Monday, April 27, 2009

State Budget: Crunching The Numbers

Nice letter in the Santa Rosa Press- Democrat from someone who actually crunched the numbers regarding spending vs. growth:

In the April 19 paper, a very convenient lie was used by those planning to increase taxes: “State spending swells largely due to population growth and inflation, (Assemblywoman Noreen) Evans said. ‘We’re running as fast as we can to stay in place.’” (“Will grumpy voters bail out the state?”)

The state budget for fiscal year 1989-90 was $48 billion and the population of California was 30 million. For fiscal year 2008-09, the budget was $135 billion and the population was 36.7 million. That is a 22 percent increase in population and a 177 percent increase in spending. Assuming a 3 percent inflation rate, $48 billion increases to $81 billion in 18 years.

The same calculations can be done on the federal government budget and the budgets for Santa Rosa, Petaluma and Rohnert Park. Tax revenue is not the problem. It’s the spending, stupid.

JAMES A. McBRIDE

Santa Rosa

5 Comments:

At 8:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred you are such a simpleton! Did you factor in how many children the state educated between 1989-2009? Federal mandates both funded and not funded? Did you factor in health care cost increases? Did you factor in incarceration numbers? Did you factor in the state reappropriating local funds? Did you incorporate the level of bonded debt that the voters pass through initiative?

This is a very lazy analysis Fred. But perhaps it's suited for you.

 
At 9:34 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Keep in mind it's not my "analysis". The writer of that letter is rebutting a state assemblygal's assertion that state spending has swollen just to keep up with population growth and inflation. He has shown that's not true, as have others, notably State Assemblyman Ray Haynes and gubernatorial hopeful, Tom Campbell.

As far as the other things you mention, I take it you think those are good things?

 
At 3:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, simpleton, I do not.

Lazy, lazy, lazy.

That is the only way to describe you.

"He has shown that's not true..."

Lazy!

 
At 4:22 PM, Anonymous Mr. Nice said...

Here's an analysis.

Historical CA budget expenditures:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/budget_faqs/information/documents/CHART-B.pdf

Using a CPI calculator to adjust historical figures for inflation:

$72 billion for 88-89
...
...
$74 billion for 93-94
$75 billion for 94-95
$78 billion for 95-96
$82 billion for 96-97
$87 billion for 97-98
$82 billion for 98-99
(Grey Davis elected governor)
$101 billion for 99-00
$110 billion for 00-01
$113 billion for 01-02
$110 billion for 02-03
$109 billion for 03-04
(Grey Davis thrown out)
$111 billion for 04-05
$120 billion for 05-06
$127 billion for 06-07
$128 billion for 07-08
(129->128 = stagflation)
$119 billion for 08-09
$127 billion for 09-10

The CA budget is screwed. I feel sorry for people whose job is budget analyst for the state these days.

It's laughable to talk about supposed increases in education, health care, etc. How about this:

"Fred you are such a simpleton! Did you factor in how much state expenditures shot up after Grey Davis was elected?"

 
At 8:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You all are forgetting the tax cuts in California.

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/05/once_again_cali_2.html

 

Post a Comment

<< Home