| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/8 |
| 2008/7/18-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:50627 Activity:moderate |
7/18 California state government spent $145 billion last fiscal year, $41
billion more than four years ago when Gov. Gray Davis got recalled by
voters. With all that new spending -- a whopping 40% increase -- we
ought to be in a golden age of government with abundant public services
for all.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-matsusaka17-2008jul17,0,7957570.story
\_ same flawed assumption as before; using the CPI as the
measure for inflation is wrong, because both salaries and
real estate costs in the state (not just in the public
sector) have risen far faster than CPI inflation in the past 10
years. -tom
\_ Just look at the nominal values.
\_ nominal values of what?
\_ Which means exactly zero. You're saying that the adjusted numbers
aren't adjusted enough. Or that the rich should be getting soaked
more. The point remains that the state spending has increased by
a huge amount in a short time. The whining about the budget is
ridiculous, especially considering that the proposed budget will
still increase next year--mostly by stealing from other funds and
raising taxes:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-arnold18-2008jul18,0,334514.story
http://tinyurl.com/6b9koc [latimes]
\_ Yes, I'm saying that the adjusted numbers aren't adjusted
enough. State spending has increased by a huge amount in
a short time *because of inflation*; it has not increased
by a huge amount relative to the cost of doing business
in California. Actually I would expect that, except for
the prison sector, real state expenditures relative to
California-indexed prices are flat or down over the past
4 or 10 years. -tom
\_ Since you don't believe the published numbers, you'll just
pull them out of your ass!
\_ What are the published numbers for California? -tom
\_ High real estate costs don't much affect State spending
and I doubt even State salaries are up 40% in 4 years.
\_ Real estate is absolutely a major cost to the
state. So are fuel and energy. State
state.
\_ I doubt it much impacts operations. How much
real estate does the State buy after all -
especially residential real estate, which is
where the bubble was? You'll have a hard time
arguing 40% over 4 years undersells the State's
real estate cost inflation. By the way, every
business in CA has done business in the same
inflationary environment. How many have increased
spending 40% in the last 4 years? I know my
employer hasn't. More like 5% per year which is
about 23% over 4 years. Inflation hasn't been
40% over the last 4 years.
\_ California's gross state product is up over 40%
since 2000, so clearly business spending has
increased by at least that much. I wasn't
able to find 2002 numbers, but given the dot-com
crash, I'm sure it didn't increase much from
2000-2002. -tom
\_ What is your source, I can use it in my
next debate with a net.libertarian. -ausman
\_ Big difference betweeen 40% since 2000 and
\_ Big difference between 40% since 2000 and
40% over the last 4 years. Here are the
GDP numbers, BTW (in millions of current $):
(Source: http://www.bea.gov/regional/gsp
2000 1,287,145
2001 1,301,050
2002 1,340,446
2003 1,406,511
2004 1,519,443
2005 1,632,822
2006 1,742,172
2007 1,812,968
So California GDP is up ~40% over 7 years.
Since 2004 it is up 19%.
\_ This is an awesome data source (and is
a pretty strong argument that The State
is spending more), thanks. Aren't classroom
sizes smaller these days?
So are fuel and energy. State
population is up over 7% since 2000, which
represents an absolute baseline for spending
increase. Median household income rose from
$46K in 2000 to $54K in 2006. And by
cherry-picking a 4-year period, you're ignoring
the fact that there were state budget cuts the
three prior years.
\_ And you're ignoring that the state was still deficit
spending in those years.
\_ So? They still had to defer all kinds of
expenses. -tom
\_ So. What? The state shouldn't be spending more
than it takes in. Period.
\_ Why not? Pretty much every business and
family spends more than it takes in, at
least occasionally. -tom
\_ Time to recall the Governator!
