An $8 billion mockery of May 19
| By Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign - Mar 13, 2009 10:14:14 AM PT |
| Also listed in: Courage Campaign Staff |
As Arnold Schwarzenegger starts the campaign for the May 19 special election ballot measures, the Legislative Analyst's Office points out that the budget deal will come up short by $8 billion and that it hasn't solved our structural revenue shortfall problems:
The full LAO report in fact makes some assumptions I would consider rosy, such as a recovery in employment and personal income in 2009, when many economists do not expect this to occur until the second half of 2010 at best.
What this means is that the budget situation is still a total mess, and that improvement is far away. The May 19 election will have little meaningful impact on the state's financial health, although a spending cap would ensure that services will continue to be gutted. Republicans and Arnold Schwarzenegger are likely to use the deficit projections as an argument for Prop 1A, when all that will accomplish is an even worse destruction of core services, such as schools which could face larger cuts than what we're seeing now, a truly frightening thing to consider.
This also means political leaders who deny the need to find tax solutions, like Jerry Brown, are not being realistic. Fundamental change is necessary, and perhaps a constitutional convention alongside the elimination of the 2/3 rule conservative veto can help get us there.
One thing is certain - if anyone thinks California can remain a competitive place to do business and attract jobs and employees with the worst school system in the nation and no ability to address our water, transportation, or health care crises, they are deeply deluded.
"Unfortunately, the state's economic and revenue outlook continues to deteriorate," the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) said in a review of the package, which covered the remainder of this fiscal year and all of the next.
"Even in the few weeks since the budget was signed, there have been a series of negative developments. Our updated revenue forecast projects that revenues will fall short of the assumptions in the budget package by $8 billion. Consequently, the Legislature and governor will need to adopt billions of dollars in additional solutions in the coming months to bring the 2009-10 budget back into balance."
Taylor had some more bad news for the state's political leaders. Because so many of the "solutions" adopted last month are temporary, "without corrective actions, the state's huge operating deficits will reappear in future years - growing from $12.6 billion in 2010-11 to $26 billion in 2013-14."
The full LAO report in fact makes some assumptions I would consider rosy, such as a recovery in employment and personal income in 2009, when many economists do not expect this to occur until the second half of 2010 at best.
What this means is that the budget situation is still a total mess, and that improvement is far away. The May 19 election will have little meaningful impact on the state's financial health, although a spending cap would ensure that services will continue to be gutted. Republicans and Arnold Schwarzenegger are likely to use the deficit projections as an argument for Prop 1A, when all that will accomplish is an even worse destruction of core services, such as schools which could face larger cuts than what we're seeing now, a truly frightening thing to consider.
This also means political leaders who deny the need to find tax solutions, like Jerry Brown, are not being realistic. Fundamental change is necessary, and perhaps a constitutional convention alongside the elimination of the 2/3 rule conservative veto can help get us there.
One thing is certain - if anyone thinks California can remain a competitive place to do business and attract jobs and employees with the worst school system in the nation and no ability to address our water, transportation, or health care crises, they are deeply deluded.
Comments are closed for this post.
I suggest you read "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. This is one of the most highly regarded books on economics ever written. You can't know anything unless you understand the principles outlined in this work. You can get it at most libraries or purchase it on line. The most used auction site has a number of copies for sale right now. I'll even loan you my personal copy if you promise to read it and post your response here.
As for your comment that California has the "worst school system in the nation", where do you get this from? Do you have any data to back that up? Every school district (indeed every school) is different and you can't go around making blanket statements like this. Some school districts in CA are excellent and some are atrocious. And it often has little to do with how much money is spent per pupil. In fact, in a recent ranking by Forbes, Marin County, Calif. was ranked tops in the nation as providing the most value per dollar spent. Winners in this rating system were counties whose schools delivered high performance at low cost. The losers spent a lot of money and have little to show for it. As the article shows, more spending doesn't necessarily buy you better schools. The article can be found at this Link
In addition, Education Week's The Quality Counts Report, widely considered to be the most thorough evaluation of school performance, ranks Calfornia about 26th out of 51 with a grade of C. While we certainly should try to improve this score, California is hardly the "worst school system in the nation". Again, how about a little intellectual honesty?
Jay Beeber
The Freedom Minute
Link