Click The Logo To Donate
Posted on 07/02/2004 10:08:20 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders said they were near a final deal on the overdue state budget Thursday night after the governor abandoned some proposed fee increases and agreed to pump more money into higher education.
Republicans, however, balked at a rewritten deal involving local government finances, and Schwarz enegger and legislative leaders met into the night trying to resolve the differences.
"We are at this hour stuck on local government," Schwarzenegger spokesman Rob Stutzman said late Thursday. The Republican governor and lawmakers are two days late finishing work on the $103 billion spending plan, which relies heavily on borrowing and does not contain hundreds of millions in savings that Schwarzenegger had sought when he promised to wipe out reckless spending in Sacramento.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Unless he vetos bukkoo stuff,, it looks like a big cave-ola on the old ranch-ola by a hollywood uhhmmmm.. -ola
Now we will hear the whines from the moderates that he did the best he could with what had to work with.
DUhhh!
Kudos to the few who have been fighting the good fight thru this debacle of a budgeting exercise.
say Hosta-La-Vista to your paycheck Babby. The Dummycrat control of California's legislature and the past Dummycratic govenor have ruined California's economy. Lets see, what would it take to spur California's economy and get out of financial trouble......Lower the taxes, rip out all the stupid feel good environmental regulaitons that are stifeling business, open the coastline to oil drilling, seal the border & stop the illegals from overwhelming the social support system and the schools and free up those jobs for Americans, and ummmmmm......make the speed limit 100 MPH (the last one is just for fun).
That's the job description. If he didn't want to be governor, he shouldn't have run.
Instead our fearless Terminator pretends to solve the problem by whishing in one hand and leaving the bill in another (for later) while foisting the pain on local government.
What a gutless weasel.
Schwarzenegger should have submitted a revised budget for the current fiscal year within a week of having been elected, simply whacking 9% from every department across the board. Had he done that, the problem wouldn't have been nearly so deep. Instead, he rolls over the debt, borrows massively, and caves to the Democrats when they find a way to spend it. All without significant layoffs or privatization.
Some "fiscal conservative."
Well I won't say "I told you so!"
Like I said last year "Ya can't be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal at the same time. Ya gotta pay for those programs somehow!!!"
You all remember my McClintock campaign slogan from last year?
"Vote 4 McClintock or Pay$ the Con$equence$!"
Well the check has come and we're stuck paying the tab!
That 13% Solution sure is looking sweet eehhhh, FReepers!
Happy Fourth of July, FReepers!
And don't forget to hoist those Stars & Stripes!!!
Semper Fi,
Kelly
What a Wimp.
California State Budget Totals ($ Millions) Actual 2001-02: $96,200 Enacted 2003-04: $93,451 Arnold Proposal 2004-05: $103,xxx
More people will be moving out. The exodus is already underway, liberals will get their dream state, everyone will be on the dole.
fyi
#8
These are the enacted budget numbers for the last 4 fiscal years from the California Department of Finance and Schwarzenegger's proposed numbers from his May revision.
2000/2001 – Davis’ first budget
General Fund Expenditures $78.8B
Total Expenditures $99.4B
2001/2002
General Fund Expenditures $78.7B
Total Expenditures $103.2B
2002/2003
General Fund Expenditures $76.7B
Total Expenditures $ 98.9B
2003/2004
General Fund Expenditures $71.1B
Total Expenditures $99.1B
2004/2005 – Schwazenegger’s proposal revised in May 2004
General Fund Expenditures $77+B
Total Expenditures $103+B
These numbers don't seem to agree with those posted from your source. As an example your source cites $93.4 enacted in 09/03 in 2003/2004 and the Department of Finance shows $99.1B enacted in 09/03 for the same fiscal year. A 6% difference.
Maybe a little thing now but as soon as the budget is enacted Schwarzenegger may qualify as having approved the largest budget increase in California's modern era. If the numbers from the official state summuries are inaccurate I'd like to know before I end up with egg all over my face.
Amerigomag - thanks for those numbers. I think I pulled mine them from reports on the leginfo site. I will have to backtrack to determine the exact source/link. I would like to have handy the total numbers (undisputed) for the past five years or so (that is what I was attempting to do). When we finally get that "open government" and "let the sun shine in", the numbers should be easier to find. ;-)
I will get back to you.
Correction... not leginfo site.... lao.ca.gov
Now I'll go look. :-)
The California Constitution codifies the enacted budget as a hard limit with the exception of supplemental emergency expenditures at the Governor's discretion . The Legislature and the Governor treat them as general guidelines. This common disregard for the law was one of the chief reasons that the budget got into a significant structural imbalance under the Davis administration.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/2003/spend_plan_03/1003_spend_plan_main.html#budget%20totals
"Total State Spending
The state spending plan for 2003-04 authorizes total state expenditures from all funds of $100.9 billion. As indicated in Figure 1, this total includes budgetary spending of $93.5 billion, reflecting $71.1 billion from the General Fund and $22.3 billion from special funds."There is also a table that includes the values I posted, using the term "enacted".
Thank you for the explanations. I always learn alot form your posts.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/LAOMenus/lao_menu_economics.aspxFrom the database, I pulled the following expenditure numbers :
State of California Expenditures,
1984-85 to 2004-05 (Updated May 2004)
DOF Agency 2003-04 2004-05
--------------------------------------- ----------- -----------
Legislative, Judicial and Executive 2,548,255 2,724,858
State and Consumer Services 471,221 507,976
Business, Transportation and Housing 516,282 376,453
Trade and Commerce Agency 6,227 0
Resource Agency 966,983 973,843
California Environmental Protection 90,819 68,839
Health and Human Services 22,967,304 25,195,608
Youth and Adult Corrections 5,423,717 6,214,700
K-12 Education 29,778,374 33,920,871
Higher Education 8,795,141 9,264,316
Labor and Workforce Development Agency 112,041 84,732
General Government 5,947,337 -1,754,500
----------- -----------
Total General Funds 77,623,701 77,577,696
----------- -----------
Special Funds 19,432,330 22,240,915
Bond Funds 10,258,167 2,978,650
----------- -----------
Combined 107,314,198 102,797,261
But this doesn't look right either.
I am assuming the $102,797,261 reflects the May Budget Revision (Arnold's $103 Billion).
They include as expenditures in '03/'04 the bond sales for costs that were recorded and resulted in the deficit from prior years?
Also, how can they run "General Government for a negative $2 Billion??
Is that where the shell game landed?
That would then convert to an "$8 Billion savings" for that one line item alone?
And K-12 and HHS certainly don't seem to be hurt to much from the (cough) "reductions".
Davis estimated the 2003/2004 budget he signed authorized total spending of $99.1B. His Final Budget Summary is available on the California Department of Finance website.
On 10/27/2003, Davis published a revised 2003/2004 budget estimate, also available from the CDF website, because of several major changes in the budget that occurred since the budget was signed two months earlier. That new number was $100.174B.
Now you've discovered that the Legislative Analyst's Office didn't buy the Governor's estimates. Their number is $100.9B.
At least the differences are insignificant (<.01%)
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.