\_ I'd be for that in a heartbeat. -op |
| 7/8 |
|
| www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-matsusaka17-2008jul17,0,7957570.story California is spending 40% more than four years ago, but on what, exactly? By John G Matsusaka July 17, 2008 California state government spent $145 billion last fiscal year, $41 billion more than four years ago when Gov. With all that new spending -- a whopping 40% increase -- we ought to be in a golden age of government with abundant public services for all. So why does it seem like the quality and quantity of government is not all that different from 2004? How many of us feel like we are getting 40% more public services, 40% better schools, roads, parks and so on? The Legislature and governor, grappling with another huge budget deficit, are suggesting raising taxes, so it seems opportune to ask what we got from the last $41 billion. Some of it went to cover increases in the cost of living, and state spending naturally grows with the size of the population. But even adjusting for inflation and population growth, state spending is up almost 20% compared with four years ago, a big enough bump that ordinary Californians should be able to notice it. The state's financial statements describe where the money went -- the big gainers were education ($13 billion), transportation ($10 billion) and health ($10 billion) -- but not why these billions don't create even a blip on our day-to-day radar. One possibility is that we simply do not notice all of the valuable services we receive. A national 2007 survey by William G Howell at the University of Chicago and Martin R West at Brown University found that respondents underestimated spending in their school district by 60%; on average, they believed spending was $4,231 per student when in fact it was $10,377. They also found that Americans underestimated teacher salaries by 30%. How many Californians know that public school teachers in the state earn an average of $59,000 a year, essentially tied with Connecticut for the highest average pay in the country? Likewise, perhaps we don't notice the repaired roads or new buses and trains that take us to work. On the other hand, maybe these billions of dollars just do not translate into services that are valuable to us. Is paying the highest teacher salaries in the country delivering a better education for our children? Do big raises for prison guards promote rehabilitation and lead to more humane prisons? If funds are being directed to satisfy powerful special interests -- teachers, builders, prison guards -- rather than everyday people, the spending might not result in tangibly improved services for the typical Californian. The reason this matters right now is that the state is at a budget juncture. Almost by accident, without any significant changes to the tax code, state revenue grew more than 30% over the last four years, so the Legislature and governor were able to fuel the state's spending growth without burdening the taxpayers. To bring the budget into balance, the state now has to reduce the rate of spending growth or raise taxes. The governor has floated the idea of higher sales taxes, and the Legislature wants to increase the income tax on high-earners -- but the state already seems to be pushing the boundary on taxes. California's statewide sales tax of 725% is already the highest in the nation. The highly progressive nature of the state's income tax schedule -- the top 10% of earners supply more than 70% of income tax revenue, according to one estimate -- already results in excessive revenue volatility. It also raises questions about how much redistribution of wealth is fair: Should the top 10% foot the bill for basic services enjoyed by all Californians? Legislators, pundits and interest groups warn of dire consequences if state spending is slowed or cut. But if most Californians haven't detected a significant change from the last $41 billion, including 40% more on schools, will they notice if some of that spending disappears? Voters are criticized for wanting more services yet being unwilling to pay higher taxes. Californians have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to fund valuable programs. But if spending can go up 40% and most of us can't discern any difference, can we blame voters for being hesitant to put even more tax money in the hands of the state? John G Matsusaka is a professor of business and law at USC and the author of "For the Many or the Few: The Initiative, Public Policy, and American Democracy." |
| www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-arnold18-2008jul18,0,334514.story Arnold Schwarzenegger said Thursday, adding that it probably would force a state sales tax hike. "It is not a good idea," the governor said in an interview with The Times. But Schwarzenegger, anxious to get a budget passed before the state experiences a cash crisis, did not rule out signing off on such a plan. California will pay for yet another late budget During the half-hour interview in his office, the governor offered a broad outline of the proposal being discussed in closed-door budget negotiations. Schwarzenegger, who seemed exasperated by his inability to fix California's fiscal dysfunction five years into his governorship, cited the borrowing plans to bolster his point that the state's budget system was in need of reform. State law requires that the money be paid back -- at a steep interest rate -- in three years. In order to ensure that the money is repaid, "I literally would have to guarantee that with a sales tax or something," Schwarzenegger said. Officials involved in the confidential budget negotiations, who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, said lawmakers also were looking to borrow $200 million voters set aside for early childhood education programs through 1998's Proposition 10. Local officials and advocates for the programs expressed alarm at the proposal to raid their funds. They accused legislative leaders of ignoring the will of voters, who approved the measures to prevent the state from touching the money in question. "The money they would take is going to fund a huge amount of projects," said Jim Earp, executive director of the California Alliance for Jobs, a construction trades group. "It would be a complete violation of the spirit of Proposition 1A." Earp said transportation advocates were mobilizing a campaign against the plan. He said