State Budget Blues
I wasn't going to talk about the Governor's budget proposal, but I finally decided it was important at least note that it isn't really even worth analyzing. The final state budget will not even remotely resemble the document submitted last week.
As most of you have read by now, the 2010-2011 budget is banking on $7 billion from the federal government. The Governor went out of his way to basically demand these dollars from our federal officials. This has not gone over well with either of our U.S. Senators or any of our key reps in the House. Here's an excerpt from an article in the Los Angeles Times (click here):
"California's budget crisis was created in Sacramento, not Washington," Sen. Dianne Feinstein shot back. "These problems are not going away until there is wholesale reform of the state's budget process. . . .
Pointing fingers is not constructive."Sen. Barbara Boxer called a teleconference with reporters to rebut Schwarzenegger's assertion that California gets back only 78 cents for every dollar it sends Washington in taxes. That figure is several years old, she contended; Washington currently sends back $1.45.
She accused the governor of "threatening people" with his "trigger" plan.
In fact, his lack of decorum may have guaranteed that we don't get ANY addtional funds from the feds.
Other parts of the plan are just as fantastic. As Dan Walters noted in the Sacramento Bee (click here):
Arnold Schwarzenegger achieved fame and fortune by starring in celluloid fantasies, so it may be fitting that his final state budget proposal would be so disconnected from economic and political reality.
With the state still facing huge deficits, the governor bases his 2010-11 budget on such fanciful elements as persuading the federal government to cough up an extra $7 billion, asking voters to reverse themselves and shift money from protected pots for mental health and children's programs, overhauling transportation financing, and persuading state employee unions to accept pay cuts and increases in workers' pension and health care costs.
For those of us who live in the real world, we realize that he can't unilaterally cut employee compensation plans and is unlikely to find more "efficiences" in other programs. At some point, the legislature is going to be faced with making hard choices, but probably not in an election year. The legislature will likely go through one last round of number cooking to make it look like they've balanced the budget, attempt to take what little is left to take from local government and leave it to the next legislature to clean up their mess.
That is when it is going to get really ugly. The best we can do at the local level is do what we can to protect our local revenues, and hope that the state doesn't take the rest of us down with it.
As most of you have read by now, the 2010-2011 budget is banking on $7 billion from the federal government. The Governor went out of his way to basically demand these dollars from our federal officials. This has not gone over well with either of our U.S. Senators or any of our key reps in the House. Here's an excerpt from an article in the Los Angeles Times (click here):
"California's budget crisis was created in Sacramento, not Washington," Sen. Dianne Feinstein shot back. "These problems are not going away until there is wholesale reform of the state's budget process. . . .
Pointing fingers is not constructive."Sen. Barbara Boxer called a teleconference with reporters to rebut Schwarzenegger's assertion that California gets back only 78 cents for every dollar it sends Washington in taxes. That figure is several years old, she contended; Washington currently sends back $1.45.
She accused the governor of "threatening people" with his "trigger" plan.
In fact, his lack of decorum may have guaranteed that we don't get ANY addtional funds from the feds.
Other parts of the plan are just as fantastic. As Dan Walters noted in the Sacramento Bee (click here):
Arnold Schwarzenegger achieved fame and fortune by starring in celluloid fantasies, so it may be fitting that his final state budget proposal would be so disconnected from economic and political reality.
With the state still facing huge deficits, the governor bases his 2010-11 budget on such fanciful elements as persuading the federal government to cough up an extra $7 billion, asking voters to reverse themselves and shift money from protected pots for mental health and children's programs, overhauling transportation financing, and persuading state employee unions to accept pay cuts and increases in workers' pension and health care costs.
For those of us who live in the real world, we realize that he can't unilaterally cut employee compensation plans and is unlikely to find more "efficiences" in other programs. At some point, the legislature is going to be faced with making hard choices, but probably not in an election year. The legislature will likely go through one last round of number cooking to make it look like they've balanced the budget, attempt to take what little is left to take from local government and leave it to the next legislature to clean up their mess.
That is when it is going to get really ugly. The best we can do at the local level is do what we can to protect our local revenues, and hope that the state doesn't take the rest of us down with it.
posted by City Manager @ 6:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home