CA budget history 1990, 51.4 Billion, 2006 131.4 Billion

[The Straight Story]

http://www.sen.ca.gov/budget/budgethistory.pdf

Year Billions
1990-91 51.4
1991-92 55.7
1992-93 57.0
1993-94 52.1
1994-95 57.5
1995-96 56.8
1996-97 61.5
1997-98 67.2
1998-99 71.9
1999-00 81.3
2000-01 99.4
2001-02 103.3
2002-03 98.9
2003-04 98.9
2004-05 105.3
2005-06 117.3
2006-07 131.4

Full history with bill numbers and the like at above link.

"California's state spending has ballooned in the last decade at a rate much higher than the rate of inflation and rate of population growth in the state. According to Tom Campbell, California's finance director in 2004-2005, if the 1999-2000 budget of former California governor Gray Davis had been increased over the next decade by a factor representing the inflation rate and California's population growth in that time, California would now be experiencing a budget surplus, rather than a deficit even with the recent revenue decline due to the state's economic recession.<6> Instead, California has had a 50% spending increase over the past five years.<7> "

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/California_state_budget

[pinto]

1. That's just Bills passed in the Legislature. Here are 36 Propositions (passed) '98 - '08.

A good chunk of them carry millions or billions $ in long term bond debt. Most *very* worthwhile projects, yet most on borrowed money.

http://holmes.uchastings.edu/cgi-bin/starfinder/7227/calprop.txt

Some years you wouldn't believe the # of Propositions and counter Propositions we are asked to review and vote on.

[Garbo 2004]

3. Budget Act provides spending authority for expenditures...includes budgets for spending on bond

related projects/programs, fed funding, special funds, etc. Not just General Fund money/programs. Money allocated in the FY for spending on bond related programs are included in the Gov's Budget and Budget Act.

Edited to add: Bond measures seem to be regarded by many voters as "free money" when it comes to the State budget. But it isn't. Bond measures increase state fiscal obligations/debt.

[pinto]

4. Ah thanks.

That makes sense.

[ContinentalOp]

2. Spending hasn't "ballooned". That's bullshit.

1990 = 30 million people, $50 billion budget == $1700 per capita
2007 = 37 million people $130 billion budget == $3540 per capita

According to the inflation calculator, $1700 in 1990 would equal $2665 in 2007 dollars. So the difference in "ballooning spending" is only $875 per capita. And that's going by our vastly understated and cooked inflation numbers.

Now look at what other states spend per capita and tell me that CA spending is out of control.
AK $20,894 per cap
AR $10,246 per cap
HI $8705
NY $6423
TX $6508
etc.

http://www.nycapitolnews.com/news/125/ARTICLE/1201/2008-04-14.html

[Luminous Animal]

5. Also missing is the fact

that our demographics have changed. The populations of both our young and elderly have risen dramatically and both demographics have been the beneficiaries cost intensive necessary budget increases (i.e., education and health care).

[1]

6. the "balloon-y" part doesn't become evident until you match the spending with the revenue...

2007 was just about break even. 2008 was a pretty substantial deficit (~$15B.) 2009 has a huge deficit (~$40B.)

didn't see it coming, huh?

[ContinentalOp]

8. What's wrong with running a deficit during a recession?

:shrug: other than the fact that we're technically not supposed to thanks to some other b.s. proposition.

[AllentownJake]

9. You can't print your own money

That is the problem.

[1]

11. nothing i guess. so everything is just fine then with these deficits?

over the years... you have to look at it and say "this is not a good trend. we need to fix this."

or you could :shrug:

[AllentownJake]

7. I agree with another poster on here. This proposition process California has

Is out of control. It needs to be ended.

There is a reason why we are a representative democracy. It's messy, it sometimes fails, and sometimes the people we elect disappoint us to no measure.

However, we also have to consider, we have this system because hopefully we elect smart people who will think through complex problems that the general public doesn't have the time, appetite, or intelligence to think through. We allow these people to debate and we allow them to vote for us.

Its a messy system, but direct democracy is an awful system.

[Garbo 2004]

10. Those numbers you posted represent not just General Fund sourced funding. Includes Fed funding,

special fund, etc. The State Budget provides spending authority for funds from a variety of funding sources, not just General Fund.

Deficit is in the General Fund.