I'm surprised that revenues are shown going down and expenditures are going up. What are they doing borrowing money? I thought California was a balanced budget state
Maybe that's because revenues are not going down. They have just fluctuated a bit, but remain much higher than they have been historically, and higher than they were four years ago. Here are California's revenues for the past ten years, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office of the State of California:
lao.ca.gov (Row 40, Columns AC through AL)
1995-96: $46,296,094,000
1996-97: $49,219,769,000
1997-98: $54,972,583,000
1998-99: $58,615,291,000
1999-00: $71,930,558,000
2000-01: $71,427,698,000
2001-02: $72,262,608,000
2002-03: $80,563,566,000
2003-04: $76,602,766,000
2004-05: $76,687,951,000 (projected)
Last year's numbers were the second highest in California history, behind only the year before. Both of those years were Bush years. I'm really puzzled by your statement that Bush (who isn't in charge of California anyway) has presided over a revenue decline there.
Indicentally, if you scroll to the earlier years on that chart, you see the following data points at five year intervals, which illustrate just how significantly state revenues have grown over the years:
1970-71: $4,533,526,000
1975-76: $11,380,646,000
1980-81: $19,023,059,000
1985-86: $28,072,244,000
1990-91: $38,213,522,000
1995-96: $46,296,094,000
State revenues in California are 16 times higher than they were in 1970. State revenues in 2004-05 (projected) are higher than they were in 2000-01, by several billion dollars. State revenues in 2004-05 are higher than they were ten years earlier by about 70 percent. Even adjusted for inflation (which has been 20.91 percent since 1996 -- see data.bls.gov, state revenues in California are up to nearly one and a half-times their level of 8 years ago. Which, coincidentally, was the end of Clinton's first term.
Why should we not look at those numbers and conclude that Bush, after one term, has the State of California 50 percent ahead in real terms from where it was after Clinton's first term? Why is it that children aren't being educated now, despite 50 percent more resources being taken by the State in real terms, and 8 years ago Clinton was being lauded as a pro-education President? (Incidentally, some of the same LAO charts we have linked to yesterday and today show that education spending at both the K-12 and university levels has also increased substantially in real terms in California during those same 8 years.)
On another (related) note, I am still waiting for the list of states in which spending has declined over the past four years. You made that statement yesterday (Quote:"The total budget in many states has been in decline in the last 4 years") and I have to admit it makes a brilliant talking point against my pro-Bush friends. I just don't want to trot it out in my conversations until I find a state or two where it actually happened. I looked at the budget figures for the eight most populous states yesterday, and all spend more than they did four years ago, some by as much as 20 percent (Texas). Thanks in advance for telling me which states you were referring to. |
