To say that I am thrilled that the Republicans in our state Senate voted NO on the Budget proposal SB 77 would be an understatement. No one could express it better than Senator Tom McClintock (R) whose speech on the Senate floor says it all. Larry
“Mr. President:
A year ago, this legislature adopted a budget that ran up the biggest general fund deficit in California’s history. The architects of this budget admit to adding another half billion dollars to the cumulative shortfall, and expect that this looks good in comparison.
There are two problems. First, by their own numbers, this budget sets in motion a deficit next year of between $5 ½ billion to $7 billion (depending on how you account for reserves). That means the five-year cumulative deficit under this administration will be roughly twice what it was under the five years of the Davis administration. BY THEIR OWN NUMBERS.
Here’s the second problem: the ACTUAL numbers are much worse, because of billions of dollars of gimmickry that borders on the ludicrous.
My favorite is this one: we had a $600 million revenue shortfall in the final months of the fiscal year just ended. This budget simply PRETENDS that we took in that money anyway.
Try that excuse at home: “Honey, the bad news is that I got laid off two months ago – but the good news is, I asked the bank to PRETEND to deposit my paycheck anyway.”
Or try this one: nearly a billion dollars of revenue is contingent on selling the state’s Ed Fund, although it has never even been appraised and some experts believe it’s worth about a fifth of that. “Honey, I just bought a new Porsche for myself and a diamond necklace for you. How are we going to pay for it? Don’t worry; I’m planning to sell our Chevy for $100,000.”
We have the same problems with nearly $200 million of tribal gaming revenues.
And while we’re on the subject of “irrational exuberance,” the budget also depends on a brisk comeback in the real estate market next year, defying every economist that I’m aware of – not to mention our own Legislative Analyst.
Here’s a good one: The administration has already agreed to a third of a billion dollars in salary increases for prison guards – that’s the OPENING bid. How much is in the budget for that? Precisely NOTHING. “Honey, I figured out a way to join the Country Club without upsetting the family budget – I just won’t put the dues in the family budget.”
The state is under federal court order to stop the outrageous practice of looting safe deposit boxes and college and retirement funds without even warning people their property is being seized. We’ve assure the court that we’re going to fix that – but we’re still planning to collect nearly the same amount of revenue.
I can’t wait to hear what the judge is going to say to that.
All told, this budget teeters on a house of cards amounting to about $5 ½ billion worth of such sophistries.
So the claim that this budget is “only” a half-billion dollars out of balance is simply a monstrous … how do I put this politely … a mathematical malfunction.
Next we hear the claim, “But we have a huge reserve of $3 ½ billion.” Let me remind you that huge reserve WAS $10 ½ billion JUST ONE YEAR AGO – largely the result of money we borrowed in 2004. It’s gone from $10 ½ billion to $3 ½ billion since last year – that’s a measure of how fast we’re digging this state into the hole. And by the way, that HUGE reserve of $3 ½ billion isn’t enough to cover the deficit you’ve already set in motion for NEXT year – and that’s BEFORE all of your accounting peccadilloes come home to roost.
In the year just closed, we spent a larger portion of Californians’ earnings than we ever spent in the entire history of this state. Meanwhile, our debt burden tripled in just three years, also to record levels.
And yet, despite record levels of spending and record levels of borrowing, we STILL can’t seem to scrape together enough money to build a decent road system or educate our kids or protect our families from predators.
And this brings me to the fine point of the matter. We’re told “we can’t possibly make any more cuts.”
This is not about cutting programs. It is about changing the way programs spend money.
Why does it cost us $42,000 to house a prisoner when Florida pays just $18,000?
Why does it cost us $163,000 to build a prison bed when it costs Michigan a third of that?
Why is it that we pay the third highest tax per gallon of gasoline in the country, and yet we rank 43rd among the 50 states in our per capita spending on highways?
Why is it that over the last 10 years, our per pupil spending has nearly doubled from $6,000 to $11,500 per student while achievement has remained stagnant?
We don’t ask those questions much because it upsets the spending lobby.
Ultimately, though, we’re going to have to ask them, and when we do, the answers are just as obvious:
We’re going to have to get back to paying market-rate wages and benefits for public services.
We’re going to have to decentralize administration of programs and eliminate the vast bureaucracies that have grown up within them.
We’re going to have to get back to contracting out services. (If you can find it in the Yellow Pages, government shouldn’t be doing it).
When we followed these simple principles – and others like them – we produced a far higher level of service at far lower cost, and the economy prospered.
For every budget that we fail to address these questions, the harder the next generation’s work becomes.”
And for you the readers. What’s your recommendation to resolving this budget impass?
My humble opinion Tom should have been elected Gov. He is one of the few elected who really understands the way things work and is a believer in total accountability of the elected.
Larry,
Great post. However, the typical reader of this blog can’t think rationally when given the facts.
The left has to to learn that increased taxes and defict spending affects everyone, especially the poorest among us who are least able to pay.
Another example of the failed experiment called “Full time legislature.
When you take pay and fail to do the job you are paid for, is that fraud or larceny?
Maybe the two top political parties can be sued under the RICO act as their members are the ones that created this mess and are forced to do so at the demand of party leaders.
Notice on how all the honest people have been “termed out” allowing only the worst of the criminals into office.
Let’s return to a part time Legislature! Nevada’s meets only once every two years!!!
Cook.
Term Limits is a double edged sword. For some the trigger point were elected officials such as Willie Brown who served for more years than many who are alive today. While I support having new blood serving at both local and statewide offices from time to time we lose some key players. Tom McClintock is on the verge of needing to run for another office as his time as an Assemblyman and Senator are close to expiring.
Another downside of term limits is that the new members need time to find the broom closet before they can establish any relationship with their peers to promote their legislative proposals. They are learning on the job while the clock is running.
M-m-m-m… where to start.
“Hey honey, our cars are 10 years old, gasoline costs thrice as much as it did 4 years ago, our health insurance premiums have nearly quadrupled, we need a room addition for the kids and new baby, and the driveway needs repair. I think I’ll go ask my boss to cut my income again.”
If per-pupil spending has increased from $6,000 to $11,500 over the last 10 years, that means it has grown by slightly less than 7% a year- hardly criminal. Yet our “Under 25” population has also nearly doubled. How many desparately needed new schools can be built to educate this flood of new students on the 3% difference in inflation? How many new teachers can be hired by school districts when their salary scales are in competition with private industry?
Why does it cost $163,000 to build a prison in California? Because prisoners no longer build them- private companies do.
Why does it cost $42,000 to house a prisoner today? Because they no longer feed themselves- private companies do.
Last time I looked in the Yellow Pages, I couldn’t find a heading for “Prison Construction Specialists” or “Prisoner Catering Services.” So what that tells ME- the spendthrift Liberal- is that some salesmen sold our past legislatures and governors on the idea that “…private industry could do it better and cheaper…” and our government was stupid enough to believe them. So why does it cost Californians $110,000 more to bed and $22,000 more to house our prisoners? Because some salesmen made a lot of commission, some stockholders got a lot of dividends, and some CEO’s got 500% pay raises over the last 4 years. It’s in their pockets!
There are some things that Private Industry does very well: I wouldn’t want Government building airplanes or cars, even if it were for their own use.
There are some things that Government does very well- including anything that puts taxpayer money into the hands of Private Industry in the form of profits. Private industry knows this to be true: I haven’t seen any businesses large or small clamoring to dole out welfare checks or pay for homeless shelters- there is no profit in it. Nor should there be! I pay taxes for government services: I don’t want my fire department cutting down the number of fire trucks because some CEO feels he needs a new mansion.
I’m sure we all remember the fires raging through San Diego a few years ago. Entire towns went up in flames. The reason for the disaster was simple: the people in San Diego didn’t want their taxes to go up, so they scrimped by with minimal fire protection. So how did they solve their problem? THEY LET OTHER MUNICIPAL AND STATE FIRE AUTHORITIES FIGHT THEIR FIRE! San Diegans ultimately paid in billions of dollars of damages and left a good part of the bill to the rest of us. But hey, they didn’t have to pay it out in taxes.
