| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:10415 Activity:kinda low |
10/1 I got a stupid question. There are more than 40 states in USA
suffering budget crisis. Why California governor is the only one
get recalled?
\_ An aside here: Did you know $87 billion would cover the deficits
of all 50 states combined?
\_ it's an order of magnitude problem.
\_ California's economy is an order of magnitude, if not more,
larger than many of those States. Further, California's
economy was concentrated on high-tech sector. Granted,
Davis is not nearly as effective as, let say, Pete Wilson.
But using budget crisis as the ground for recall when
the budget crisis arises due to severe lack of capital gains
and sales taxes than lavishing state spending?
--OP, not a Davis fan.
\_ From 1993-94 to 2000-01 spending increased from $47.3 billion
to $80.1 billion. As a percentage of budget, CA's deficit
is among the 6 worst (with OR, NV, TX, AL, and WI). What say
you? --dim
\_ the business week article 2 weeks ago said that CA
spending between the same period you quoted increases
on average 1% per year. Now I am *REALLY* confused.
-kngharv
\_ http://www.bailard.com/CA%20muni%20market%20piece_2003.pdf
\_ how about revenue drop? can anyone give me a lead
on where i can find info like that?
\_ From $75.7 billion to $65.8 billion. I've seen
other, but similar numbers like $66.6 billion.
http://www.nctimes.net/news/2003/20030309/52655.html
\_ you are ignoring the rising costs and population in CA
since 1994.
\_ Rising population should mean rising revenues, unless
you mean there are more freeloaders now. In fact,
revenues have almost doubled and yet we are still
outspending them.
\_ That was the case in 2000 when there was a surplus.
But now it turned into rising unemployment benefits.
\_ Higher energy price is part of the reason.
\_ heck, gasoline was $1.20 in 1993.
\_ And under $1.00 in 2001. Your point?
\_ those 5 other states are not recalling their govenors.
\_ Other governors don't have the power crisis (for good or
bad) hanging over their head. Also, there is no politician
who is as uncharismatic as Davis; he really has no friends,
so he's easy to kick while he's down.
\_ I would think the power "crisis" should be hanging over
the head of Pete Wilson and the Bush appointed FERC.
\_ I'm sure you would think that.
\_ Yawn. He's not being recalled because we're in debt. He's being
recalled for being a criminal, for selling out the state in such
a huge way to special interests, for selling his signature, for
telling the Big Lie one too many times, and for being so cynical
\_ Is this some homosexual code word?
\_ no
it makes other politicians look good by comparison. This is so
old. It's been discussed over and over. Please stop the really
lame loaded questions with the pre-loaded assumptions.
\_ How is he "a criminal"? I don't like Davis either, but don't
get ahead of yourself here, chippy.
\_ When there's quid pro quo cash for his political support and
it's so blatant (Davis opposes measure, business reps show up
and write $100k check, Davis signs bill next day) then it's
criminal. Keep up with the news. Chippy, indeed.
\_ Funny. When Wilson did this it was called free speech.
\_ And when Bush gets whopping donations from oil
lobbies, no one bats an eye.
\_ And give government contracts to his friend companies
to rebuild iraq. What is company did Cheney work
for as CEO? How is that company doing?
\_ He has not been arrested or charged with any crime.
Calling him a criminal just makes you look stupid.
\_ And BC lied in a federal court. And several in the
Kennedy family have raped or killed someone. So what?
Powerful people never go to jail or get charged. You're
very naive if that's your standard. |
| 5/25 |
|
| www.nctimes.net/news/2003/20030309/52655.html California coffers actually are expected to pull in slightly more money in the current budget year 2002-03 than they did in the last one. Gray Davis budget projects a modest 13 percent increase for the general fund. The general fund is where income, sales and corporate taxes go, and it pays for most basic state programs such as education, health care, prisons and highway patrols. Davis forecast says general fund revenues will fall $6 billion to $666 billion next year. And when loans and transfers are taken out of the equation, 2003-04 revenues actual show a 2 percent increase over 2002-03, according to a recent report by Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill, whose office functions as a provider of nonpartisan advice to the Legislature. The rest of the nearly $35 billion shortfall is a combination of prior-year deficits, anticipated increases in program costs and overspending of this years budget. According to Hills report, a big chunk of that anticipated expense was $22 billion for the salaries and benefits of 325,000 full-time state employees and a 5 percent salary increase for most of them this July 1. Davis also is counting in his shortfall estimate a projection that the state will enter fiscal 2003-04 with a $10 billion deficit, largely the result of lawmakers failure to keep current spending within budget as well as a smaller deficit from the year before. That previous year of 2001-02 ended in deficit mostly because revenues fell $17 billion short of projections, said Connie Squires, Department of Finance program budget manager. Hill pegs the shortfall at $26 billion, which reflects a different set of assumptions. Looking back over the past decade, state revenues, overall, did not take a nosedive - not even in the year personal income taxes fell. According to the governors budget summary, general fund revenues grew steadily from $40 billion a decade ago to $71 billion at the turn of the century, before leveling off near the $70 billion mark. The last time general fund revenues actually plunged one year to the next was in the early 1990s recession, which many are calling a flipflop of the current recession that is hammering Northern California much harder than the southern part of the state. Meanwhile, total revenues - for all state funds - has grown steadily from $52 billion a decade ago to $88 billion. And, if Davis gets his way with proposed tax increases, total revenues will surge next year to $96 billion, the highest ever. The $8 billion in new revenues would go into special funds, not the general fund, and help counties and courts pay for health, childrens and courtroom security programs Davis wants to hand off to them. Clearly, said Assemblyman Ray Haynes, R-Murrieta, Californias predicament is much more the result of spending spiraling out of control than it is the consequence of a crippled economy bleeding state coffers dry. We dont have a $35 billion problem because we think were going to take in $35 billion less revenue, Haynes said. But thats what the budgeteers want people to think because they want to have the justification for new taxes. The shortfall is not simply made up of a drop in revenue, said Davis spokeswoman Hilary McLean. She said it is also driven by increases in program costs as a result of caseload growth, population growth and increases in state employee salaries. But just because costs increase doesnt mean spending increases should be automatic, say conservative economists. In short: Just as every California family must live within its means, so must California government learn to do so as well, says a Feb. Stable across the board According to Davis budget summary, state sources are in the following condition: Personal income tax. After falling from $446 billion to $33 billion in fiscal 2001-02, revenues will dip slightly to $329 billion this year and grow to $336 billion in 2003-04. Davis plan to add two new tax brackets for wealthy Californians would bump next years total up to $362 billion. Expected to grow from $213 billion in 2001-02 to $223 billion in 2002-03 and to $232 billion in 2003-04. Davis plan for a penny-on-the-dollar increase would boost next years total to $303 billion. Expected to grow from $53 billion in 2001-02 to $65 billion in 2002-03 and $64 billion in 2003-04. Expected to grow from $16 billion in 2001-02 to $17 billion in 2002-03 and $18 billion in 2003-04. Next years revenues would double to $21 billion under Davis plan to target smokers. Revenues from the 18-cent-on-the-gallon levy brought in $33 billion in 2001-02. Expected to total $38 billion this year, same as last year, then grow to $42 billion in 2003-04. |