[calcowgirl]

Well... assuming these numbers are comparable (which I don't know that they are), here's the math.

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.)

[calif_reaganite]

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.

[farmfriend]

Wow, good work. Looks like the state percentage is going up unlike the feds. Now if we could just tie the numbers to party administration...

Still think Tom should do a show on this.

[Amerigomag]

You're heading into the area of the economic efficiency of management. Whether to guide a large production facility, a charity or the gross domestic productivity of a state, 4% is pretty damned good, at 10% it's time to examine efficiencies and at 15% it's time to start reexamining the CEO's remuneration package.

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.