Infrastructure costs money, and deferring the cost of maintaining and expanding that infrastructure in order to accomodate our state’s dynamic growth means that someone has to pay for it. Either we do it now, or our kids do it later, when things are beyond repair.
So, do I like paying taxes? Sure, the highlight of my year is April 15th… and I bet some wingnuts actually believe that about us Liberals.
No, I do not like paying taxes any more than the most conservative Conservative. I recognize, however, that taxes pay for many of the social services I want and require- and right now, there is not enough money going into the coffers to cover those necessities.
Thank you Tom McClintock and the rest of your right-wing Republican hacks for insuring that my kids will pay for the things you were too selfish to pay for yourself.
Syquodem.
Although not the author or Tom’s speech, let me take a shot at your rebuttal. And thank you. I will forward it to his office.
Perhaps you might look at my other post regarding our “fiscal time bomb” called public sector pension obligations that were negotiated and approved by Democrats who are, and have been, in the majority in Sacramento. Can we agree on that minor factoid?
Without getting into hard numbers, nor revisiting the illegal immigration issue, do you know how much of our budget is applied to providing the social safety net for all those living illegally in CA?
Perhaps we would not require additional prisons if those illegals being housed would return to their country of origin. Again. This is not illegal bashing. However, a sizeable percentage of our inmates are sadly here illegally and by law must be housed and fed.
Help me out here. What does the compensation of private sector CEO’s have to do with this debate? It’s called “risk reward.” Be it creating a profitable company when 80 percent fail in the first two years or perhaps making sound investments. From what you appear to be saying should we raise the top income tax brackets to make up for the shortfall created by all of the gimme’s you appear to dish out?
And let me introduce another obligation that your kids and mine will have to face. Redevelopment debt that does not appear on your tax bill. In the year 2000 that debt for bonded indebtedness was over $47 billion dollars. We are about to release our latest book entitled “Redevelopment the Unknown Government” where we will report that number shooting up to $80 billion dollars. Let me repeat that number. EIGHTY BILLION dollars.
And who is shortchanged by these RDA’s? That property tax diversion takes money away from local school districts, police/fire departments and special districts.
Oh. Let me tell you that I have proudly worked with Senator Tom McClintock over the past 10 years trying to rid our state of this cancer. Does it make you feel good? Beat up on Tom while he fights to protect real private property on behalf of who knows how many people he may never get to meet. Many of which are Democrats who lack the resources to defend themselves. He has broad shoulders and can take your hits.
Syquodem,
You are another democrat who does not know the Math.
Lets say that currently we have 50% tax rate on an income which is not enough to cover state budget.
So you, the Socialist, decide to raise tax 5% every year.
Doing so, in ten years you pay 100% of your income to state and have still deficit.
What next?… All your money are in the hands of the state…. where can you get more???
You see how stupid it is to keep increasing tax rate???
However, if you would increase 5% per year public income you would get unlimited increase in the revenue at constant tax rate.
Currently you cannot increase public income if you are importing labor which is willing to work for less than minimum wages.
You see how stupid is democratic concept to keep increasing tax rate while destroying wages by illegal immigration?????
#8: Your argument is idiotic.
Larry,
Thank you for your courtesy, for staying on topic, and for not treating me like an idiot. It is refreshing to actually DISCUSS an issue with someone who can carry on a discussion without insult.
I’m sure Mr. McClintock can take a hit from the opposition; that’s what he’s paid to do. My biggest beef with him is his intransigence on so many social issues.
Now, to the beef of your response. I really get enraged over the problems caused by illegal immigration, and was luke-warm at best over the recent legislation proposed by the Democrats. That, however, is really a Federal issue; California can only deal with the ditrious from the shipwreck our nation calls “immigration policy.”
According to Rep. Gary Miller’s screed on his House web page, “Fifteen percent of California ‘s prison inmates are undocumented aliens, costing the state more than $500 million annually.”
