Posted on 07/31/2004 10:04:12 AM PDT by calif_reaganite
Mr. President:
Over the last few years, we have seen a variety of inventive ways to balance the budget on paper while racking up multi-billion deficits. So in preparation for this budget, I asked the Legislative Analyst’s Office two simple questions.
First, how much are we taking in from the revenue structure of the state – all of our taxes and fees and interest earnings?
And then I asked, how much are we actually spending for general fund programs?
In other words, how much is this family actually earning and how much is it actually spending?
And it turns out that last year, we spent $4 billion more from our general fund than we received as income.
Under this budget, according to the LAO, the revenue structure of this state will actually generate – in round numbers -- $76 billion. And it will spend $81 billion on general fund programs. We’ll “earn” $76 billion and spend $81 billion. The deficit – nearly $5 billion – will have to be borrowed.
And that assumes every budget assumption works perfectly.
In our last budget debate, one senator said, “that’s OK. Borrowed money is real money.”
If you believe that, try this one out on your spouse – “Honey, we spent $5 billion more than we earned last year, but don’t worry – I just put the difference on our charge card.” I wish you better luck with that one than I know I would have with my wife.
We’re told, “at least this is a step in the right direction.” No it’s not – it’s a $5 billion step in the wrong direction.
Let me put it another way. Over the next year, inflation and population will grow at a combined rate of 4.2 percent. Our revenues will grow 6.7 percent. So, this is still NOT a revenue problem. Revenues continue to grow faster than inflation and population combined. But here is the problem -- spending will grow 7.4 percent. That’s a faster annual growth rate than under the previous administration’s 7 percent. Our annual spending is actually growing faster now than it has over the past five years.
The widening gap between revenues and expenditures continues to be papered over with borrowed money.
Less than three months ago, on May 1st, the total amount of state general fund supported debt (this includes all the bond issues) was $33 billion. By the end of this budget year, that debt will have grown to nearly $51 billion. That is a 54 percent increase in debt in a mere 14 months. Borrowing by this state is now completely out of control.
Here is what we have:
That is the budget we are about to vote on. “Never mind that,” we’re told, “the budget doesn’t raise taxes” – or, at least, it doesn’t raise them by much.
But here’s the fine point of it: resistance to tax increases only works IF IT IS ACCOMPANIED BY RESISTANCE TO SPENDING INCREASES.
As I have repeatedly warned – YOU CANNOT PAY FOR SOCIALLY LIBERAL PROGRAMS WITH FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE POLICIES. You cannot be both things. IT DOESN’T BALANCE. Fiscal conservatism means not only restraining taxes but restraining spending.
“Never mind that,” we are told. “We’ll control spending increases sometime in the future.” This is a song we hear with every budget – like we hear “Jingle Bells” at Christmastime. Let me remind you that successful diets don’t start in the future. They ALWAYS begin in the present.
And here’s the problem with the future diet that we are promised. This budget also obligates us to make enormous balloon payments beginning in 2006. Not only are we spending more than we can afford this year, but we are agreeing to even bigger obligations just 24 months from now. We will have balloon payments due to local governments, to the pension system, to the public schools, to the universities. Some diet.
Last year when we took up the budget (a budget that we also were told was “balanced”), I warned that it was “a rotting porch just waiting to collapse.” We ended up spending $4 billion more than we took in. This year – if all goes well – we will spend $5 billion more. The porch is gone. Now the very financial structure of our house is being eaten away.
Forty years ago, in 1964, when California admirably met the needs of its people, it spent $202 per person from both general and special funds. That’s $1,160 adjusting for inflation. $1,160. You are about to vote on a budget that spends $2,878 per person. And let me ask you – where are the roads, where are the aqueducts, where are the power plants, where are the top-flight schools and universities that our parents delivered 40 years ago?
What will be our generation’s answer to history? “Sorry, it’s the best we could do?” Shakespeare’s words come to mind: “Age, thou art shamed. Rome, thou hast lost the breed of noble bloods.”
That's why you'll always be standing outside on the sidewalk with your nose pressed against the glass, helplessly watching all the meaningful people who influence your life in action.
Let me cut to the chase: the entire motivation behind the recall campaign, among some here on Free Republic, was less to depose Gray Davis than to install Tom McClintock. Unfortunately, that caper was operated by the "Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight", and where power vaccuums are created, super-professionals with experience, smarts and resources move in. Arnold filled the vaccuum, the moribund McClintock and his diehards were left on the sidelines, and some you will NEVER get over it.
California is in a far better place today than it was one year ago. The GOP and conservative influence in Sacramento has been kickstarted. California's economy is becoming vibrant again ... and thus the American economy benefits concurrently. Arnold is a success. McClintock is a backbench maverick who has never accomplished a real world legislative victory beneficial to Californians, and never will. He's taken the arrogant posture as the principled critic. Thus, a hero to posturing Freepers. Tom accomplishes nothing of substance. Arnold is going to rescue the Golden State from bankruptcy and implosion. End of story.
Wow, yes, I see now, why can't we just be like a European nation and borrow ourselves bankrupt! Just as long as we don't lose influence with folks like Burton or Bustamante (otherwise, after all, we would risk being perceived as "amateurish" and "inept"). Anything to the right of Maria Shriver is "uber-conservative." Labels are everything and substance is nothing. What, us worry? --pshaw: the governor has an "R" next to his name!
:-(
There you go again. I was neither offensive nor condescending. You're getting thin skinned.
>>>As for what you have personally said about Schwarzenegger, whether he is successful or not, please link me to your comments praising him for his actions, any actions. Perhaps you can and I'll reconsider my comment, otherwise I'll just let what I said stand.
First off, you're talking apples and oranges. You know I never supported Arnold. I supported McClintock. And I have no intention of employing your standards either. If Arnold does something worthy of praise, he'll get kudos from me. I repeat. Never said I wanted to see Arnold fail in his efforts and you have no evidence to the contrary. So far, Arnold has worked on the political margins as Governor. Just what I expected from him. If he takes until 2006 to straighten things out, that is way beyond the time frame he basically indicated and should be unacceptable to all Californians.
McClintock made some important statements in his speech. He point out the truth about the current state of affairs in California. It's clear, you don't like hearing the truth from McClintock or anyone else.
Less than three months ago, on May 1st, the total amount of state general fund supported debt (this includes all the bond issues) was $33 billion. By the end of this budget year, that debt will have grown to nearly $51 billion. That is a 54 percent increase in debt in a mere 14 months. Borrowing by this state is now completely out of control.
Here is what we have:
*A significantly larger general fund deficit than last year.
*Spending growth that is actually accelerating compared to the past five years
*Spending that continues to grow faster than revenues and much faster than inflation and population.
*Total general fund-supported debt up 54 percent in just 14 months.
>>>First of all, true believer's of Ronald Reagan do not take every opportunity to allienate others.
Alienate! LOL Sorry bucko. I'm not playing your silly game this time. I'm onto you. You want to have it both ways and you want to have it all. On occasion you may knock Arnold, so you can say, I've been critical of him. On rare occasion, you show a certain support for Tom McClintock, so you can say, you're not always critical of him. Most of the time, you denounce anyone who utters any criticism of Arnold and most of the time, you denounce and degrade Tom McClintock and those who agree with his conservative agenda and political rhetoric.
In addition, you continually overlook what GovRino intends on doing, should he ever get the budget balanced and into the black. I repeat. Arnold intends on fully funding California's welfare entitlement programs. Again, this isn't the sign of a fiscal conservative.
If that's the best argument you can come up with, I feel truly sorry for you.
Barlowmaker is not a California resident and has no dog in the fight or interest in the situation beyond protection of the Republican Party image.
From a review of his comments since he began posting I'd guess Barlowmaker is at least very familiar with the Republican Party at a national level since most posts deal with national, rather than local issues. In a word, more marketing than sales.
If you think you can change Rove's mind then by all means joust with Barlowmaker. My advice is to concentrate on what's going on down on the field rather than be distracted by a cheerleader's comments from the grandstands 1000 miles away.
Dozens of out of state, loyal, Republican Party interlopers come and go on the California Topic. We apparently offer them a challenge - the one state whose conservatives won't capitulate for the "good of the party". Concentrate your energies on the Freepers that can vote in California. The Barlowmaker's will always be nipping at your heels regardless of your effort or insight until and unless you bow to the absolute will of their political party.
Dear Mr. Genius:
14 Reps in the Senate + 32 Reps in the Assembly = 46
25 Dems in the Senate + 48 Dems in the Assembly = 73
CA Supreme Court: 6 Reps, 1 Dem.
Let's learn to count first.
Signed,
Narcissistic Moron
California's problem is the 83-46 Democrat majority in the State Legislature. California's problem is the 90% Democrat governing majority in its largest cities and counties. California's problem is its monopoly of Democrat-appointed Liberal judges in its municipal, state and federal courts. California's problem is the endless queue of environmental, race baiting, illegal immigrant enabling, public and teacher union, trial lawyer and gay/lesbian interest groups that have wrested political influence and access to your paycheck through Democrat controlled offices.
Regardless, you and your pals go ahead and blame Arnold Schwarzenegger. Have a cookie and some ice cream too. "Wheel of Fortune" is on. Let's keep it simple.
BUMP
Well, you only have a 73-46 defecit then. Congratulations winner.
You are correct, the special interests are a problem. Arnold's budget, however, is a giveaway to most of these groups. That, intentionally or not, you fail to grasp.
Then I define a solution as not making nice to them, but challenging them... and anyone who claims that not doing so amounts to more than a dime's worth of difference.
Here's an example of #72:
Prodded by union supporters, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will provide $3.8 million in the state budget he is scheduled to sign today for a University of California labor think tank he had targeted for elimination.
The funding for the Institute for Labor and Employment, based at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of California, Berkeley, dismayed critics who contend it promotes unionization that increases business costs.
During last year's gubernatorial recall election, critics accused the institute of training union members to oppose the recall. Institute officials, who were unavailable Friday, denied the charges.
What concerns me with the out-of-staters is the preoccupation with style over substance. There seems little doubt that Arnold as California Governor constitutes some kind of perceived advantage to Republicans in other states. So there is a political force that sucks Arnold into national prominence, whether or not his actions in California deserve it. Who knows? Arnold's coattails might be long enough to one or another close future election in some other state. I think you're right, they are too far away to care, and too far away to notice. They are just dazzled by the star-power BS, and otherwise thinking "what does this do for me-- to heck with California anyway."
When they say McClintock is a loser, they really mean that McClintock did not star in his own blockbuster movies at the local movie theater, and so (they believe) can't help their own out-of-state candidates. Big whoop. Californians should put California first and tolerate but otherwise discard advice of the nosy out-of-state RINO groupies ;-).
Do you think Schwarzenegger creates the firat and only final California budget with an Excel spreadsheet on Maria's Purple IMac their Malibu bungalow? He SIGNS a bill that is budgeted, appropriated and funded by the elected California Assembly and Senate and subject to review from the California Supreme Court.
Did Arnold envision, shepherd and codify this particular $4 million expenditure personally? Of course not. He signed a damn budget with a lot of wasteful spending directed toward offensive programs, groups and people. Welcome to the World.
Unless you have some evidence that the Governor ... not legislative appropriators ... bowed to the influence of the union goonery I'm thinkin' this is just another example of folks desperate to assign their injury and grievence to ... oh ... ANYONE BUT THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE.
That's no longer acceptable in honest discussion. We're at war for our survival, and this campaign against RINOs (i.e. any Republican who can be elected in a liberal State) is stupidity, subversion and a non starter.
"If the Governor doesn't have the guts to tell the people that he won't balance the budget as the California Constitution requires, then I call him a girly-man."
(Hint: That's another statement.)
You bet.
Barlowmaker is an excellent example. Short on facts about California's financial numbers and long on party dogma/platitudes. If there's a conflict between the facts and the dogma, between the reality and the broad bush strokes them change the subject or examine an inconsequential detail at length. Any thing to distract other readers from the essence of the point.
In the case in point I don't think the interloper is just dazzled by the star-power BS, and otherwise thinking "what does this do for me-- to heck with California anyway."
In this case the author is probably well connected with the party and trying to avoid public condemnation of the embarrassing agenda unfolding in California prominently associated with an (R). The last thing the RNC needs is grumbling in the crowd when Schwarzenegger is at the podium in August.
When they say McClintock is a loser, they really are attempting to distract the base from remembering the core values their party used to represent. When a party, any political party, tries to explain away what even a third grader sees as logical, in this case a reduction in spending, then the party is in trouble along the path most frequently traveled.
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.