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.

Politics : Arnold for Governor! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (487)	10/8/2003 3:17:59 AM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 773

I am quoting figures from the State of California's own official Website, encompassing total spending from all sources: 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 From the very beginning of this discussion, AS, I have linked my sources, which have been official government documents (by a government headed by Davis, so no spin there). I don't have the Wilson figures for his entire eight years, but I am no big fan of his anyway. If your point is that he raised spending too much, I agree. What boggles the mind is how his successor could identify so many critical unmet needs ("vital" needs in your words) that required a still further 40 percent (your number, though I have shown it is higher) increase in state spending. You can't have it both ways. Either Wilson spent too much and Davis should have reigned it in, or he spent too little and Davis was justified in increasing it dramatically.