[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

CA Faces $15 Billion Deficit - Even if May 19 Props Pass

by: Robert Cruickshank

Mon May 11, 2009 at 19:00:00 PM PDT


We'd need a whole pod of whales to illustrate the FAIL that is Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger:

The Republican governor's Department of Finance has projected a budget gap of $15.4 billion if the May 19 special election ballot measures pass and $21.3 billion if they fail. The state would gain nearly $6 billion in solutions if Propositions 1C, 1D and 1E pass, including $5 billion in 1C's borrowing against the California Lottery.

Arnold took office promising to succeed where Gray Davis supposedly failed. Now Arnold has produced deficits FAR worse than anything Davis faced. Arnold is plowing ahead with his apparently illegal "May Revise" to scare voters. But as the SacBee article notes, Arnold can't actually propose that much in cuts without risking the stimulus:

The governor did not disclose his proposed solutions Monday. But he warned groups last week that he will consider borrowing $2 billion from cities and counties, releasing low-level offenders in state prisons and reducing school funding by $3.6 billion. The state also could eliminate its planned $2 billion reserve.

California faces limitations in how much it can cut without jeopardizing federal stimulus funding. For instance, the state cannot cut too much in higher education, K-14 schools or Medi-Cal eligibility without running afoul of federal stimulus guidelines.

Cities and counties will revolt before being pushed into bankruptcy by a raid on their already bare cupboards. Arnold is either going to have to declare default, or embrace some truly progressive solutions like majority vote budgets and taxes on the wealthy and corporations.

Instead of providing leadership, Arnold is merely trying to scare voters into giving him one last chance to ruin our state. Voters are rejecting his tactics, his propositions, and ultimately, Arnold himself.

Worst. Governor. Ever.

Robert Cruickshank :: CA Faces $15 Billion Deficit - Even if May 19 Props Pass
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Are we supposed to believe the Dept. of Finance? (0.00 / 0)
I'll wait for an independent assessment thanks.  I'm perfectly willing to believe a $16 billion dollar deficit, but not from the office of the guy who has shown such a willingness to scare the electorate.

That did give me some pause (0.00 / 0)
I wouldn't put it past them to monkey with the figures to make things look worse than before. An independent assessment would be welcome. But for now Calitics readers can make their own assessments.

As far as I'm concerned Arnold is a total failure no matter what the actual size of the deficit is. One of the worst governors in the history of the state.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave


[ Parent ]
wASN'T THE GRAY DAVIS DEBT (0.00 / 0)
36 BILLION DOLLARS! That's more than 15 billion/

If California kept its state spending at population growth +inflation from 1990 onwards, we would have a surplus this year, not a deficit.


And in February it was $42B (0.00 / 0)
adding to this $16B and you've got s $60 billion dollar deficit in 18 months.  Worse than Davis - because it's a worse recession and our revenue base is unsustainable.

Although I don't know why I'm even responding - someone deluded enough to revert to the "pop. growth + inflation" talking point, as if health care spending hasn't increased about 20 times that, to just use one example, isn't worth it.  By the way, genius...

Total state spending over the decade 1998-99 through 2008-09 ... Total spending grows over this period from $72.6 billion to $128.8 billion-an average annual growth rate of roughly 6 percent...
  * After adjusting for inflation, real spending has grown by roughly 18 percent over the entire period, or an annual average growth rate of roughly 1.7 percent.
  * Real per-capita spending-which adjusts for both inflation and population growth-would increase by about 2.2 percent over the period, for an average annual rate of 0.2 percent.

And if you've followed the news about the way that the consumer price index has been understated by federal agencies, it could easily be argued that there has been no real growth in state spending during the last decade.



[ Parent ]
By the way genius (0.00 / 0)
Health care spending is only thirty percent of the budget, furthermore the legislature chooses who to subsidize health care for and who not to. Health care is not a right/

And looking from 1990 onwards, when Pete Wilson took office

When Gov. Pete Wilson took office in 1991, the state budget was $51.4 billion. When he left eight years later, it was $75.3 billion. After five years of Gov. Davis's administration, the budget had jumped to $104.2, and after another five years under the stewardship of Gov. Schwarzenegger, it has continued to increase significantly to its present level of $144.5 billion. In just the last 10 years state spending has nearly doubled, increasing approximately 92 percent.

A good rule of thumb in government budgeting is that the rate of spending increases should not exceed the rate of population growth, plus inflation. California's last three governors have not fared so well by this metric. Gov. Wilson managed best, holding average annual General Fund spending increases to 4.88 percent, compared to population plus inflation growth of an average of 3.72 percent a year. Under Gov. Davis, spending rose an average of 6.73 percent a year versus population plus inflation growth of 4.83 percent. Spending has grown slightly higher under Gov. Schwarzenegger-even considering that spending in the current fiscal year was basically held flat-increasing 6.75 percent a year, compared with population plus inflation growth of 4.98 percent a year. Over the entire 18-year period, state spending grew at an average annual rate of 5.91 percent, while population plus inflation grew only 4.38 percent a year, on average.

http://www.reason.org/news/sho...


