To add to Doug’s brief comment’s below, I would add a few thoughts. First and foremost, we will have more comprehensive coverage of the Governor’s Budget Proposal tomorrow, including an exclusive column from the Governor’s DIrector of Finance, Mike Genest (who has penned several columns for the FR). If you are overanxious, and want more detail on the budget proposal right now, the Governor’s office has set up a website on his budget proposal, which you can go to here.
The very briefing 30,000 foot summary — in order to bring down state spending, the Governor is proposing an across-the-board cut of 10% from every state agency, department and program that is financed via the state’s general fund (some large areas such as transportation, get their funds from other sources). The Governor’s idea is that it is better to "spread the pain" than it is to cut too much from any one area.
While this strategy makes sense from a marketing point of view, since it is rather easy to explain (I just did it in one paragraph), it is a controversial approach because it presupposes, in a way, that when times are tough and cuts are being made, that all programs are equal in terms of their priority level. In otherwords, another approach to an across-the-board cut would be to make subjective decisions about cutting specific agencies or programs, and leaving others at their existing levels.
For example, under the Governer’s proposal, around $400 million is cut from the Corrections Department. This means that some non-violent criminals, under the Governor’s plan, would get an early release. This is because the DOC budget was $4 billion, and they are absorbing their 10%. In the meantime, there are other areas that probably could stand to have cuts a lot larger than 10%, such as the State Department of Education bureaucracy, while should be all but eliminated all together.
According to the Governor, if these cuts are implemented (and quickly), California can live within its means, and have a prudent reserve set up.
With all of the cuts proposed, look for every ground that gets funding from state government to yell and scream about why their area of the budget should be spared the budget axe.
The Governor deserves a tremendous amount of credit for having the political fortitude to introduce an austerity plan for state general fund spending. It is not easy to take the side of the broad and sometimes "faceless" group of people called taxpayers over the very visible and vocal "customers of government" who will all make a lot of "the sky is falling" noise as they raise objections.
We’ll see how all of this develops.
On a closing note, there are a couple of tax increase proposals buried in the Governor’s plan. In the fiscal scheme, they are quite minor. Yet, in light of the Governor’s commitment not to raise taxes, it is disappointing to see them. One is the proposal to tax property insurance premiums to fund statewide firefighting efforts, and the other, I just found out, is a hike in the vehicle license tax by $11 per vehicle, to fund more officers for the California Highway Patrol. To both of these, we say, don’t balance the states books on the over-taxed people of California. If these programs are important, than they need to be weighed against current programs, and choices made. Increasing taxes is a bad idea all of the time, and an exceptionally poor one right now…