Republicans make it sound as if they can balance the budget without cutting vital services
The dictionary defines "vital" as "concerned with or necessary to the maintenance of life."
When Gray Davis was elected as California Governor, California's fiscal year expenditures were $100.2 billion. They were poised to increase to $109.6 billion. The state seemed to be able to survive, to live, with that level of state services. There is always extra that some might want to have, I suppose, but that level of expenditure didn't seem to pose a threat to the continued life of the State of California. In fact, the $100.2 billion was up from $86 billion just three years earlier (see figures pasted below).
Then Davis took over, and the State's appetite for money took an astonishing leap. Here are the figures (from the State of California, Legislative Analyst's Office):
Grand Total of State Spending, California
Fiscal Year 1994-95: $ 86.1B
Fiscal Year 1995-96: $ 90.2B
Fiscal Year 1996-97: $ 95.9B
Fiscal Year 1997-98: $100.2B
(Gray Davis elected, November 1998)
Fiscal Year 1998-99: $109.6B
Fiscal Year 1999-00: $122.2B
Fiscal Year 2000-01: $137.7B
Fiscal Year 2001-02: $145.8B
Fiscal Year 2002-03: $166.8B
Fiscal Year 2003-04: $154.7B (projected)
lao.ca.gov
Now the question I have is this. Did California's "vital" needs, its needs necessary to its very survival, grow from $86 billion in 1995 to $166 billion in 2003? The California budget grew from zero to $86 billion in well over a century and went up another $80 billion in just eight years.
The last five of those years were Gray Davis' tenure, and $64 billion of the $80 billion increase took place while he was governor. You can call the needs "vital" if you like, but that is just an astonishing public appetite for funds. I'd love to have twice as much money as I had eight years ago. Is it vital to my very existence?
Think about it this way: If you were to roll back California's state spending to its level in 1997-98 just before Gray Davis was elected, and adjust it for inflation (using this calculator -- data.bls.gov -- from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that from 1998 to 2003 the CPI increased by 13.25 percent), California state government spending would currently be at $113.5 billion (an increase of $13.3 billion or 13.25 percent over the $100.2 billion in 1997-98). Put another way, California could provide roughly the same level of "vital" services to needy consumers of state services that it provided five years ago for $113.5 billion per year.
Now compare that to where California is today. Even after supposedly draconian cuts of "vital" services, California's level of state expenditures is above $150 billion. Last year, it was at $166.8 billion. $166.8 billion is about 50 percent above what the rate of inflation would have required.
That's not a revenue problem, AS. It's not a "vital" services problem, either. That's a pig drowning in a trough. |
