Posted on 06/10/2007 3:17:36 PM PDT by Amerigomag
When Gov. Schwarzenegger took office in 2003, recalled Gov. Gray Davis was spending $78.3 billion from the state's general fund. The May 2007 revision "restrains" spending to just less than $103.8 billion, an increase of 32.6 percent. That's an annual average growth rate of 8.1 percent, compared to an annual growth rate of 7.1 percent under Davis and 4.8 percent under former Gov. Pete Wilson.
When Schwarzenegger took office, our minimum credit-card payment consumed 3 percent of the state's general fund. It will consume 7 percent of next year's budget. The "debt pre-payment" is an early payment toward covering his 2004 borrowing binge. Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill compares it to a family making an extra mortgage payment when they can't pay the electricity bill. With the state running chronic deficits, using borrowed money to repay borrowed money is no way to get ahead.
When the governor took office in 2003, the general fund was bleeding $1.6 billion in red ink. Under Schwarzenegger's May budget revision, it will rack up a $2.5 billion deficit, and according to the Legislative Analyst's Office, $5 billion more the following year. Put another way, in five years, Davis accumulated a combined deficit of $4.2 billion and Schwarzenegger is on track during his first five years to put us in debt by $10 billion.
At his May 14 press conference, the governor boasted of wrestling the deficit down from $16.5 billion to $1.4 billion. His oft-cited structural deficit of $16.5 billion was actually a 2003 recession-era projection of what would happen if spending growth continued unabated while revenues remained depressed. And his claim of a mere $1.4 billion deficit is the result of taking the actual $2.5 billion deficit and subtracting a transfer to the Budget Stabilization Account that is required by Proposition 58.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Gee. and I “wasted” my vote on a Libertarian
Gov. A. S. turned out to be a major disappointment. I wonder what would be different if we had gotten Bill Simon as governor? I was living in So. Calif. in 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007. Glad to be outta there and back in Texas.
—sarc—
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
So much for Schwarzenneger, the fiscal conservative.
I am baffled by anyones surprise.
I voted for McClintock because I knew the Governator wouldn’t be able to do a thing about Congressional spending. McClintock had a chance. You could see that Schwartzenegger was never going to reign in the liberals. And you could see that McClintock really had no chance.
8% growth is staggering, and I have been watching it year after year and wonder how the state could sustain it.
California is doomed. I wonder how long they can keep the ponzi scheme going as more business and taxpayers flee the state for saner realms.
The productive taxpayers are "getting out of dodge". They are being replaced by illegal aliens who consume more in taxpayer funded services than they contribute. It's a certain recipe for fiscal failure.
The neighborhood where I grew up (starting 1961) is full of latinos, graffiti, drive by shootings and drug dealers. The neighborhood where I owned a house from 1983 to 2001 is going that way quickly. It took 18 years for the barrio to advance from Main St (south of Chula Vista) to Mira Mesa (25 miles north).
I moved 905 miles north (Idaho). The closest barrios are 120 miles west (Twin Falls) and 120 miles south (Logan, UT). Lots of "nothing" in between. Hopefully I won't have to move again to escape the ocean of crime that comes with the encroachment of the barrio.
Arnold is governing exactly the way Californians insisted he govern once they torpedoed all of his ballot initiatives in 2006.
He took his ideas to the voters. They were good ideas, like extending the time it takes to obtain tenure for public school teachers.
Californians neutered the good governor....and I moved the hell out. It’s only gonna go down hill from here.
Those who are social liberals, but claim to be “fiscal conservatives,” virtually never are.
Nonsense. His borrow and spend gambit started long before that election. The supposed spending limits were a bogus scam that would have INCREASED spending in low revenue years.
The stampede continues....
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.