However, in their investigations of numberous allegations concerning illegal immigrants, Truthorfiction.com found that “…A 2007 report by the Immigration Policy Center said that among men 18-39, which represents the majority of prison inmates, the incarceration rate of foreign born was 0.7 percent while the incarceration rate of native born was 3.5 percent. Foreign born Mexicans had an incarceration rate of 0.7 percent in 2000 compared with 5.9 percent for native born men of Mexican descent. The report did not say how many of the foreign born were illegal.”
Additionally, the Urban Institute notes that the “…federal government has taken some steps to reimburse states for some of the costs associated with criminal illegal aliens. Section 510 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) authorized the Attorney General to reimburse states for the criminal justice costs attributable to undocumented persons.” They also note that, “No appropriations for illegal aliens were made until 1994, when the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (Public Law 103-317 or the Crime Act of 1994) authorized $1.8 billion over six years to reimburse states for criminal justice costs associated with illegal aliens,” and that the “State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) was established to allocate and distribute these monies.” So whether it’s Miller’s 15% or truthorfiction’s .7%, it is not a cost borne entirely by Californians. It is a cost to taxpayers none the less and I, for one, do not like paying for it. It is not, however, a boogyman. For so many on the Right, including McClintock, to demonize illegal aliens does little, if anything, to create an environment necessary for solving the problem.
Compensation to private sector CEO’s has nothing to do with anything, until it is my tax dollar that is going into his or her pocket for work that could be done better and cheaper by government.
For argument’s sake, let me privatize the prisons. It appears [after a quick look at the labrinthian state salary schedule] that a person running the prison system would earn in the neighborhood of $120,000 with additional costs for benefits- say $200,000 all totaled.
He would be doing the work of a CEO running a business with thousands of employees, 160,000 inmates, and billions of dollars in budget. Yet his total compensation is $200,000. Could you imagine any CEO running such an enterprise for that amount of salary? My point is this: If I, as a taxpayer, have to chose between paying someone $200,000 to run the prison system, or paying someone several million to run the same system, why would I want to pay it? Yet, in hypothetically privatizing the prison system, the state would do exactly that.
Our prisons used to be self-sustaining. But instead of having inmates grow their own foodstuffs, we outsource it to vendors. How much profit does an inmate make when he grows tomatoes, corn, or chickens? How much does the vendor make? I pay that vendor for a service I do not need with my tax dollar I don’t want to spend. So when Sen. McClintock wonders why incarceration is so expensive, ask him to look in his phonebook for “Prisoner Catering Services”.
We certainly agree on RDA’s, but I have to ask: how did this happen? Here’s how I see it. Much of that money has been spent on infrastructure- either repairing or building it. Roads, bridges, dams, canals, schools… and all of that is necessary for a robust state like ours. However, those things cost money, and our legislature has not been very good in recent years at compromising on what money should be spent where. So this bunch of cowards on both sides of the aisle have passed the butcher’s bill onto the next generation.
The simple fact is, our state needs more income in order to keep it running. If government doesn’t pay for filling potholes, we pay for it with excessive tire wear and damage to our alignment. If we don’t pay for adequate fire protection, we get San Diego. If we don’t pay for bridges we build today, our kids have to pay for them tomorrow. You say Democrats only want to increase taxes. I say Republicans only want a free ride, and are content to be penny wise and dollar poor.
However, with the mood in Sacramento as it is, neither side does more than talk around each other- or so it seems to someone who can only know what he reads in the cyberpages. The mantra of “No New Taxes” is just as irresponsible as “Too Few Taxes.” Things have to be paid for, and we taxpayers have to pay for them. I don’t mind paying for them as long as I get my money’s worth.
“#8: Your argument is idiotic.”
How can the Math be idiotic, Syquodem???…… unless you fail in it.
#8, Where do you get off telling me that Democrats want to take 100% of your income? That you would even give voice to such a thought is idiotic. I don’t waste time on arguing with people who present idiotic ideas and expect to have them treated with respect.