direct mail would urge lawmakers to vote against it if it is included in the final budget deal. In Los Angeles County, the proposal would force further cuts in healthcare and human services, and probably affect other programs, said county Chief Executive Officer William T Fujioka. He said the county would lose as much as $145 million this year. "The human and social impact would be significant," he said. Schwarzenegger expressed frustration that California may once again return to borrowing. He argued that if the state were to impose some spending restraints -- or at least require lawmakers to build substantial rainy-day funds -- the perpetual budget crises would stop. "It is a self-inflicted situation we are in," Schwarzenegger said. "We know what the problem is, and we know this is the only way it can be fixed, but we are unwilling to do it." For the third time this year, the governor is trying to make changes in the state Constitution that would require that money be put aside in good economic times. His first attempt, in 2004, was watered down by the Legislature, ultimately resulting in a weak reserve that was quickly wiped out when the state's revenue began to slow. That was followed by a ballot proposal that Democrats and labor groups warned would strangle government; "There was $100 million spent against it" and other unsuccessful ballot measures Schwarzenegger championed that year, he said, "because God forbid we should fix something." Democrats say it is the governor who is exacerbating the state's financial problems, by refusing to recognize that California needs more revenue to provide the services polls show voters want. Schwarzenegger's first action in office was to cut vehicle license fees, a move that is now costing the state as much as $6 billion. Democrats say the state needs that money, and that imposing spending restraints without replacing it would ultimately reduce government services substantially. The standoff has allowed California's fiscal problems to grow under the governor's watch, even as other states have implemented reforms. In a recent ranking by the nonprofit Pew Center on the States, California's budget system received a D-plus, the lowest grade given any state. Schwarzenegger's role in the budget process has been limited this year. Lawmakers complain he is often out of state boosting his national profile. But the governor says he has met his deadlines for presenting budget plans, and that his attempts to get lawmakers to work on the problem throughout the year were rebuffed. Schwarzenegger twice during the interview mentioned how Senate Leader Don Perata publicly implied that the governor should butt out of budget deliberations, saying that if he wanted to be involved, he should run for the Legislature. "I kept saying all spring, 'Guys, don't wait until the last minute,' " Schwarzenegger said. The delay in dealing with the budget problem, the governor said, ultimately spilled over into other business at the Capitol, making it impossible to achieve anything of substance. Schwarzenegger said he ranks the bills the Legislature sends to his desk into weight categories, a nod to his days as a bodybuilder. This year, he said, there is "very rarely a heavyweight bill." "We can't move the state forward because everyone gets frozen," he said. Terms of Service and represent that you are not under the age of 13. Submitted by: Betty 6:19 PM PDT, Jul 18, 2008 2 Until the people in california realise taxes can't be raised forever (see Soviet Union) and stop reflexively voting democrat the problems will never be fixed. Submitted by: andy 5:58 PM PDT, Jul 18, 2008 3 Each of the countys Repersentives should be held responsable, with ilegal immigrants in his county. The state should have a law in place, that would require a recall for poor administration in ones county. |
| tinyurl.com/6b9koc -> www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-arnold18-2008jul18,0,334514.story Arnold Schwarzenegger said Thursday, adding that it probably would force a state sales tax hike. "It is not a good idea," the governor said in an interview with The Times. But Schwarzenegger, anxious to get a budget passed before the state experiences a cash crisis, did not rule out signing off on such a plan. California will pay for yet another late budget During the half-hour interview in his office, the governor offered a broad outline of the proposal being discussed in closed-door budget negotiations. Schwarzenegger, who seemed exasperated by his inability to fix California's fiscal dysfunction five years into his governorship, cited the borrowing plans to bolster his point that the state's budget system was in need of reform. State law requires that the money be paid back -- at a steep interest rate -- in three years. In order to ensure that the money is repaid, "I literally would have to guarantee that with a sales tax or something," Schwarzenegger said. Officials involved in the confidential budget negotiations, who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, said lawmakers also were looking to borrow $200 million voters set aside for early childhood education programs through 1998's Proposition 10. Local officials and advocates for the programs expressed alarm at the proposal to raid their funds. They accused legislative leaders of ignoring the will of voters, who approved the measures to prevent the state from touching the money in question. "The money they would take is going to fund a huge amount of projects," said Jim Earp, executive director of the California Alliance for Jobs, a construction trades group. "It would be a complete violation of the spirit of Proposition 1A." Earp said transportation advocates were mobilizing a campaign against the plan. He said direct mail would urge lawmakers to vote against it if it is included in the final budget deal. In Los Angeles County, the proposal would force further cuts in healthcare and human services, and probably affect other programs, said county Chief Executive Officer William T Fujioka. He said the county would lose as much as $145 million this year. "The human and social impact would be significant," he said. Schwarzenegger expressed frustration that California may once again return to borrowing. He argued that if the state were to impose some spending restraints -- or at least require lawmakers to build substantial rainy-day funds -- the perpetual budget crises would stop. "It is a self-inflicted situation we are in," Schwarzenegger said. "We know what the problem is, and we know this is the only way it can be fixed, but we are unwilling to do it." For the third time this year, the governor is trying to make changes in the state Constitution that would require that money be put aside in good economic times. His first attempt, in 2004, was watered down by the Legislature, ultimately resulting in a weak reserve that was quickly wiped out when the state's revenue began to slow. That was followed by a ballot proposal that Democrats and labor groups warned would strangle government; "There was $100 million spent against it" and other unsuccessful ballot measures Schwarzenegger championed that year, he said, "because God forbid we should fix something." Democrats say it is the governor who is exacerbating the state's financial problems, by refusing to recognize that California needs more revenue to provide the services polls show voters want. Schwarzenegger's first action in office was to cut vehicle license fees, a move that is now costing the state as much as $6 billion. Democrats say the state needs that money, and that imposing spending restraints without replacing it would ultimately reduce government services substantially. The standoff has allowed California's fiscal problems to grow under the governor's watch, even as other states have implemented reforms. In a recent ranking by the nonprofit Pew Center on the States, California's budget system received a D-plus, the lowest grade given any state. Schwarzenegger's role in the budget process has been limited this year. Lawmakers complain he is often out of state boosting his national profile. But the governor says he has met his deadlines for presenting budget plans, and that his attempts to get lawmakers to work on the problem throughout the year were rebuffed. Schwarzenegger twice during the interview mentioned how Senate Leader Don Perata publicly implied that the governor should butt out of budget deliberations, saying that if he wanted to be involved, he should run for the Legislature. "I kept saying all spring, 'Guys, don't wait until the last minute,' " Schwarzenegger said. The delay in dealing with the budget problem, the governor said, ultimately spilled over into other business at the Capitol, making it impossible to achieve anything of substance. Schwarzenegger said he ranks the bills the Legislature sends to his desk into weight categories, a nod to his days as a bodybuilder. This year, he said, there is "very rarely a heavyweight bill." "We can't move the state forward because everyone gets frozen," he said. Terms of Service and represent that you are not under the age of 13. Submitted by: Betty 6:19 PM PDT, Jul 18, 2008 2 Until the people in california realise taxes can't be raised forever (see Soviet Union) and stop reflexively voting democrat the problems will never be fixed. Submitted by: andy 5:58 PM PDT, Jul 18, 2008 3 Each of the countys Repersentives should be held responsable, with ilegal immigrants in his county. The state should have a law in place, that would require a recall for poor administration in ones county. |
| www.bea.gov/regional/gsp -> www.bea.gov/regional/gsp/ Regional Economic Accounts > Gross Domestic Product by State Gross Domestic Product by State Today is 07/21/2008. As of the October 26, 2006 release, the BEA renamed the gross state product (GSP) series to gross domestic product (GDP) by state. To retrieve and display the desired estimates, please follow steps 1 through 6 to specify one or more GDP by state components, states or regions, industries, and years in the appropriate list boxes. Then specify the format in which the estimates will be displayed on your screen. Press for ZIP Download GDP by state Component (ZIP) or Press for EXE Download GDP by state Component (EXE) You can download a prepared file of all estimated data for a single state or region. Download State/Region name="tips"> Cautionary note: There is a discontinuity in the GDP by state time series at 1997, where the data change from SIC industry definitions to NAICS industry definitions. This discontinuity results from many sources, including differences in source data and different estimation methodologies. In addition, the NAICS-based GDP by state estimates are consistent with US gross domestic product (GDP) while the SIC-based GDP by state estimates are consistent with US gross domestic income (GDI). This data discontinuity may affect both the levels and the growth rates of the GDP by state estimates. Users of the GDP by state estimates are strongly cautioned against appending the two data series in an attempt to construct a single time series of GDP by state estimates for 1963 to 2007. Industry detail note: NAICS industry detail is based on the 1997 NAICS. SIC industry detail 1963 to 1986 is based on the 1972 SIC. Tips: You can make multiple selections in the list boxes by clicking on selections while holding down the SHIFT key (if your selections are contiguous) or the CONTROL key (if they are scattered). In Step 6 press Display to display the data in an HTML-formatted table (best for viewing on the screen or for printing) Press Download to download a comma-separated-value ("CSV") file (best for importing into a spreadsheet or database application). The more data you select, the longer it will take to retrieve and display the results. If you select everything or nearly everything, there will be too much data to display and the retrieval system will refuse the request, because this interactive web page is designed to display just selected components of the data rather than the whole data file. Data file information: If you request one of the large prepared files, you will download either 1 an EXE-- a self-extracting compressed file that can be expanded on your computer by double-clicking on the icon associated with the file, or 2 a ZIP file-- a compressed file that can be uncompressed with software such as PKUNZIP, WinZip, or other software. If you request a prepared file for a selected state or region, depending on your browser's configuration, it will either be downloaded directly into your browser window or you will have to save it to a file. If it loads into the window, use the browser's File/Save As... For all of these downloaded files, the data are in comma-separated-value format, easily imported into most spreadsheet or database applications. |