: Who's Tom Sullivan?
Calif_reaganite: Thanks for the input! If you have any more input as to what would be most comparable, I can crunch a number or two. :-)
Tom Sullivan is KFBK's business editor and afternoon talk show host. Tom began working at KFBK in December, 1980. He provides business reports twice an hour during the morning, noon and afternoon news.His show has consistently been the number one local talk show in Sacramento. Sullivan began his duties as a talk show host in July, 1988 when Rush Limbaugh left KFBK for his national show in New York. Tom is a Seattle native who has lived in Sacramento since 1975. In addition to his schedule at KFBK, Tom is with The Sullivan Group of Wachovia Securities and is also the financial editor of KCRA-TV (Channel 3).
The weakness in the analytical model you've proposed is who is determining "market value". Usually it's a government bean counter or, worse yet, the industry itself providing the raw information to the auditor.
KISS
California is spending FAR more than it takes in. It needs to spend less regardless of the efficiency of governance/oversight.
California's spending problems are not centered around state employee salaries or benefits. The problems involve the continuous expansion of the public largess and expansion of the classes entitled to to that public largess.
It is not a chicken and egg dilemma. It is a fundamental, simple, economic truth: If you reduce the amount/level/quality of the service and limit those entitled to the service the cost to provide the service will decrease proportionally.
This principal applies equally to public education, public health and the cost of public judgment/punishment.
Thanks. I agree with your focus. I was trying to respond to Farmfriend's proposed method of demonstrating that we are even more out of control than we used to be!
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.