Skip to comments.California budget; vanity
Posted on 07/23/2009 6:19:17 PM PDT by sasquatch
I spoke with Tom Campbell today. He said there are two ways which could require California to base the annual budget on the previous years revenue. One lets the gov. veto spending. (Not a guarentee) The other is a state constitutional amendment. He said those are tough. I agree but ask this: What do Freepers think about it?
I think criminals have no care about the law, a constitution or much of anything except themselves.
They will say, "Piss on your constitution! We know you won't fight and even if you do, we won't play by YOUR rules."
You lose, nice people. Leo Durocher was right.
A state constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget? I’m for it.
Understand your angst. What I trying to determine is what folks think the odds are that we can ammend the state constitution to require a budget based on the previous years revenue. In other words, don’t spend what is not in the bank.
Previous year is too close, not enough time to plan and make well reasoned adjustments. Should be more like 3 to 5, or a rolling average.
It’s a good premise, though.
The concept I wished all Bodies Elect would get their head around, is a concept of a “dynamic” budget. This would have the benefit of pre-thought, and pre-determined adjustments caused from an intense, thoughtful, highly focused and reviewed decision process to mark programs and other expenditures that will automatically be reduced, cut, or increased to fulfill the requirement of, not just, a balanced budget, but a budget that takes into account all scenarios possible. Which means, an excess of available funds, not borrowed or obtained by indebtedness of any kind, is necessary.
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.