[calcowgirl]

The fine print of the voluminous budget reveals just how much spending, and deficits, have increased under Schwarzenegger. The $97.9 billion in general fund spending that he proposes for 2006-07 would be $18.1 billion or 22.7 percent more than his first budget spent two years ago, historic data show, while revenues would have increased by just $9 billion.

[calcowgirl]

California Insider
A Weblog by Sacramento Bee Columnist Daniel Weintraub
January 10, 2006

No fat lip. Just fat

The other day the governor fell off his motorcycle. Today he fell off the wagon. The budget-balancing wagon, that is.

Schwarzenegger had been making slow if not spectacular progress in balancing the state budget since he took office in the fall of 2003. The structural gap between spending and revenues estimated for the coming year shrank from about $16 billion when he took office to less than $4 billion, and a balanced budget was actually in sight. But his proposal today would spend $7 billion more next year, while the state’s revenues are expected to increase by just $4 billion. He has stopped making progress. Now he is going backwards.

The governor is proposing to spend about $98 billion next year while revenues are expected to total $91.5 billion. He would cover that gap with money left in the budget by what is believed to have been a one-time windfall of tax payments. Then he would run for re-election, roll the dice and hope for the best.

(snip)

But the bottom line is that this budget would begin with a positive balance of $7 billion (thanks to a one-time surge in tax revenues) and end, if all goes well, with a balance of about $700 million. Then, next January, most of the spending in this plan would continue, and grow, according to law, while revenues will almost certainly not keep pace.

Mike Genest, the governor’s director of finance, estimates that whoever is governor one year from today will be looking at a structural gap of about $5.5 billion, including about $2 billion the law requires be put into the state’s long-term reserve. And the surpluses that have papered over the past two years’ operating shortfalls would be gone. That means the governor in January 2007 would have to propose $5.5 billion in spending cuts, tax hikes or a combination of the two to balance the budget.

(snip)

[Carry_Okie]

What a crock. Given the level of fraud in selling Proposition 58, Schwarzenegger never gave crap about a balanced budget; he was lying through his teeth.

[kellynla]

any figure as to what the current state debt is???

[lowbridge]

bump

[TommyDale]

I bet he can balance a motorcycle better than he could balance the budget... Well, maybe not.

[FOG724]

nearly three years after voters dumped Davis and elected Arnold Schwarzenegger to fix the state's tortured finances, the budget is still out of whack. And as spending climbs, it may ooze red ink indefinitely.

Love it when you don't have to read beyond the first paragraph.

[DoughtyOne]

May? LOL May?

Sheesh...

[Amerigomag]

We all appreciate the tireless effort you've expended to document the absurdity of the Schwarzenegger myth but I'd like you to reflect on a simple concept:

If McClatchy is complaining, the situation is so far out of hand that even a third grader knows something is wrong in Schwarzeneggerland.

[goldstategop]

Cross the unions in this state and you're political roadkill. The big fight's not between the Governor and the Legislature but between the Democrats' constituents over where the money goes. That's going to be fun to watch.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")