AS: The Davis cuts have only begun to take effect. His last budget mandated sweeping cuts which will result in thousands of layoffs and other cuts. But it still leavces a 8-9 billion shortfall plus 4 billion Arnold is putting back because of the car tax. So 12-13 billion which Arnold will now need to cut or take in. Without higher taxes, how? 50% of the growth in spending has been in education and Arnold has vowed not to touch it. The rest is in health care, prisons and first responders. Legalizing soft drugs could relieve pressure on the prisons but otherwise what solution is there? Refuse emergency health care to the sick, injured and dying? Fire thousands of cops and firemen? Release dangerous felons back onto the streets?
Message 19417538
OMD: "What is your basis for saying that "50 percent of the growth in spending has been in education"? I didn't notice a cite to anything in your post. In fact, if you are talking about K-12 education that is not true. If you are talking about higher education including community colleges, it's also not true.
Here are the exact numbers. If you weren't so lazy (I would be more charitable but I have given you the link to this official state site about 12 times now and obviously you don't care what it says since you keep just making things up), you could look at the line item breakdown by department for the California state budget. You can do this by clicking (All) for categories of expenses in the upper right hand corner, then looking at the spreadsheet for the last six years (the first year before Davis and then the last five years). Here's the link again:
lao.ca.gov
You will see that California breaks its budget down into categories. There are 12 categories:
1. Legislative, Judicial and Executive
2. State and Consumer Services
3. Business, Transportation and Housing
4. Trade and Commerce Agency
5. Resource Agency
6. California Environmental Protection
7. Health and Human Services
8. Youth and Adult Corrections
9. K-12 Education
10. Higher Education
11. Labor and Workforce Development Agency
12. General Government
Of these categories, two relate to education (#9 and #10). The rest relate to other government services.
In the last pre-Davis budget year, California's total expenditures were $109,635,318,000.00 (this includes all expenditures, not just those defined as "general fund", because the people must somehow fund all expenditures through taxes. Numbers are rounded into thousands). In Davis' fourth year (2001-02), California's total expenditures peaked at $166,833,833,000.00. Then Davis cut the budget, so that in the current budget year (the last year under Davis, it turns out) the projected expenditure level is $154,656,582,000.00.
So the increase in California's state budget total expenditures from the last year before Davis to the last year under Davis is $45,021,264,000 ($154,656,582,000- $109,635,318,000). The question is, where did the difference (change) come from? You said half of the increase in spending was in education. In fact, here are the exact amounts of the changes between the budget Davis inherited and the budget he left for Arnold:
1. Legislative, Judicial and Executive +$2,027,550,000 (73% increase)
2. State and Consumer Services + $144,516,000 (16% increase)
3. Business, Transportation and Housing + $1,664,957,000 (23% increase)
4. Trade and Commerce Agency -$119,379,000 (89% decrease)
5. Resource Agency +$2,112,832,000 (102% increase)
6. California Environmental Protection + $426,641,000 (49% increase)
7. Health and Human Services +$13,622,552,000 (33% increase)
8. Youth and Adult Corrections +$1,102,330,000 (23% increase)
9. K-12 Education +$10,799,773,000 (37% increase)
10. Higher Education + $4,771,495,000 (36% increase)
11. Labor and Workforce Development Agency +$8,505,833,000 (new category, did not exist as separate category in 1997-98)
12. General Government -$37,836,000 (1% decrease)
Roughly $15.6 billion of the more than $45 billion in California spending increases under Davis related to education. That is just over a third, not half. And the difference is important, because it means that if you rolled back the rest of the increases and left education alone with its huge increases intact, you could easily cut 12-13 billion that Arnold needs to cut."
siliconinvestor.com
AS: You should talk to Arnold, not me. Arnold needs help
Message 19418626
OMD: "I am talking to you rather than Arnold because you are making stuff up. Every time I show you that you have made something up you change the subject. You are the one that says Arnold can't do it. You are the one that says it can't be done without raising taxes. You are the one that says that Davis cut everything that could possibly be cut, even though that left the budget $45 Billion higher than it had been five years earlier when Davis took over. Doesn't it make any sense to you that if your expenditure level goes from 109 to 154 billion in five years, and you have a shortfall of (according to you) 8-9 billion plus the 4 billion from the gas tax repeal (you said that here: siliconinvestor.com, then all you have to do is roll it back by that 8-9 billion plus the 4 billion and you have solved your problem?
You said half of the increased spending under Davis was for education. I showed you it was only a third (and by the way, the biggest percentage increases were not in education but in other areas). You ignore that now and just mutter that I should tell it to Arnold.
What should happen is that you should stop misleading people, you should stop talking about issues that you have no knowledge about, you should stop stating as "facts" things which are not true (and are therefore not "facts"), and you should stop moaning that any cuts beyond an expenditure level that is twice as high as it was less than a decade ago will cause the sky to fall and the world to end."
Message 19418687 |