[ Parent ]
You are a generous soul (0.00 / 0)
It must be good to be you, so unencumbered with those damned bleeding hearts us liberals have. (Perhaps I should say lib-ruhls?)  It must be so easy for you to sleep, when you are completely unmoved by the thought of people dying on the streets simply because of who they are and how much money they have.

Must be nice for you.

Also,  no, the reason (hah!) foundation does not qualify as a reliable source here.  

I think?


[ Parent ]
Here's a 50 dollar lesson for you (0.00 / 0)
The $50 Lesson

I recently asked my friends' little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up.
She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?"

She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people."

Her parents beamed with pride.

"Wow...what a worthy goal." I told her, "But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that.
You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50.
Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house."

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"

I said, "Welcome to the real world"


[ Parent ]
Why doesn't he? (0.00 / 0)
Because he most likely has a mental illness, that's why. Why don't we take a few pennies out of every fifty dollars, and then use that to fund programs that can help them?

Oh right, because that would be "socialist." Never mind, forget I said anything.  


[ Parent ]
ah, conservative-land (0.00 / 0)
where everyone who is poor or homeless is that way by choice and social programs are unnecessary because everyone has a bootstrap they could pull themselves up on, if they had to!

All of which changes, of course, when they have a decline in their own fortunes.  But hey--when times are good for you, why not screw everyone else?


[ Parent ]
Are you kidding? (8.00 / 1)
You're citing chain email to "prove your point"?  Pathetic.

[ Parent ]
Who let the crazies in the door? (0.00 / 0)
Shouldn't they be teabagging?

[ Parent ]
come on generous soul (0.00 / 0)
tell us about all the great work you have done for others WITH YOUR TIME AND YOUR MONEY

[ Parent ]
Free people can choose higher expenditures. Or lower. (0.00 / 0)
A good rule of thumb in government budgeting is that the rate of spending increases should not exceed the rate of population growth, plus inflation

But of course, that is a policy-driven conclusion, not a neutral "rule of thumb" for budgeting.  A neutral statement would be that expenditures should increase or decrease however slowly or quickly the people choose, based on the programs and services we decide to provide for ourselves.

 


[ Parent ]
I don't care about the commentary (0.00 / 0)
But their numbers are legitimate.

[ Parent ]
Furthermore (0.00 / 0)
Gray Davis actually addressed the deficit with the end of the "good times" VLF cut.  However, as soon as Arnold came in, he went ahead and axed that, pushing us towards this mess.

I think?

[ Parent ]
If he was truly concerned about the situation (0.00 / 0)
when times were good he would not have spent every dime and had a rainy day fund/

[ Parent ]
by the way (0.00 / 0)
We've banned you once for this stuff. You must really be into spewing this garbage.

Another expenditure which you've ignored in both of your calculations (shocking!) is the local government backfill. When the VLF was cut originally, the state made up that money to the counties.  That gets counted as an expenditure, and accounts for almost $7B this year.

But that's ok, you have your reality, and we aren't really going to convince you to rejoin the rest of us anytime soon.  And, you aren't really convincing anybody here either.  Now, if you're done getting your kicks, you might want to move along...

I think?


[ Parent ]
Local governments (0.00 / 0)
have been swimming in money from the increases in property values/

[ Parent ]
where in california do you live (0.00 / 0)
that your local government is swimming in revenue?!? it's been cuts all the way through the so-called boom.

[ Parent ]
In 2005-2006 (0.00 / 0)
the la city total budget was 6.0 billion/

In 2008-2009 it was 7 billion.

You call that a fucken cut/


[ Parent ]
No, I call that (0.00 / 0)
classical freedom.  Or representative democracy.

[ Parent ]
Wait a Second (0.00 / 0)
I completely agree that Arnold has been a terrible Governor, but where is the responsibility of the Legislature? With the 2/3 majority requirement for budgets (and the corresponding 2/3 requirement to override a veto), Arnold has essentially no say in the budget. So why does he get all of the blame here?

Instead we have a legislature that is so defunct on both sides of the aisle that it defies comprehension. Democrats want to tie up every penny of revenue in entitlement spending (I include union contracts in this), and Republicans that really don't care what happens, as long as they can tell their district that the tax rates stayed the same (although apparently even this is not true, given the latest mess).


Arnie's the Bernie Madoff of Governors (0.00 / 0)
Governor S has taken government borrowing to new heights, constantly issuing bonds to pay for the budget so he doesn't have to "raise taxes" but instead pile on more and more bond debt.

Remember the "Credit Card Bond" he and Westly pushed once he got into office?  How that was going to 'save" Kalifornia? Etc. etc.

The Governor and the legislature have both completely blown any credibility with these measures. It's time to hit the reset button on the California Constitution, get rid of the myriad of bullshit that's in there, and produce a simple, workable constitution so this state can be governable.

And please, can we get rid of these idiotic "ballot measures?" any crackpot with a few bucks can put some crazy bullshit on the ballot and it becomes law, with no checks or balances, and no accountability when this stuff goes to crap. That's how we get so many bad budgets, and so many bonds, which people vote for like it's 'free money' when it's not.

--
www.gregdewar.com


Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox