SacBee - Brown signs budget after tumultuous month

[The Evil Genius]

For only the 6th time in the past 25 years, California has a signed budget in place before the beginning of the new fiscal year (tomorrow).

Thanks to perhaps the only proposition that I have seen, since I moved here in 1999, that has been worth a damn.

:applause:

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/06/brown-signs-budget-after-tumul.html

After a veto fight with his own party and unresolved differences with Republicans, Gov. Jerry Brown signed an on-time $85.9 billion spending plan Thursday that slashes higher education and the safety net while relying on a windfall of tax revenues.

Besides a February 2009 budget that was $24 billion out of whack that same May, the plan Brown signed Thursday was the state's earliest since 2006. Democratic lawmakers relied on new voter-approved powers that enabled them to pass a budget with majority support rather than two-thirds.

Since talks with Republicans died over the weekend, GOP leaders have declared victory by blocking tax extensions and allowing taxes on vehicles and sales to fall Friday as 2009 rates expire. They celebrated Thursday by holding a press conference at Downtown Ford.

Democrats were measured in their response, bemoaning the program cuts but saying it was the best package they could construct without Republican support. Brown chose not to have a public signing ceremony Thursday, signing the budget bills behind closed doors.

Brown and Democratic leaders have vowed to pursue a 2012 ballot initiative asking voters to reinstate those tax hikes. One of the budget bills, Assembly Bill 114, lays the groundwork for such a measure, setting terms for a retroactive $2 billion school repayment should voters reject taxes or the ballot proposal never materialize.

The latest deficit was as large as $26.6 billion in February. Since that time, lawmakers and Brown balanced the budget with a roughly even mix of cuts and tax windfall, as well as a smaller amount of fund shifts and internal borrowing. They are relying on about $11.8 billion in unanticipated tax growth, an amount nearly equal to the $12 billion that Brown originally wanted over 18 months through his tax extensions on vehicles, sales and income.

The budget plan did involve deep cuts to the state's neediest, a point that has been overlooked recently because of the two-step way in which Democrats solved the budget this year.

Lawmakers passed the bulk of their spending cuts in March, most on a majority vote without Republican support. The March reductions hit virtually every program that subsidizes the state's poor. It included a $1.5 billion reduction in Medi-Cal spending, a nearly $1 billion cut in welfare-to-work and a $178 million reduction in SSI/SSP payments to low-income elderly and disabled.

Higher education also got hit hard. The state cut the University of California and California State University systems each by $500 million in March and another $150 million this week. Both systems have said they will seek tuition hikes. Lawmakers also raised community college fees by $10 per unit. Further cuts could come if the state falls short of its optimistic revenue projections for the next fiscal year.

A smaller, but more visible cut, will result in the closure of up to 70 state parks.

Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/06/brown-signs-budget-after-tumul.html#ixzz1Qn83OwwG

[Predicto]

The California Legislature's GOP caucus has become nothing but petulant children.

[The Evil Genius]

I blame Grover Norquist.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Anytime you can destroy what was once the best public higher education system in the world, that's a victory.

[Larry]

I'm wondering, though, were those the only places that the Dems could cut?

I mean, if the GOP had slashed spending on education and the poor, everybody would be howling about how evil the GOP was. Did the Dems just not have the option of cutting anywhere else?

[deejaydana]

The California Legislature's GOP caucus has become nothing but petulant children.

I agree with that in the sense that, like a child, they have no real power. California, on its present course, is doomed.

[The Evil Genius]

I'm wondering, though, were those the only places that the Dems could cut?

I mean, if the GOP had slashed spending on education and the poor, everybody would be howling about how evil the GOP was. Did the Dems just not have the option of cutting anywhere else?

Nowhere that they could find that amount of "savings".

Gov. Brown has said that this budget's spending levels are on par with the levels back in the mid 1970's - when compared to the size of the state economy.

A lack of revenues is killing this state. Most of the cuts could have been avoided, had the GOP allowed the sales tax (and vehicle registration) to remain at its current level. Tomorrow, it will go down 1% (vehicle registration will go down about 50%). Costing the state about $5 billion this upcoming year.

[China]

I'm wondering, though, were those the only places that the Dems could cut?

I mean, if the GOP had slashed spending on education and the poor, everybody would be howling about how evil the GOP was. Did the Dems just not have the option of cutting anywhere else?

As I recall there were many places for cutting, we had a thread on balancing California's budget with a tool so you could do it yourself:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?289599-Try-to-balance-California-s-budget

[deejaydana]

California needs to seriously pare back its bloated government. I love how Dems are surprised that the general public doesn't want higher taxes. We're already near the very top in taxes and despite what is bandied about, California has a spending problem, not a revenue problem (at least this was one thing Ahnold was on the money about).

[The Evil Genius]

I love how Dems are surprised that the general public doesn't want higher taxes.

Hard to argue that when the GOP is afraid to give the public the option of voting on it. Additionally, is extending an existing tax really higher taxes?

[Predicto]

I'm wondering, though, were those the only places that the Dems could cut?

I mean, if the GOP had slashed spending on education and the poor, everybody would be howling about how evil the GOP was. Did the Dems just not have the option of cutting anywhere else?

They cut other places. 70 state parks are closing. The courts took hundreds of millions in cuts. The prison and parole system took hundreds of millions in cuts.

---------- Post added June-30th-2011 at 02:10 PM ----------

California needs to seriously pare back its bloated government. I love how Dems are surprised that the general public doesn't want higher taxes. We're already near the very top in taxes and despite what is bandied about, California has a spending problem, not a revenue problem (at least this was one thing Ahnold was on the money about).

We are not near the top on taxes. You are out of your mind.

And the GOP refused to let "the general public" have any say on whether any taxes would be raised.

[deejaydana]

so with the Dems in near complete control of the gov't here in California it's still, wait for it, the Republicans fault. Maybe if you say this to yourself enough times you can make it so. Dems own this now.

[Larry]

so with the Dems in near complete control of the gov't here in California it's still, wait for it, the Republicans fault. Maybe if you say this to yourself enough times you can make it so. Dems own this now.

I'd be more inclined to believe this line if I hadn't been seeing it used, as a complete lie, with respect to Washington, for the last year.

But I'll certainly admit that that doesn't automatically mean it isn't true in California.

[Predicto]

I'm tired of discussing this issue with someone who never brings a single fact to the table.

The way the recent California budget negotiations went down is a matter of public record. It's not even complicated. The state has a huge budget hole. The Governor proposes to close it with a compromise: 50 percent in cuts and 50 percent in extensions of current taxes. GOP refuses to discuss taxes. Governor says fine, let's put it on the ballot and see if the people think its a good idea. GOP refuses to discuss putting it on the ballot, and because you need a 2/3rd vote for the Legislature to put anything on the ballot, it can't go on the ballot. Governor even proposes abolishing redevelopment agencies, which has been a goal of the GOP for 20 years - the GOP refuses to talk about it.

They were petulant little children.

If deejaydana wants to take a crack at explaining it from his point of view, I would be happy to discuss it with him. But responding to empty platitudes like "California doesn't have a revenue problem it has a spending problem" is a waste of time. Our roads are crumbling, our schools have gone from the best to the worst, our parks are closing, and a disproportionate amount of our money is spent on prisons. California ranks 48th out of 50 states in number of public employees per capita, and it gets far less than its rightful share of federal tax money back, and its property taxes revenues are down 70 percent in real dollars since Prop. 13 went into effect. The evidence of a spending problem is hard to find - but the evidence of a revenue problem is clear as day.

[Prosperity]

they just kicked the can down the road, we'll go through this again when it turns out that these prospective windfalls were illusory

[deejaydana]

the fact of the matter is, there literally is never an end in sight when it comes to tax and spend liberals/progressives: you never have enough tax dollars to fund your dreamed of utopia. I can lay down facts but you'd find a way to explain them away and tell me that if only Prop 13 never came into being then we would be doing just fine (not mentioning that since 1978 spending on students in K-12 has risen by 30% and schools are still a terrible failure). What a brilliant move by Brown to tax internet sales: Amazon just severed ties with 25,000 California based affiliates today because of it. Get ready Texas, you're getting more people and small business owners soon!

[Larry]

I'm tired of discussing this issue with someone who never brings a single fact to the table.

The way the recent California budget negotiations went down is a matter of public record. It's not even complicated. The state has a huge budget hole. The Governor proposes to close it with a compromise: 50 percent in cuts and 50 percent in extensions of current taxes. GOP refuses to discuss taxes. Governor says fine, let's put it on the ballot and see if the people think its a good idea. GOP refuses to discuss putting it on the ballot, and because you need a 2/3rd vote for the Legislature to put anything on the ballot, it can't go on the ballot. Governor even proposes abolishing redevelopment agencies, which has been a goal of the GOP for 20 years - the GOP refuses to talk about it.

They were petulant little children.

If deejaydana wants to take a crack at explaining it from his point of view, I would be happy to discuss it with him. But responding to empty platitudes like "California doesn't have a revenue problem it has a spending problem" is a waste of time. Our roads are crumbling, our schools have gone from the best to the worst, our parks are closing, and a disproportionate amount of our money is spent on prisons. California ranks 48th out of 50 states in number of public employees per capita, and it gets far less than its rightful share of federal tax money back, and its property taxes revenues are down 70 percent in real dollars since Prop. 13 went into effect. The evidence of a spending problem is hard to find - but the evidence of a revenue problem is clear as day.

Your assertions sound believable to me, because they fit the pattern I've observed elsewhere.

But I think they'd stand up better if there were some actual vote counts to support them.

[Predicto]

the fact of the matter is, there literally is never an end in sight when it comes to tax and spend liberals/progressives: you never have enough tax dollars to fund your dreamed of utopia. I can lay down facts but you'd find a way to explain them away and tell me that if only Prop 13 never came into being then we would be doing just fine (not mentioning that since 1978 spending on students in K-12 has risen by 30% and schools are still a terrible failure). What a brilliant move by Brown to tax internet sales: Amazon just severed ties with 25,000 California based affiliates today because of it. Get ready Texas, you're getting more people and small business owners soon!

What a surprise. "I could lay down facts but you'd find a way to explain them away."

God forbid someone should poke holes in the assumed facts under which you live your life.

[Larry]

since 1978 spending on students in K-12 has risen by 30%

Is that adjusted for inflation and the number of students? And do you have a link?

[Prosperity]

just fyi... in '78 CA had around 23 million residents

in 2011 it has around 37 million

[Predicto]

Your assertions sound believable to me, because they fit the pattern I've observed elsewhere.

But I think they'd stand up better if there were some actual vote counts to support them.

Which vote count do you want? Not a single GOP legislator in California agreed to anything this year. They refused to compromise individually and they refused to compromise as a group. They stayed together, refused to agree to anything, all voted against the budget, and then complained that the budget didn't have any of their ideas in it (whatever they might have been).

The law out here still requires a 2/3rd vote for any tax increases. So as long as the GOP has 1/3 of the Legislature, they weild significant power.

[Larry]

usgovernmentspending.com has an interesting chart:

That's California spending on education, pre-primary through secondary, in 2005 dollars (so it's inflation adjusted), per capita. (Which isn't the same as per student, but I assume it's close.)

Their data only lets me go back to 92. But it looks to me like their spending went up by a good chunk. Like, 50%, from 97 to 01.

And that's supposedly state and local spending, combined.

[Predicto]

[That's California spending on education, pre-primary through secondary, in 2005 dollars (so it's inflation adjusted), per capita. (Which isn't the same as per student, but I assume it's close.)

Their data only lets me go back to 92. But it looks to me like their spending went up by a good chunk. Like, 50%, from 97 to 01.

And that's supposedly state and local spending, combined.

Of course, that is true for every state. According to this source, when cost of living is taken into account, California ranks 43rd in the nation in spending per pupil.

http://www.edsource.org/pub10-how-ca-ranks.html

[deejaydana]

God forbid someone should poke holes in the assumed facts under which you live your life.

Nobody has queered the California economy more than progressive liberal lawyers, like Moonbeam and Pelosi. How about you defend Brown's incredible giveaways to prison guard unions just this year? or the following stats:

----- One of the highest car licensing fees in the union (which Brown just tried to raise...again)

----the highest gasoline tax in the nation

----the highest state sales tax in the nation

-----bonds just barely above junk status

----the 3rd highest income tax in the nation

----unfunded pension liabilites : 500 billion

I don't presume to know how you "live your life" but California is a basket case and in my estimation, liberal progressive policies are a huge part of its ills. Your turn wise guy

[Predicto]

Nobody has queered the California economy more than progressive liberal lawyers, like Moonbeam and Pelosi. How about you defend Brown's incredible giveaways to prison guard unions just this year? or the following stats:

----- One of the highest car licensing fees in the union (which Brown just tried to raise...again)

----the highest gasoline tax in the nation

----the highest state sales tax in the nation

-----bonds just barely above junk status

----the 3rd highest income tax in the nation

----unfunded pension liabilites : 500 billion

I don't presume to know how you "live your life" but California is a basket case and in my estimation, liberal progressive policies are a huge part of its ills. Your turn wise guy

As has been discussed many times, those higher taxes and fees all exist to partially compensate for the revenue loss of Prop 13, but it isn't close to enough money to accomplish that. Local municipalities in California do not take in enough revenue to do any of the things that local municipalities in other states do. All of their local functions, especially schools but also libraries and parks and courthouses and so forth, have to be funded in large part by the state government. In no other state does the state government have to bear the basic burdens of state government AND local government. Did you miss the part where California is 49th out of 50 in number of state employees per capita? That is because state government is a relatively lean operation, with most of the state revenue being transferred to local governments.

You are absolutely correct that the way California does things is terrible and counterproductive. Our tax system discourages new businesses from starting up in the state, and encourages high income earners to move away. But that is not from mindless progressive policies, it is from desperation. When Macy's is only paying 30 percent of the property tax that Nordstrom's pays next door, that is just a huge giveaway to Macy's and creates a huge fiscal problem that gets worse every year. And believe me, a high sales tax or a high car licensing fee is NOT a progressive liberal policy. It is the exact opposite.

Look, California is absolutely a basket case. It survives fine when the economy is strong, because when the tech millionaires cash in their huge stock options, the state gets a nice cut. But when the economy slows down, revenues drop like a stone. No state should be run this way. California needs to cut its corporate tax, its sales tax, and its upper end income tax, in order to be competitive with other states. It should also consolidate government, reducing the number of independent cities and having counties take over for more efficiency. We lock up too many people for too long, and we pay many employees too much, especially prison guards. We need reasonable pension reform. Above all, however, California needs to get rid of Prop 13, and all propositions for that matter.

I'm sorry if I got snarky in my earlier comments, but it gets frustrating seeing a complicated situation like this reduced to simple platitudes about big bloated government. That is what the GOP press conferences were all about, and they were totally dishonest about the part that they themselves play in this endless melodrama. It was irritating, and I took it out on you. Sorry.