Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (35763)	7/6/2003 5:59:51 PM
From: energyplay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

California - From the latest Grant's - excerpting two years - In billions ----------------1999 ---------------2002 Total Reveune --- 58.6 ---- 63.9 Expenidures ----- 53.1 ---- 73.9 Transfers --------- (3.6) ---- (1.1) Net ---------------- 1.7 ---- (11.1) If we had an expenditure level 6% higher than 1999 (allowing about 2% per year growtth) there would have been a 5 billion Surplus in 2002. Prices & wages in California have declned since 1999. Current article in the Economist says that Gray Davis has committed no MALfeasance (yeah right) ... then documents his extesnive MISfeasance, mostly by inaction on energy & budgets, and lettinig special interests drive expenditures (and his campaign donations) upward. California can't print money. California would have a hard time grabbing the bank accounts of its' citizens like Argentina did. California pension funds are already being touched. Revenues for 2003 will probaly drop slightly below 1999, maybe to the 54.5 Billion of 1998. Sutting expenditures back to 199 plus a fe percent would leave that state less than 5 Billion short, which could easily be borrowed. 2004 on out will produce more revenue, and allow the state to start paying down debt. About 35 million people in California, so the a 53 Billion budget would be $1500 per person... Prop 13 has already been tweaked.